Extradition
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the case of Gary McKinnon and the Government’s response to Sir Scott Baker’s review of our extradition arrangements. I will turn first to Mr McKinnon’s case. I should explain to the House that the statutory process under the Extradition Act 2003 has long ended. Since I came into office, the sole issue on which I have been required to make a decision is whether Mr McKinnon’s extradition to the United States would breach his human rights.
Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes, but there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill. He has Asperger’s syndrome and suffers from depressive illness. The legal question before me is now whether the extent of that illness is sufficient to preclude extradition. As the House would expect, I have very carefully considered the representations made on Mr McKinnon’s behalf, including from a number of clinicians. I have obtained my own medical advice from practitioners recommended to me by the chief medical officer, and I have taken extensive legal advice.
After careful consideration of all of the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr McKinnon. It will now be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether Mr McKinnon has a case to answer in a UK court. This has been a difficult and exceptional case, and I would like to pay tribute to all the Home Office officials and lawyers who have worked on the case over the years.
Extradition is a vital tool. In a world in which criminals and crimes can easily cross borders, it is vital to the interests of justice and public protection that criminals cannot avoid justice simply by sheltering behind a border, but concerns about the working of our extradition law have grown over recent years. There has been public concern about the extradition regime operating in the European Union, about the European arrest warrant, and about the extradition arrangements outside the EU, principally with the United States.
That is why, in September 2010, I commissioned a review into our extradition arrangements. That review was undertaken by Sir Scott Baker—a former judge in the Court of Appeal—and a distinguished and expert panel including David Perry QC and Anand Doobay. I am extremely grateful to them for the professional and thorough way in which they went about their work. Nobody who has read their near-500 page report can be anything but impressed by the depth and clarity of its analysis.
At the same time, there has been considerable parliamentary interest in extradition. In a debate last December, Parliament agreed unanimously that it believed there were problems with our US and EU extradition arrangements. In coming to a decision on how the Government should respond to the Baker review, I have taken full account of the review’s recommendations as well as of the views of Parliament. Yesterday, I announced that the Government’s current thinking is that we will opt out of all pre-Lisbon treaty police and criminal justice measures. The Government will give careful consideration to those measures, including the European arrest warrant, and will then seek to opt back into those individual measures where it is in our national interest to do so.
The European arrest warrant has had some success in streamlining the extradition process within the EU, but there have also been problems. There are concerns in particular about the disproportionate use of the EAW for trivial offences, and for actions that are not considered to be crimes in the UK. There are also issues around the lengthy pre-trial detention of some British citizens overseas. We know these concerns are shared by other member states. We will therefore work with the European Commission and with other member states to consider what changes can be made to improve the EAW’s operation. I believe this is necessary to ensure that the EAW provides the protections that our citizens demand.
There are also concerns about our extradition arrangements with countries outside Europe. A key reason for the loss of public and parliamentary confidence in our extradition arrangements has been the perceived lack of transparency in the process. I believe extradition decisions must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair, and they must be made in open court where decisions can be challenged and explained. That is why I have decided to introduce a forum bar. This will mean that where prosecution is possible in both the UK and in another state, the British courts will be able to bar prosecution overseas, if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so.
I have been conscious, however, of Sir Scott Baker’s concern that the introduction of the existing forum legislation would lead to delays and satellite litigation. So rather than commence the existing provisions, I will bring forward, as soon as parliamentary time allows, a new forum bar that will be carefully designed to minimise delays. In parallel, the Director of Public Prosecutions will independently publish draft prosecutors’ guidance for cases of concurrent jurisdiction, and a bilateral protocol governing the approach of investigators and prosecutors in the UK and the US is being updated alongside this guidance.
As for the United States-United Kingdom extradition treaty, I agree with the Baker review that our arrangements are broadly sound and that the treaty brings benefits to both our countries. Less than two weeks ago, for example, we saw the extradition to America of Abu Hamza and four other terror suspects. Although there is a perception that the evidence tests used by the US and the UK —probable cause and reasonable suspicion respectively—are unbalanced, Sir Scott Baker found that there is no significant difference between these two tests.
I have also accepted the Baker review’s recommendations that a prima facie evidence test should not be reintroduced for those countries where it is not currently required. The courts are already able to subject requests from all countries to sufficient scrutiny to identify and address injustice or oppression. Reintroducing prima facie evidence would be likely to lead to further delays, and it is absurd to propose that we should require prima facie evidence from countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia, when we do not require such evidence of other countries with far less mature judicial systems.
I also agree with the Baker review’s recommendation that the breadth of the Home Secretary’s involvement in extradition cases should be reduced. Matters such as representations on human rights grounds should, in future, be considered by the High Court rather than the Home Secretary. This change, which will significantly reduce delays in certain cases, will require primary legislation.
Finally, I propose to reduce delays in the extradition system, in the light of the recent extradition of terrorist suspects to the United States. In addition to the measures I have just announced, the Government will look further at proposals in the Baker review to introduce a permission stage for appeals to the UK courts. We will work closely with the European Court of Human Rights on a programme to reduce the wholly unacceptable delays that have occurred there, and we have also been considering how we can reduce delays in the deportation of foreign nationals who pose a threat to our national security. There is scope for reforming rights of appeal, streamlining the stages, expediting cases through the court and looking again at the provision of legal aid for terrorist suspects.
As Sir John Thomas, the judge in the Abu Hamza case said, it is in the overwhelming public interest that our extradition arrangements function properly. They must also be fair. We must balance both strong safeguards for those accused of cross-border crimes with assurance that justice will be done. That is the Government’s aim; that is what our proposals will produce, and I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This was clearly not an easy decision for the Home Secretary to make. I know that she has asked for additional legal advice, medical advice and other evidence over the two and a half years in which she has had to consider this matter. That is testimony to the difficulties she has faced and to the challenges of the case. I have not seen any of the papers—the legal advice, the criminal evidence or the medical evidence—and it is for the Home Secretary alone to make a judgment that people will respect. She will know that it is not for me to second-guess her decision on this matter today. I do, however, want to ask her about the wider reforms that she has proposed, and also about the consequences of this judgment for other cases.
Let me first ask the right hon. Lady about the forum bar that she has proposed. As she will know, the last Government legislated for a forum bar, but the legislation has not been implemented. I think that that is because of concerns raised not only by Scott Baker but by the present and the last Government about some of the practical implications. Clearly delays, and the risk of delays, are important issues, but we shall be happy to work on the detail with the Home Secretary, through Parliament, and to discuss how the problems could be solved. However, I think that there is a wider issue that may not yet have been considered in the legal debate about forum bars. I refer to internet crimes, which constitute a growing proportion of overall crime. Conceivably such crimes could be committed in several jurisdictions at once. Wider discussions are needed about where they should be dealt with, and about ways in which our traditional extradition arrangements may not have caught up with a different kind of crime that is going to increase.
There will clearly need to be international co-operation and consideration of how the problem should be addressed. I urge the Home Secretary to set up a high-level group with the United States, the European Union and other main countries with which we have arrangements specifically to consider internet crimes. However, I should like to know whether she feels able to do that, given her diplomatic relations with other countries.
We need a fair framework for justice in relation to cross-border crimes. We need to be able to bring people back to Britain to face justice, and we need a fair framework for extraditions from the UK. However, that fair framework will be possible only if it is drawn up through negotiation and co-operation with other countries. As the Home Secretary will know, there is already considerable concern about whether her approach to the EU, the opting out and opting in and the current relationship between the Government and the EU will make it harder to secure the sensible reforms of the European arrest warrant that we need.
Obviously our historic relationship with the United States gives us an opportunity to work together, whether on the bilateral protocol to which the right hon. Lady referred or on other arrangements. May I ask her whether there is a positive relationship between the Home Office and the US Government to ensure that such arrangements and reforms can be agreed to?
May I also ask whether today’s judgment has implications for other cases? Other people who are subject to extradition or immigration proceedings cite medical conditions as a reason for them not to be extradited. It would be useful for Parliament and the courts to understand the test that the right hon. Lady has applied, and to know whether it will set precedents for other cases.
Have the right hon. Lady’s medical advisers proposed any threshold for these decisions? She said that she had sought her own medical advice. Did that constitute a separate medical assessment of Gary McKinnon, which I understand she had sought, or a review of the assessment made by his doctors? Does the test have any implications or set any precedent for other extradition cases, such as the case of Haroon Rashid Aswat? The US Government have sought his extradition alongside that of Abu Hamza and others which the Home Secretary has supported. He is in Broadmoor at present, having, I understand, been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Has the Home Secretary changed her position on his case, or does it remain the same? Clearly there were issues involving his medical condition that she had to consider. Finally, let me ask her about the case of Richard O’Dwyer, whose extradition she has confirmed and who has not raised any medical issues. Will his case be affected by any of the changes that she has announced today?
I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is sensible to remove the role of the Home Secretary from decisions such as this. It has taken a very long time for this decision to be made. I think we would all agree that such cases take too long, and that it is in the interests of justice, the families involved and the victims of crimes for them to be dealt with far more speedily.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Lady for her approach in response to my statement. She raised three key issues. The first was about the forum bar and our ability to work together to consider these issues across the House and I welcome her suggestion of cross-party work. We all want to ensure that the measure can be introduced in a way that does not introduce delays to extradition proceedings and does not permit significant satellite litigation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will have noted her offer.
The right hon. Lady then raised the question of cyber and internet crime, which is a key issue. We are conscious of the growth of cybercrime. That is why there will be a cybercrime unit in the National Crime Agency and why, when the Government took office, we set aside a significant sum of money over the four years of the comprehensive spending review to deal with both cyber-security and cybercrime. It is important to work internationally and I have already been party to a number of discussions with other member states in the European Union and with the United States; those discussions are ongoing. We all have a mutual interest in ensuring that we address cybercrime.
Finally, she asked a number of questions about my decision on Mr McKinnon. I have given the most careful consideration to all the material, medical and otherwise, in this difficult and exceptional case and I have concluded that the ordering of his extradition and his subsequent removal would give rise to such risk to his health and, in particular, to a high risk of his ending his life that a decision to that effect would be incompatible with his human rights under article 3. My decision is based on Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Home Secretary on saving the life of my constituent, Gary McKinnon, today. I also praise the tireless campaigning of Gary’s mother, Janis Sharp, and the huge public support. Today is a victory for compassion and the keeping of pre-election promises. May we make another promise that after the reforms announced today, a vulnerable UK citizen will never again have to endure 10 years of mental torture, as Gary McKinnon did, and that the British principles of justice and fair play will return to extradition?
Mrs May
May I commend my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in his work on behalf of his constituent, which is recognised and respected across the House? On his second point, I have become increasingly concerned, and not just because of the recent cases of Abu Hamza and others. Obviously, Mr McKinnon’s case has been under consideration for some time. It is important that the Government consider the whole extradition process so that while we make sure that people can obtain their proper legal rights, we also ensure that there is no excessive delay in the system, so that decisions are brought to a conclusion at an earlier stage.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that although a lot of people on both sides of the House might want to take some credit for the decision—and they would be right to do so, based on the part they have played—there is no doubt that without the extra-parliamentary activity of my constituent Janis Sharp, Gary McKinnon’s mother, this decision could not have been made in the way that it has been made today? I want to thank my constituent for all that Bolsover fighting spirit. She has won the case after a long, drawn-out 10 years and when she gets on that television, she never misses a chance.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I understand the difficult nature of the decision that my right hon. Friend has had to take. Extracts of some of the medical reports have been circulating in the House of Commons today and it seems to me that under the terms of the medical advice she received there was no other conclusion to reach that was consistent with Mr McKinnon’s human rights but that she should bring an end to the extradition process. As we have already heard, that is subject to universal acceptance.
I also agree with what my right hon. Friend said about a forum bar and the need, even with such a procedure embodied in our law, to ensure that it does not become the source of undue delay. Regrettably, however, I must disagree with her on the question of standard of proof. Once again, I respectfully disagree with the conclusions reached in the Baker report. In that, I am supported by a large body of credible legal opinion, not to mention many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does she understand that sooner or later it will not be the perception that will be challenged but the substance of the distinction? Would not the protocol to which she referred as being necessary between the United Kingdom and the United States be an exact and appropriate vehicle in which to state that no one will be extradited from Great Britain to the United States unless there is probable cause for doing so?
Mrs May
I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s remarks on a number of my announcements today. I fully recognise the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere about the perception that there is a difference. Sir Scott Baker considered the issue very carefully and came to the conclusion that there was no significant difference between the requirements on either side of the Atlantic and that in effect there was no practical difference between the two. I recognise, however, the opinion expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend today.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Given the politically and emotionally charged atmosphere around this case, I think that we all understand why the Home Secretary has taken the decision she has. There have been efforts—of which she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), her predecessor, are aware—to try to find a way around the situation so that it does not create a precedent for the future, particularly in relation to the cybercrime issues raised by the shadow Home Secretary. That has involved trying to organise video-conferencing and for sentences to be served in the United Kingdom. Without that, surely we will create a rod for our backs in that individual cases will be judged on the support they get from the public rather than on the logic and legal requirements that must be applied in any extradition case.
Mrs May
I have taken this decision after, as I have said, the most careful consideration of all the material—medical and other—that has been available to me. Having considered that material, I took the decision announced to the House this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned video-conferencing. The American Government have made it clear that undertaking such video-conferences would not be possible under their constitution. Cybercrime is an issue, obviously, but he hints at the question of whether someone should physically be tried in the UK or prosecuted and tried in another country, be it the United States or elsewhere. Of course, the introduction of the forum bar will offer a transparent process whereby people will see how decisions are taken on whether it is right for someone who is subject to an extradition request to be tried here in the UK or in the US.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s wish to improve our extradition arrangements. Does she accept that many of us in this House feel that the US-UK arrangements were unfair to the UK and that the European arrest warrant is unfair to the UK? We look to her to reform to give Britain and her people a better deal.
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comment. As I said in my statement, I think that the UK-US treaty is, as Sir Scott Baker found, broadly sound. It is important that we have a robust treaty on extradition with the United States and that we ensure that extradition can take place both ways across the Atlantic. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which we need to change how we operate so that people can see that the extradition arrangements are fair and can take comfort and have confidence in them. The British people need to have confidence in our extradition arrangements.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
As the Home Secretary said, Gary McKinnon is accused of very serious offences. The US was perfectly within its rights and it was reasonable for it to seek his extradition. We now do not know whether Gary McKinnon will ever have to face justice on those accusations. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that US authorities were willing to allow him to serve any sentence in the UK? On the issue of High Court judges making these decisions, Lord Justice Burnton said in the High Court in July 2009 that Gary McKinnon’s case did not even “approach Article 3 severity”. He quoted all the precedents for this. What does the Home Secretary think she knows that Lord Justice Burnton did not? She has made a decision today that is in her party’s best interest; it is not in the best interests of the country.
Mrs May
I stand corrected. It was said that it was 2008, but I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman says 2009. As I said, I have given very careful consideration to the material, medical and otherwise, that has been available to me and I have come to the decision that extradition would not be appropriate in relation to Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3. That is the decision that I have taken on the material available to me.
Mr Davis
I, for one, congratulate the Home Secretary wholeheartedly on her decision on Gary McKinnon today, but I also share some of the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). There are a number of cases where there are concerns over justice being done, with respect to both Europe and the USA—in particular, in respect of the USA, there are fears that the intimidatory use of the plea bargaining arrangements force possibly innocent people to make guilty pleas, and similar problems in the justice systems of other European countries. Will the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that what she proposes to bring about today will give protection to UK citizens equal to that which American citizens get from their constitution?
Mrs May
As I said in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), I understand that a number of Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), still have concerns about the perception of the imbalance between the probable cause and reasonable suspicion tests. As I say, Sir Scott Baker looked at this and found that there was no significant difference between them—that in practice the application of those two tests was not significantly different as between the US requests and the UK requests. I can assure my right hon. Friend that Sir Scott Baker’s decision was relevant to those from the UK whose extradition to the United States was requested, and vice versa.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the decision that the Home Secretary has made today, which is fully in keeping with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee over the past three years, and I commend the work of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and Janis Sharp. I agree with the Home Secretary that a forum bar has to be introduced but I disagree on the evidence test. We need an evidence test and we need to renegotiate the treaty, which is unfair and unbalanced. I disagree with those on both Front Benches on ministerial discretion. As the Home Secretary has ably demonstrated today, Home Secretaries must make these decisions. We cannot hand all the decisions to the judges to make on our behalf.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have set out my position in relation to the Secretary of State’s discretion, so on that matter we will have to disagree. As I said, I recognise that there may continue to be some concerns in the House in relation to the perception of the information or evidence available on both sides of the Atlantic when an extradition case is being considered one way or the other. I think I am right in saying that the United States has never refused an extradition request from the United Kingdom, and that should be recognised. Very often people look at the treaty and assume that all it ever does is extradite UK citizens to the United States. Of course, the opposite is true. A good number of people have been extradited from the United States to the UK to stand trial.
David T. C. Davies
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee which considered the matter, I offer my warmest congratulations on behalf of all those who feel that the Home Secretary has stood up for the rights of British nationals and, in her subsequent comments, for the wider British national interest.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Despite the comments of my right hon. and respected Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), a former Home Secretary, is the Home Secretary aware that the decision that she has made on this individual case will be widely and warmly welcomed, not only in the House but outside? It is a very good decision and she should be proud of it. However, on the extradition treaty with the United States, may I remind her how critical she and the Liberal Democrats were in opposition? Like a number of Members, I remain of the view that the treaty needs to be looked at again.
Mrs May
I had a hopeful moment there when the hon. Gentleman was speaking! I thank him for his earlier remarks. I am well aware that this was a matter on which there was considerable discussion when it went through the House. I am also aware that the forum bar arrangements that are in the Police and Justice Act 2006 were moved by the then shadow Home Affairs team, led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is now the Attorney-General, so we are well aware of the issues that were raised at the time. I believe that the introduction of the forum bar will ensure that people see that justice is being done in relation to the decision whether extradition should take place and where prosecution should take place. Other changes that we will introduce on the extradition proceedings will ensure that people can see that this is a process in which they can take comfort and have confidence.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making an excellent decision, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who has been tireless in his support of Gary McKinnon and his family. The decision today will move forward the understanding of people with autism. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the benefits are spread more widely by undertaking a review of the treatment of people with autism within the criminal justice system as they often suffer disproportionately because of their condition?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and commend her for the work that she did in introducing her private Member’s Bill that became the Autism Act 2009, which has had a significant impact. When she talks about the criminal justice system, part of that is for the Home Office, but some of the issues that she is thinking about may be more appropriate for the Justice Secretary in relation to the treatment of those individuals with autism in prison and in other custodial circumstances. I have certainly noted her comment and will bring it to the attention of the Justice Secretary.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Home Secretary says that the matter is now for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Has she referred the case to him? Given her extensive knowledge of the medical evidence, does she think it likely that Mr McKinnon will be fit to stand trial in this country?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is now for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether the case should be prosecuted. Very simply, it is not the case that politicians tell the Director of Public Prosecutions what to do, who to investigate or who to prosecute, so he will come to his decision based on the information available to him.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Further to my question to my right hon. Friend yesterday and in the interests of those of us who have or have had constituents who have been held for long periods in European and foreign prisons—people who are United Kingdom citizens—will she seriously consider ensuring that no United Kingdom citizen may be extradited to another country where the period of detention before trial is very considerably longer than that in the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
We will seek to consider with the Commission and other member states the issues that have arisen in relation to the operation of the European arrest warrant. This view is not held solely by the United Kingdom. Across a number of member states, there are concerns about the way in which the EAW has been operating, and we shall be working on that matter as part of our consideration of closed measures that we may choose to opt back into, or wish to opt back into, in relation to the 2014 justice and home affairs powers. However, I have certainly heard the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I too warmly welcome the decisions on Gary McKinnon and the forum bar, and only wish that they had been made sooner. Why, if the Home Secretary accepts that the law needs to change, did she sanction the extraditions of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan? Surely they should also be benefiting from a fair extradition process. They were extradited on 5 October, and it will be a year at least before they even come to trial. They are British citizens accused of committing crimes here in Britain, and they should be tried in Britain, not in the United States.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about plea bargaining in the US and the effect that that has on British citizens extradited there. In her discussions with the Secretary of State for Justice in respect of changes to the appellate process, will she please take into account that domestic proceedings can be exhausted in the county court, which is a very low level for appeals from the magistrates court?
Mrs May
I note my hon. Friend’s point. As I said, and as he recognises, the matter is being considered between the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and other relevant Ministers, and we will seek to ensure that we can produce a process that does not involve excessive delays, but which gives appropriate fairness and proper regard to individuals’ legal rights.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Home Secretary says that she agrees with the Baker review recommendations that the breadth of the Home Secretary’s involvement in extradition cases should be reduced, and that will need primary legislation. Can she give us an idea of when that primary legislation will come before the House?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision today. Will she make sure that her Department redoubles its efforts to ensure that all people with autism, Asperger’s syndrome and related conditions are treated properly and their needs addressed when they are detained and arrested prior to any charge?
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
On behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s decision on Gary McKinnon. Will she look again at the JCHR’s report on extradition, particularly with regard to the evidence given to us on the European arrest warrant?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and thank him and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for the work that their two Committees did on extradition arrangements. The Government will respond, I hope later today, to his Committee’s report, and obviously will refer to the issue that he has raised.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I warmly congratulate the Home Secretary on her decision not to extradite Gary McKinnon and to introduce a forum bar, and join all those paying tribute to Gary and to Janis Sharp for their extremely long 10-year struggle.
The Home Secretary made her correct decision, based, as she explained, on the European convention on human rights. Will she ensure that all her other decisions are also founded on that excellent bedrock? [Interruption.]
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary for her welcome decision on Gary McKinnon and all those who campaigned for so long for this justice.
In answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the Home Secretary referred to the case of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan. They have been deported to the USA, they faced no prosecution in this country and they were in prison for a long time in this country. Under the new procedures that she envisages, could such a deportation take place in the future? Does she not accept that their case is materially different from those who were deported at that time and that we should have some respect for the fact that they were never prosecuted in this country yet they are now being prosecuted in the USA?
Mrs May
The cases that the hon. Gentleman raises were considered through a series of proceedings in the courts in the United Kingdom and by the European Court of Human Rights. All those courts determined that it was perfectly appropriate for those individuals to be extradited to the United States.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The correct decision to which my right hon. Friend has come has been warmly welcomed across the House, and I join in welcoming it. She referred to the fact that she is having discussion internationally, both with the United States and with EU member states, in relation to our extradition arrangements. Are any changes to the European arrest warrant being suggested by other EU member states, and what does she propose to do to carry those forward?
Mrs May
If I may just clarify, I think that my hon. and learned Friend has picked up on the discussions that I referred to in response to the shadow Home Secretary, which were international discussions about cybercrime. We will indeed be having discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. It is already the case that other member states have raised issues, for example, on proportionality. This is a matter of concern for other member states, not just the United Kingdom.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
We must welcome the fact that decisions in these cases are based on fairness and justice, and I welcome the decision today if that is the case. But is the Home Secretary aware of the number of cases involving fugitives who have fled to Pakistan? It seems almost impossible to get an arrangement with the Pakistan Government to bring back people such as Shahid Mohammed, who was alleged to be part of a gang that killed a family of eight children in a firebomb incident. The rest of the accused have been committed to prison, but he is still at large in Pakistan and there is no arrangement whereby he can be extradited. Will she look into this case so that we can have fairness and justice for the Chishti family in my constituency?
Mrs May
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that particular case. He is right to say that no arrangements are in place to enable us to deal with that matter. I assure him that I and the Attorney-General have heard his comments and I will look into the circumstances of the case that he raises.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Confidence in our extradition arrangements had fallen so low that few members of the public would have been surprised if Gary McKinnon had been extradited yet Abu Hamza had been allowed to stay. Does the Home Secretary believe that her statement today, combined with her statement yesterday on the European arrest warrant, provides a sufficient basis on which she can restore confidence in our extradition processes?
Mrs May
Yes, I sincerely hope that that is exactly what will happen as a result of the changes that the Government will bring about. People have been concerned. There has been general public disquiet about some of our extradition arrangements. The proposals that I have put before the House today and that will come before the House in primary legislation will give people confidence in our extradition system.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary answer the question that she has avoided twice in relation to forum and the cases of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan? In both those cases, forum was the key issue; it was not in the other cases that she conflates them with. How does she explain her timing in introducing the forum bar only days after they were removed from the country?
Mrs May
The decision that those individuals be extradited went through all the proper and appropriate processes, including the European Court, and in all those stages extradition was considered appropriate. We have a process already whereby decisions are taken as to whether individuals should be prosecuted in the UK or in any other country asking for extradition, and those decisions are properly taken by the courts. We will in future be changing the way that that takes place so that it is more open and transparent.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the fact that we have a Home Secretary with the backbone to stand up for British citizens and British principles of justice. I also welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s acknowledgment—her first, I think—that the European arrest warrant needs reform, because in quantity and quality those cases have proved far more serious than our arrangements with the United States, including in relation to my constituent Colin Dines. Does the Home Secretary agree that the best bet for common-sense reform of the EAW would be to exercise the block opt-out and then use our leverage to press for modest safeguards so that we do not continue to hang innocent citizens out to dry?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his observations and comments. As he knows, the Government’s current thinking is that we will exercise the block opt-out and then seek to opt in to a number of measures. We will obviously consider the matter carefully and, as I said earlier, discuss the whole question of the European arrest warrant with the European Commission and other member states. As I have indicated, I am aware that other member states are also concerned about certain aspects of the European arrest warrant’s operation.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I fear that the Home Secretary is gambling with the justice for British victims of foreign criminals who flee to their home countries in Europe. She has chosen to opt out of the EAW, with no guarantee that we can opt in again, which could mean that British citizens will be denied justice. Will she outline in more detail what conversations she is having with other EU member states and what plan B is? Is it bilateral treaties with every single member state?
Mrs May
I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not understand the process a little better than her question suggests. I announced yesterday that the Government’s current thinking is that we will exercise the block opt-out. It is not open to us to opt out of individual measures; we can only block opt in or block opt out and then seek to rejoin certain measures. That is the process that the Government are currently going through. We will be talking with the European Commission and other member states about arrangements for the opt-ins and the specific measures that the Government choose to opt in to. The circumstances she sets out in her question are quite far from the reality.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Home Secretary on her decision on Gary McKinnon and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on his efforts; there are now two Enfield constituents who have benefited directly from the Home Secretary’s interest in and positive response to extradition matters. On the problem of British nationals languishing in jails for unacceptable periods of time pre-trial in Europe, does she recognise that that is in large part because the EAW is based on the rather flawed principle of mutual recognition of each others’ judicial systems, and will she ensure that she challenges and examines that in any future negotiations?
Mrs May
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern about that issue, which he has expressed on a number of occasions. I can assure him we will be looking in detail at the operation of the European arrest warrant, not only as part of our internal consideration but as part of our discussions with the European Commission and other member states.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s decision regarding Gary McKinnon. When she reviews these particular provisions, I want to ask her to consider three things in relation to extradition: whether extradition to another country can be for actions that are not criminal offences in this country; whether a proper case has to be made in a British court before someone can be extradited; and, if a significant part of the alleged conduct has occurred in the United Kingdom, whether the trial must be heard in the United Kingdom.
Mrs May
The point of introducing the forum bar is that there will be a transparent process for considering, challenging and examining whether a prosecution should take place in the UK or in another country. The decision taken by the courts will be transparent and open, and that is what I believe will give people more confidence in our extradition arrangements.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend must of course look at such cases individually, but does she agree that the Anglo-American extradition treaty is sound, fair and balanced between our two countries, which are on a generally equal footing, as Sir Scott Baker found in his extensive report; that there is no imbalance in the evidence tests that currently apply; and that there is no need for a prima facie test, which after all we do not apply to other countries that have far less mature justice systems? Will she also take the opportunity to indicate that she has full confidence in the American justice system, which is infinitely preferable to those of many other countries with which we have extradition arrangements?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say to him that if he had been paid by the word when practising in the UK courts he would now be an immensely wealthy man.
Mrs May
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend that the UK-US extradition treaty is broadly sound. It is important that we have good, well-working extradition arrangements between the UK and the US, and we have seen the benefit of that in relation to a number of cases in which people have been extradited to the US or back to the UK. He is right: Sir Scott Baker did say that there was no need for a prima facie test, which is why I do not propose to introduce such a test in the new arrangements we are proposing. I repeat that it is important that we have well-working extradition arrangements with the US that people can have confidence in. I believe that the limited changes I have announced today will give people that confidence.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary aware that it is not a crime in France to have sex with a 15-year-old child but it is here; and that it is not a crime here to wear a Nazi uniform, throw up Heil Hitler salutes and swagger around talking about the Third Reich but it is in Germany? I worry that Interior Ministers in our partner countries will hear her statement and think, “Well, if something is not a crime here, why send someone back? If someone brings in a chit stating that they are depressed and not very well, why send them back?” I am not disputing the sincerity and integrity of her decision, but I hope she thinks a bit longer and harder before in effect telling many other countries that they do not need to extradite people back to us.
Mrs May
There is no hint in anything I have said that that will be the case. The right hon. Gentleman raised a concern yesterday about the European arrest warrant, and I will repeat what I said yesterday: we will be looking, with the Commission and other member states, at the operation of the European arrest warrant because, although there have been benefits, there have been problems. That is exactly what I said in my statement, and I think that it is right that we look at it properly and carefully.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and think that her lustre will have been burnished further in the Bone household, if I may say so in the absence of our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Has she made any estimate of the number of people who are currently extradited but who in future are likely to be tried in this country rather than abroad after the introduction of a forum bar, and who will decide the criteria on which the judges will make those decisions?
Mrs May
Every individual case must be considered on its merits, so it is not possible to look ahead to future cases and predict how many people would be prosecuted here in the UK rather than abroad. We will obviously look at the arrangements for the forum bar and how it will operate when we introduce it in primary legislation. As it is necessary to introduce it in primary legislation, the House will be able to scrutinise the arrangements that are put in place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and congratulate her on a victory for the democratic process and for fair play. Can she confirm that a precedent has not been set with regard to the reasons to stop an extradition? What assurance can she give that the two outstanding extradition requests from the US, and indeed any future extradition requests, will not be affected by this decision?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to be the last Member here to congratulate my right hon. Friend on her decision and on bringing Gary McKinnon’s 10-year nightmare to an end. I can assure her that my constituents will welcome today’s announcement, both the specifics and the more general reforms she has proposed. I encourage her to bring those forward as soon as possible so that cases do not drag on like this in future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
10. Whether she has received legal advice on whether the proposals contained in the draft Communications Data Bill are compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The draft Communications Data Bill, which is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, is designed specifically to ensure that communications data are obtained in compliance with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR memorandum that accompanies the Bill was approved by Ministers prior to its publication. This legislation will help to ensure that the internet does not become a safe haven for criminals and that the police and others can continue to protect the public.
Katy Clark
The Secretary of State will be aware that there is real public concern that this legislation will enable the authorities to view a person’s entire web history. Will she outline what safeguards are being considered to ensure that the right to privacy is respected?
Mrs May
That is not the case. I recognise that a number of concerns have been raised, often on the basis of a lack of information about what is actually going to happen under the Communications Data Bill. We want to take what is currently available to the police and other law enforcement agencies in terms of telephony—that is, who made a call, when and at what time—and put that into the new environment where criminals, paedophiles and terrorists are using the internet, in a variety of forms, to communicate. This is an important Bill because it means that we can continue to catch criminals and protect the public.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is
“difficult to estimate costs with precision over the long term”
as regards this proposal. Those are not my words but those of the Home Office in responding to a freedom of information request about the stated £1.8 billion price tag for the legislation. What assurances can the Home Secretary provide that the Government are not writing a blank cheque to service providers? Will she say today whether they have a cap in mind for the costs of this Bill—yes or no?
Mrs May
We have been absolutely clear about the 10-year cost in terms of the £1.8 billion figure. Yes, cost recovery will be available to the service providers, but that will be done on the basis set out during discussions about the usage made of this provision. The average annual investment that will take place over 10 years equates to about 1.3% of the annual cost of policing. Let me say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that this Bill is important because without it we will see criminals and others potentially going free because of their use of internet communications. It is right that we have the Bill because it will help us to catch criminals, terrorists and others.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
11. What recent assessment she has made of the use by police of orders under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to disperse illegal encampments.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
12. What steps she is taking to empower police officers to tackle crime.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
We are taking a number of measures to help the police cut and tackle crime, not least sweeping away central targets and cutting red tape. We have already announced that we have cut 4.5 million hours of police bureaucracy, which will enable the police to have more time to do the job that they and the public want them to do, which is getting out there and fighting crime.
Christopher Pincher
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the innovative use of modern technology, such as that proposed by the PCC candidate for Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis, which could cut up to 3,000 hours of police administration time each week, will help forces such as mine put more officers on the beat to fight crime and reassure the public?
Mrs May
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been in Staffordshire with our excellent Conservative candidate, Matthew Ellis, who has some very good proposals for helping the police to do their job and tackle crime, one of which is getting rid of bureaucracy by using new technology. That can have incredibly beneficial effects in allowing police officers to spend more time out there dealing with crime, rather than sitting inside a police station filling in forms.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
In Greater Manchester we believe that it empowers the police if we show that we support them, their work and their bravery. Does the Home Secretary agree that it does not empower the police when a Cabinet Minister rants at them and swears at them?
Mrs May
That particular point was answered earlier, but I reiterate that, with regard to the incident to which the hon. Lady referred, the Chief Whip apologised to the police officer concerned and the police officer accepted that apology. The police are not taking the matter any further and that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said earlier, is an end to it.
We value the police, which is why we are getting rid of the bureaucracy that kept them in police stations filling in forms instead of doing the job that they wanted to do, and why we are giving more discretion to the police over charging. We are returning discretion and professionalism to the police, which was, sadly, taken away from them in many areas by the previous Labour Government.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
13. What steps she is taking to empower local communities to tackle alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
If I may, I should like to take this opportunity to pay my respects formally to PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone. The brutal murder of those two young officers shocked me and, I am sure, the whole House and the whole country. Our police officers face dangers every day, and they do so with bravery and professionalism. Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were dedicated public servants. For their dedication they paid the ultimate price, and we owe them the greatest of debts. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the families of those two dedicated officers.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am sure the whole House will wish to associate itself with my right hon. Friend’s comments about those two police officers.
In the county of Essex, we are fortunate to be blessed with some distinguished candidates for the new role of police and crime commissioner. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging all electors across Essex to cast their vote in that important election so that whoever is successful has a genuine democratic mandate to do the job?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have met the Conservative PCC candidate for Essex, Nick Alston. He is an excellent candidate, and I know that he will be out there taking that message through the streets of the towns and villages of Essex. My hon. Friend is right that these are important elections that will enable people to elect directly somebody who will be their voice in local policing. I urge everybody to exercise their vote on 15 November.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I support the Home Secretary’s statement on Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone, and the statements that she made at the time of their death. It was a brutal act. She and I are united, and I think the whole House and the whole country are united, in our tributes to those brave police officers.
I turn to a separate issue. The Home Secretary told the Police Federation last year:
“It’s easy to sit around with friends or, dare I say it, in the House of Commons, and criticise the police. But those people aren’t the ones confronting violent thugs”.
She has also told it:
“You put up with abuse and worse, but you do so to keep us free…You do an amazing job—and it’s time we gave you all the respect you deserve.”
I agree with her, so will she join me in condemning the Chief Whip in the House for swearing at police officers?
Mrs May
I have already answered on that particular issue. I am happy to stand here and reiterate what I and others have said on a number of occasions. I believe that we have the best police officers in the world, and the Government are giving them our support. We are ensuring that we give them the tools that they need to do the job that they and the public want them to do.
Yvette Cooper
But the Home Secretary still has not condemned the Chief Whip for what he did and for the swearing—something for which people across the country are arrested. The reason why it matters that there has been no investigation and that he has not come clean is that people think it goes to the heart of the Government’s attitude towards the police and public servants. Once again, they are not listening to the police on the European arrest warrant, CCTV, DNA or the cutting of police numbers by 15,000. If the Home Secretary really wants to put an end to that and show respect for the police, why does she not change the Chief Whip and change her policies on policing too?
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
T2. The Home Secretary will be aware of the excellent scheme run by Dyfed-Powys police, which has cracked down on antisocial behaviour connected to the night-time economy in west Wales. In congratulating that force, will she consider rolling out that scheme across the whole UK, as it saves public money and police time?
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. May I declare an interest, in that I am standing to be police and crime commissioner in south Wales? Like the excellent Labour candidates across England and Wales outside London, I want to rescue police governance from the shambles that the Government are creating.Given that the Government pay for the free distribution of literature to electors in parliamentary elections, Welsh Assembly elections and even European elections, it is not odd that they are not doing so in PCC elections, and that the only communication will be a leaflet from the Electoral Commission about the process? Should not the Government, even at this late stage, include with that leaflet a page from each candidate standing in each police force area, so that the public know what choice they have to make?
Mrs May
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition really need to get their story straight on the cost of PCC elections. On the one hand they complain about the cost, but on the other hand they ask for the cost to go up by putting in extra provisions. I note that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have risen to comment on the excellence of the Conservative candidates. On the Opposition Benches, however, it has taken the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and speak for himself, because nobody else has been willing to stand up for their candidates.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T3. To continue with the theme of police and crime commissioners and the elections, does the Home Secretary agree that the introduction of democracy and transparency will help to achieve the right balance between rural and urban policing, as exemplified by our excellent candidate in Gloucestershire, Victoria Atkins?
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Has there been full cost recovery from G4S for its Olympic failure, including costs in respect of the other forces involved—the armed forces and the police? What penalties has G4S paid?
Mrs May
G4S was absolutely clear that it would pay for the extra costs involved in the military and police services. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the police moved in to take over part of the venue security at a number of sites across the country. Exactly how much G4S will pay as a result of its contract is a matter of commercial negotiation with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, with which G4S held the contract.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
T10. We are shortly to have a much-needed statement on European justice and home affairs, and we know that the public are extremely frustrated with extradition arrangements generally. When will my right hon. Friend make progress towards settling these matters by responding to the Baker report?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to the new Justice Secretary about the implications for national security of not extending to inquests the closed material procedure, which, it is proposed, will be made available in a limited number of civil cases?
Mrs May
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had a number of discussions with the Justice Secretary on a number of issues across our briefs. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have decided not to include CMP in inquests. A great deal of concern was expressed when the idea of including CMP was proposed and the Government have come to our decision, which is included in the Justice and Security Bill.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
We have recently seen too many cases, sadly, in which suspicion and allegations of the sexual abuse of children and young people have not been properly investigated. Clearly, there needs to be a culture change in the police and other organisations. What is my right hon. Friend doing to address that?
Mrs May
We are all shocked by the cases of child abuse and child grooming that we have seen. We need to ensure that the police pick up on such allegations when there is evidence and when there are concerns that something of that sort is happening, which is absolutely right. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will continue to look at that. There is evidence from cases that have been brought to court that one vital tool in catching child abusers is the use of communications data, which is why the draft Communications Data Bill is so important.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Last year in Bedfordshire, 22 people were arrested for swearing at a police officer and 19 were charged. Is that crime better policed in our counties than in Whitehall?
European Justice and Home Affairs Powers
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
May I start by apologising to the shadow Secretary of State for the fact that she received a copy of my statement late? On one occasion, when I was shadowing Stephen Byers and he was due to make a statement in the House, I was in a similar position, so I know the difficulties that the situation causes.
Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, the Government are required to decide by 2014 whether we opt out of, or remain bound by, all the EU police and criminal justice measures adopted prior to the treaty’s entry into force. Under the treaty, the Government are required to make a final decision by 31 May 2014, with that decision taking effect on 1 December that year. Although that might seem a long way off, the process of decision making, as with many EU matters, is complicated. We wish to ensure that, before that point, we give the House and the other place sufficient time to consider this important matter.
In total, more than 130 measures within the scope of the decision are to be considered at this stage. A full list of the measures was provided to the House on 21 December last year and a further update was given on 18 September this year. The Government are clear that we do not need to remain bound by all the pre-Lisbon measures. Operational experience shows that some of the pre-Lisbon measures are useful, that some are less so and that some are now, in fact, entirely defunct.
Under the terms of the treaty, however, the UK cannot pick and choose the measures from which we wish to opt out; we can opt out only en masse and then seek to rejoin individual measures. So I can announce today that the Government’s current thinking is that we will opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate with the Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin. However, discussions are ongoing within the Government and therefore no formal notification will be given to the Council until we have reached agreement on the measures that we wish to opt back into.
This Government, more than any other before them, have done their utmost to ensure that Parliament has the time to scrutinise properly our decisions relating to the European Union and that Parliament’s views are taken into account. I assure the House that the 2014 decision will be no exception. As the Minister for Europe has already told the House, the Government are committed to a vote on the matter in both this House and the other place. We are also committed to consulting the European Affairs, Home Affairs and Justice Committees, as well as the European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Committee, on the arrangements for the vote.
I fully expect that those Committees will want to undertake their own work on this important decision. The Government will take account of the Committees’ overall views of the package that the UK should seek to apply to rejoin. So that the Government can do that, I invite the Committees to begin work, including gathering evidence, shortly, and to provide their recommendations to the Government as soon as possible. The Government will then aim to bring forward a vote in both Houses of Parliament. The time frame for the vote will depend on progress in our discussions with the Commission and Council. An update will be provided to Parliament early in the new year on when we can expect the vote to take place.
I hope that today I have conveyed to the House not only the Government’s full commitment to holding a vote on the 2014 decision in this House and the other place, but the importance that we will accord to Parliament in the process leading up to that vote. I am sure that all parties will want to work together to ensure that the final decision is in the UK’s national interest. It is in the national interest that the Government have taken this decision, and I commend this statement to the House.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
If a series of measures are opted out from, will those measures be able to be considered under the question of whether there will be a referendum on European powers?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s statement and I fully support opting out of the whole lot. Will she make sure that, were we to want to co-operate with our partners in certain areas in future, that will not be done by a route that prevents us from changing our minds or prevents Parliament from being sovereign?
Mrs May
As my right hon. Friend knows, this Government have done more than any other to address the issue of the balance of our relationship with the European Union. It is right that we should have the opportunity to opt out from these measures and that we should look seriously at measures that we might wish to opt into. Obviously, that will take time and involve a considerable amount of discussion and negotiation with the European Commission and other member states.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The European arrest warrant started out as a very good idea but has ended up with chaotic and unfair consequences, and the Home Secretary is quite right not to opt into those arrangements. When she considers the areas where she can opt in, which she said she would do seriously, will she look at the powers and responsibilities of Europol? It is very important that we have cross-border co-operation with our EU partners so that violent criminals who may have committed offences abroad are not allowed to enter the United Kingdom. I will put her suggestion of a Select Committee inquiry to the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I said that I was sure that he and his Committee would want to look at this issue. He tempts me to identify individual measures that we might wish to opt in or out of and the terms on which we might wish to do so. I am talking not about individual measures, but simply about the Government’s proposal that we opt out of, and then negotiate on, a number of measures. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised on both the issues that he spoke about, and I will certainly take his comments on board in considering them.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary must welcome Gloucestershire constabulary’s success last year in breaking a major human trafficking ring, working with other European police forces and returning a suspect for trial here in the UK. Does she agree that only by using practical tools such as the European arrest warrant used in that case can we really tackle the evil of this modern slavery?
Mrs May
It is absolutely right that there are criminal offences where we want to be able to extradite people—to bring people back from other countries to face trial and justice here in the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the arrangements that enable us to do that are the best possible and are proportionate. Proportionality is one of the issues that have been raised as regards relations with Europe. As I say, we will look at every individual measure separately when choosing whether to request to opt in.
Yvette Cooper
I have never been in this situation before whereby I have not had a copy of the statement from the Minister until I arrived in the Chamber. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for taking my point of order about this earlier. It shows the complete confusion in the Government and on the part of the Home Secretary about what the Government’s policy is. They have not told us anything at all today; they are completely confused.
We all know that with more international travel and growing cross-border crime, international co-operation is an extremely serious matter, yet the Government seem to have an utterly chaotic position. The Prime Minister told us that the Government would be opting out of all the justice and home affairs provisions; the Deputy Prime Minister said, “No, no—we are only minded to do so.” The Home Secretary said that she was simply setting out “the Government’s current thinking”. However, as she also said that “discussions are ongoing”, presumably the current thinking could change tomorrow and then it will be something else entirely. She said that she wants to opt out of some things but then might opt back into everything all over again. It is just like the Education Secretary saying that he wants out of Europe and the Prime Minister wanting in. With all this out and in, in and out, it is as though the Government are playing a giant game of hokey cokey—and yet the fight against crime is at stake.
The Home Secretary will know that former Metropolitan police commissioners and former heads of MI5 and MI6 have said that British law enforcement bodies are now constantly communicating, co-operating and collaborating with the EU in pursuing serious organised criminal and terrorist networks. The framework of co-operation that they have is crucial in order to stop criminals and prevent crime.
We have read much in the papers about the European arrest warrant, but the Home Secretary did not say whether she wants to opt out of it or plans to opt back in. This warrant made it possible to arrest Jeremy Forrest and bring him back to face British justice for the alleged kidnapping of Megan Stammers and to bring back Hussain Osman for trying to bomb the London underground, and it closed down the “Costa del Crime” when British criminals fled to Spain.
We have a right to be able to bring those criminals back to face British justice, and we owe it to their victims —and, yes, that does mean sending people back from Britain to other countries, because of the 4,000 people returned from Britain in the past eight years under the European arrest warrant, 95% were foreign citizens, who often had committed crimes in their home countries and fled here to escape the long arm of the law. I am sorry, but I think that people should be sent back to their home countries to face justice, rather than have too many people who are suspected of serious crimes in Europe wandering around Britain, unable to be sent back to face justice without years of legal wrangles. From what the Home Secretary has said today, she may well be opting out of the European arrest warrant, which prevents that from happening.
Another area is the sharing of criminal and DNA records. If a known sex offender travels to Britain from France or Spain, does the Home Secretary think that we need full access to their DNA and their criminal records or not?
What about minimum standards of counter-terror co-operation, participating in Europol and exchanging information to stop passport fraud and Europe-wide money laundering, and to trace and freeze criminal assets? The Home Secretary has not told us her position on any of those important measures. She has not said whether she thinks we should opt out, opt out and then opt back in again, whether she thinks that we should renegotiate the provisions, or what will be put in their place in the meantime.
The Home Secretary knows that there is no guarantee that the European Commission and other European countries will support our opting back in again. For example, Denmark, which has opted out from the justice and home affairs provisions, has had about 50% of its requests turned down. One of the Home Secretary’s junior Ministers has admitted that there will be a financial penalty for opting out and then opting back in. Does she have any idea what that financial penalty will be and whether it is worth the price?
I say to the Home Secretary that this is an utterly confused position. Her defence is that she wants to consult Parliament and the public but, considering she has utterly failed to consult Parliament and provide the Opposition with proper information, that is ridiculous. She is taking big risks without even working out what her views are or what the Government think. Next time they want to make a statement on important European policy, perhaps they should work out what they actually think it should be before they come to the House and make it.
Mrs May
Let us remember that it was the Labour party that wanted to sign up to the European constitution and that planned to scrap the pound and join the euro. It has no credibility on European issues in this House. Indeed, it has no credibility with the British people.
Let me address the right hon. Lady’s points. On the list of measures that we might want to opt back into, I have made it clear that we need to engage with the European Commission and other member states in order to opt back into measures where we believe it is in the national interest to do so. That negotiation can now start. We will do that in earnest and talk to them about the terms on which particular opt-ins might be possible.
The right hon. Lady seems to be concerned about where the opt-out decision might leave us with regard to public protection. I remind her that it was the previous Government who negotiated the opt-out. If they thought it was such a problem, why did they negotiate it in the first place? On costs, I remind the right hon. Lady that the financial penalty was part of that negotiation of the opt-out, so it was the Labour Government who signed up to it.
The right hon. Lady made a number of comments on the European arrest warrant. She will be aware that a number of Members have raised concerns about British nationals, some of whom are their constituents, spending a long time languishing in foreign jails before reaching trial. A number of issues have been raised in this House and elsewhere about the proportionality issue in relation to the European arrest warrant. I therefore ask the right hon. Lady: is she happy with all of that, or does she think that the situation can be changed? If she does not think that there is an issue with the European arrest warrant, why did she not force a Division and vote against last December’s motion on extradition, which included a proposal to reform and amend the European arrest warrant? She did not. She accepted the motion, which this House passed and which stated that amendments should be made to the European arrest warrant.
The right hon. Lady’s only position on the issue seems to be to disagree with what we say and what we do. The Labour party negotiated an opt-out, but now it is against enacting it. It said that we needed to reform the European arrest warrant, but now it wants to pass up on the chance of doing just that. I have set out the Government’s position this afternoon. We will give Parliament a voice on the issue. The right hon. Lady cannot spend her time saying one thing one day and another thing the next and expect to be taken credibly by this House or anybody else.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making clear the position on whether we will exercise the opt-out or the opt-in, which is a necessary first position to take. I also thank her for enabling Parliament to exercise its proper influence over the individual measures that we may wish to opt into. Why that is difficult for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to understand escapes me.
I know that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary will agree that it is clearly in our national interest to get European Union prisoners who are serving their sentence here transferred to their own country as early as possible to serve their sentence there. Within the remit of the proper parliamentary scrutiny that she is seeking, will she give the earliest possible indication to our European partners that we will seek to continue with those arrangements?
Mrs May
I assure my hon. Friend that I and the Justice Secretary have every bit as much interest as he has in ensuring that prisoner transfers are made as quickly as possible. He is again trying to tempt me down a road that I will not go down. We have been clear that we will start to look at the individual measures in negotiation with the Commission and member states to see what process will be required and on what terms it might be possible to opt into the measures that we want to opt into. So far, that process has not started.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Home Secretary knows that she does not have to opt out of the European arrest warrant to seek its reform in areas such as proportionality. That work is already going on in Europe because many countries share our concern. She has the benefit of the report by Lord Justice Scott Baker, which she commissioned. Will she confirm that the Scott Baker report strongly recommended remaining in the European arrest warrant because it had made huge strides forward on justice and tackling crime in Europe?
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome this opt-out, but given that any future opt-in would give UK jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice for the first time, would it not be better to rule out any opt-ins in the future?
Mrs May
It is right that we are proposing to exercise the block opt-out, which is the option that is available to us. As I said in my statement, it is not open to us to opt out of individual measures. We can opt out only en bloc and then negotiate to opt into those measures that we think it is right that we continue to be in.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have never heard a statement so heavily spun to the press, but so devoid of content when the Minister rises at the Dispatch Box. Is not the Secretary of State opting into the rampant Europhobia that consumes her party, in a competition with the Education Secretary to get us out of Europe? If she abolishes the European arrest warrant, her picture will be up on the wall of every trafficker, child abductor and international criminal as the person who took away the fundamental right of British people to be protected from international crime.
Mrs May
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I take the protection of the British public very seriously indeed. It is the first duty of government to protect the public, but we need to ensure that any measures that are in place to protect the public are the right ones. I have not said what we will do on the European arrest warrant, but I have noted the concerns that have rightly been raised about its proportionality and in relation to the cases of some UK citizens who have been in jail elsewhere. We will now start to look at the individual measures. As I have said, we will discuss with member states and the Commission the process by which we will be able to opt into certain measures, where we choose to do so.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that in some countries, such as France, United Kingdom citizens have been held for long periods without trial, in clear breach of the convention on human rights. Is it not absolutely correct, therefore, that before we go any further down this road, the House should have the opportunity to consider carefully and vote on any extension or further joining of the European arrest warrant?
Mrs May
As I set out in my statement, we intend to discuss with various parts of Parliament, including Select Committees such as the European Scrutiny Committee, by what process the House should vote on this issue. We will come back to the House in due course with proposals on how it can express its view on this significant issue of justice and home affairs powers—namely, the package of measures that we might wish to opt into when the time comes.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Many of the crimes considered most serious by any normal standard are international in type, including the trafficking of drugs and of people, including children, and banking and corporate fraud. Bearing that in mind, does the Home Secretary truly believe that it is in the interests of justice to opt out of scores of cross-border EU justice measures not knowing if and when future opt-ins will succeed?
Mrs May
As I have made clear, it is not open to us to opt out of individual measures. The last Government negotiated a block opt-out, with a right to opt into certain measures following negotiation with the Commission and member states. We intend to follow that process.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about cross-border crime, which is significant. The drugs that are being peddled on the streets and lead to petty crime are being brought across the border by organised crime gangs. That is why we are setting up the National Crime Agency, which will include a border policing command and will have an enhanced ability to deal with serious and organised crime.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Conservative Members want focused co-operation, not blind loss of democratic control.
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that as she goes through the 130 measures in question, she will examine all options for co-operation, whether they are formally opting back in or alternatives such as co-operating under a memorandum of understanding or ad hoc co-operation? That would broaden the scope and potential for practical co-operation without ceding democratic authority.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary clarify what will happen in the period between the opt-out and the reintroduction of some, but fewer, measures? Will we have to get into bilateral negotiations with individual states, or will we have a complete impasse in the legal system while we deal with high-profile cases that are in the media but for which we cannot use extradition arrangements?
Mrs May
We expect that transitional arrangements will be available, but one point of taking the decision now and announcing what we propose is that we can work with the European Commission to ensure that the time period between the opt-out being exercised and our coming back into any measures is as short as possible. The question of how that will work will be part of the negotiations with member states.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on her announcement. It is crystal clear what she wants to do, which is to protect the sovereignty of this country, unlike the Labour party. Does she agree that Labour has no credibility on this issue? It negotiated this opt-out, and it is complaining now that we are attempting to use it.
Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a serious proportionality problem with the European arrest warrant? It is exemplified by a case from Poland in which an individual is alleged to have stolen a wheelbarrow with a value of £30. The proceedings for extradition from this country cost £30,000.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend, with his legal experience, will be well aware of many such problems. As I have said, a number of people have commented on the issue of proportionality. I entirely agree that for the Opposition to complain now that the Government are proposing to exercise an opt-out that they themselves negotiated leaves them with no credibility whatever.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary may have persuaded herself, and perhaps even some of her colleagues, that she has adopted a sophisticated position, but I tell her that confusion is the friend of the criminal. I, for one, am deeply concerned about this hokey-cokey approach to justice in this country and across Europe, especially on such deeply serious issues as organised crime, child abuse online and drug and people trafficking. Any sense of confusion is deeply worrying.
Although The Sunday Telegraph might have sought to trivialise some European arrest warrant cases, I remind the Home Secretary, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), of Hussain Osman. He was brought back from Italy to stand trial for his part in the 21 July bombings and got a 40-year prison sentence.
Mrs May
I fully understand the cases cited by the right hon. Gentleman, and others, in relation to this matter. On the other hand, however, concerns have been raised about proportionality in relation to the European arrest warrant. That is why it is right for the Government to sit down and look carefully at this issue, and take a decision on the European arrest warrant and the terms under which it might be possible to opt in. Part of the negotiations with the European Commission and member states is precisely about those terms.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, and to others, that his Government negotiated an opt-out, so he cannot stand there and complain when the current Government propose to exercise it.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary consider further the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on Europol? On its visits, the Home Affairs Committee has found—whether in relation to the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative and people smuggling in Turkey, or the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre-Narcotics, which is based in Lisbon and tries to intercept drugs flowing across the Atlantic—that too often Europol gets in the way of effective co-operation. It wants to try to subsume everything into itself.
Mrs May
I have noted the points raised by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Europol currently has a very good head. He is British—Rob Wainwright—and has just been reappointed for another term, but I have, of course, heard the points raised in the House today.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary wants to opt out in general, but opt back in, in particular, which implies she believes that specific measures are very much to the benefit of UK crime prevention and justice. Has she made an impact assessment of what will happen in the period between those measures not being enforced, and the point at which they are reintroduced? Will that impact assessment be made available to the public so that they can participate in the consultation she has mentioned?
Mrs May
I answered in response to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) that part of the discussions with the Commission and member states will be precisely about that process and the time at which any opt-ins that we choose to exercise come into force. By that time we will be able to consider what has come out of those negotiations with the European Commission, and assess the impact of opting in or not.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
There is clear need for improvement to the European arrest warrant, but does the Home Secretary agree with 13 former security and police chiefs that scrapping it altogether would be entirely self-defeating? It has become an essential tool in the fight against cross-border organised crime, delivering fast and effective justice across Europe. More than 700 serious criminals have been brought back to the UK to face justice, accused of robberies, murders, rapes, child sexual offences and more. Does the Home Secretary agree that those people should be brought back promptly to face justice?
Mrs May
Of course I agree that people who are guilty of such crimes should be brought back to face justice. I say to my hon. Friend, however, that part of the process we will undertake includes careful consideration of each of those 133 measures. As I have said, some of those are now defunct, we may wish to opt back into some, and there are some that we will not opt back into. There will be careful consideration by the Government about what is in the national interest.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that since the introduction of the European arrest warrant in 2004, the amount of time taken to extradite someone who objects to extradition has fallen from 12 months to 48 days on average? What does she say to the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland, which are deeply concerned about the impact of her announcement on the prevention and detection of terrorism and serious organised crime?
Mrs May
I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not indicated one way or the other in relation to the European arrest warrant. I have said that we will look carefully at each individual measure, and the organisations he has cited will provide the Government with their views on this matter.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. In July 2010, my constituent, Sarah Shields, was murdered. Her boyfriend was accused of the murder and extradited under a European arrest warrant within two months. In her review, I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind those beneficial aspects of the European arrest warrant. It has caused a speedy return which, as she knows full well, would not have been so quick 10 or 20 years ago.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
What a star we have in the Home Secretary—terrorists are sent home, powers are brought back from Europe and Parliament is given a year’s notice on something. What more can she do? Will she consider the views of the all-party group on human trafficking, which recognises that most of the successful operations against traffickers have been bilateral and not undertaken through the European regulation? Will she bear that in mind?
Mrs May
I shall certainly bear that in mind, particularly given my hon. Friend’s work against human trafficking. It would be wrong to assume that there is only one way of doing things—we can co-operate in a variety of ways to ensure that we get the best results in the national interest.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on at last starting the process of bringing powers back from Europe. My constituents in Worcester want British justice to be finally decided in the British Parliament. Will she therefore assure the House that any decisions to opt back in will be given plenty of time for hon. Members to debate them individually and in detail on the Floor of the House?
Mrs May
There will be a proper opportunity for Parliament to consider these matters. As I have said, the Minister for Europe set out some time ago the Government’s desire for Parliament to have a say. Precisely what form that takes has yet to be discussed with various parliamentary groups, but I shall certainly take my hon. Friend’s point into account.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s intention to come out en bloc of the European justice and home affairs provisions. However, given that the Government might be minded to opt back in to certain provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) says, we should have not only parliamentary scrutiny, but Divisions. Will she confirm that that option will be part of the mix?
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The Home Secretary will enjoy the full support of my constituent, Andrew Symeou, who languished in a Greek jail, denied his basic human rights. Much of that was facilitated as a result of the European arrest warrant. When she considers any future arrangements, may I urge her to examine in detail cases such as that of my constituent, which Lord Justice Scott Baker unfortunately did not consider when preparing his report?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has highlighted precisely the issue that many hon. Members raise in relation to the European arrest warrant. On the one hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) cited a case in which the EAW was beneficial, but on the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) cites a case in which an individual feels that they suffered as a result of it. We will certainly look at that balance.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I fully support our opting out of those 130 EU measures, especially the European arrest warrant, but we should tread carefully. Opinion in the House is clearly divided on the measure, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that our Parliament looks at the issue in detail and votes on it in our national interest?
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Last month, the 15-year-old schoolgirl Megan Stammers, a constituent, was abducted by her teacher, Jeremy Forrest. Much to my relief and that of her family and friends, Megan returned to the UK eight days after she was reported missing. Jeremy Forrest, the teacher, was returned to the UK less than two weeks later to face trial. They were found in Bordeaux by police acting on a European arrest warrant issued three days previously. Without the EAW, it is likely that it would have taken longer to find Megan, and Jeremy Forrest would probably still be in France. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to my constituent and her family, and thousands of other victims of serious cross-border crime, that the Government will always ensure that British police can work effectively with their European partners to catch criminals abroad and bring them back quickly to face British justice in our courts?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman raises a particular case in relation to his constituents. On the general point, I would merely say, as I said earlier, that the Government believe that it is one of the first duties of the Government to protect the public. We recognise the importance of co-operating with other police forces in other jurisdictions in other countries so that we can ensure that people face justice appropriately. These issues, in cases such as the one that he raises, will of course be considered by the Government in looking at the whole question of the European arrest warrant.
Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act (Public Consultation)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am today launching a public consultation inviting views on potential changes to the counter-terrorism border security powers contained in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Individuals who engage in terror-related activity travel across borders to plan, finance, train for and commit attacks. Examining people at ports and airports is necessary to protect public safety and an essential part of our border security arrangements. However, the operation of these powers must not erode the freedoms which terrorists seek to undermine.
We would welcome a wide response to the consultation to support us in ensuring the changes address these principles, particularly from those who may be affected by the use of these important powers. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the House Library and is available on the Home Office website at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/schedule-7-review
Terrorism (David Anderson Report)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In accordance with section 14(3), 14(4) and 14(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, David Anderson QC prepared a report on the operation of the Act in 2011, which I laid before the House on 26 March 2012.
I am grateful to David Anderson QC for the final report on that Act, and the control order regime it provided for. Following consultation within my Department and with other relevant agencies, I am today laying before the House my response to David Anderson QC’s recommendations.
Copies of the Government response will be available in the Vote Office and a copy will also be placed on the Home Office website.
Now that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 has been repealed, David Anderson QC has agreed to perform the role of independent reviewer of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
I am grateful to David Anderson QC for accepting this invitation and for continuing his work as reviewer of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
TPIM notices in force (as of 31 August 2012) | 9 |
TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 August 2012) | 9 |
Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices | 27 |
Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused | 12 |
During the reporting period: no TPIM notices were imposed; no TPIM notices were extended; no TPIM notices were revoked; and no TPIM notices were revived. A TPIM review group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The TPIM review group met twice during this reporting period.
One individual was charged in relation to an offence under section 23 of the Act (contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice without reasonable excuse) during the period.
Section 16 of the 2011 Act provides rights of appeal against decisions by the Secretary of State in relation to decisions taken under the Act. No appeals were lodged under section 16 during the reporting period.
Three judgments have been handed down by the High Court in relation to the review of TPIM notices under section 9 of the Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BF [2012] EWHC 1718 (admin), handed down on 25 June 2012, the High Court upheld the TPIM notice imposed on BF. On 6 July 2012, in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AM [2012] EWHC 1854 (admin), the High Court upheld the TPIM notice imposed on AM and the renewal of the control order which preceded it, with a minor amendment to one measure. AM has applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal this judgment. On 19 July 2012, in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AY [2012] EWHC 2054 (admin), the High Court upheld the TPIM notice and dismissed the appeal against the renewal of the control order which preceded it.
Most full judgments are available at http://www.bailii.org/.
Police Pension Scheme
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 27 March 2012, I issued a written statement to the House concerning remuneration and conditions of service in the police. Within that statement I explained that I would put forward a proposal on long-term reform of police pensions to the Police Negotiating Board, which I did on the same day. In common with changes which have been developed across public service pension schemes, my proposal reflected the principles for reform established last year by the report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, led by Lord Hutton.
My officials have been engaged in detailed and constructive discussions with representatives of the Police Negotiating Board since 27 March, and I have received a number of written representations from the organisations represented. Having considered the outcome of those discussions, and the representations made during this period of consultation, I am announcing today my decision for the reform design framework for police pensions. This framework sets out the Government’s final position on the main elements of police pension reform and will form the basis for discussions on points of further detail in moving to implement these changes.
The main parameters of the new scheme design are set out below:
a. a pension scheme design based on career average revalued earnings;
b. a provisional accrual rate of 1/55.3 of pensionable earnings each year, subject to agreement on the outstanding issues;
c. there will be no cap on how much pension can be accrued;
d. a revaluation rate of active members’ benefits in line with the consumer prices index (CPI) + 1.25%;
e. pensions in payment and deferred benefits to increase in line with CPI;
f. average member contributions of 13.7% from April 2015. As announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 December 2011, the Government will review the impact of the 2012-13 contribution changes, including the effect of membership opt-outs, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered in 2013-14 and 2014-15, and in the new scheme. Interested parties will have a full opportunity to provide evidence and their views to the Government as part of the review;
g. flexible retirement from the scheme’s minimum pension age of 55, built around the scheme’s normal pension age of 60—for all active members aged 55 or more at retirement, 2015 scheme benefits taken before normal pension age will be actuarially reduced with reference to the 2015 scheme’s normal pension age, rather than the deferred pension age (i.e. state pension age). Those members’ benefits will continue to be paid after age 60 at that actuarially reduced level. All other members will have their 2015 scheme benefits actuarially reduced on a cost neutral basis from the scheme’s deferred pension age;
h. the normal pension age of 60 will be subject to regular review, which will also consider the linked early retirement facility described at (g). These reviews will consider the increasing state pension age and any changes to it, alongside evidence from interested parties, including staff associations and employers. It will consider if the normal pension age of 60 remains relevant, taking account of the economical, efficient and effective management of the police service, the changing profile of the work force and the occupational demands of, and fitness standards for, police officer roles;
i. this regular review will be informed by scheme data and experience;
j. late retirement factors for members retiring from active service to be actuarially neutral from normal pension age;
k. a deferred pension age equal to the individual’s state pension age;
l. optional lump sum by commutation at a rate of £12 for every £1 per annum of pension forgone in accordance with HMRC limits and regulations;
m. abatement in existing schemes to continue;
n. ill-health retirement benefits to be based on the arrangements in the 2006 scheme;
o. all other ancillary benefits to be based on those contained in the 2006 scheme;
p. members rejoining after a period of deferment of less than five years can link new service with previous service, as if they had always been an active member;
q. members transferring between public service schemes would be treated as having continuous active service;
r. an employer contribution cap and floor, as described in the reform design framework.
Transitional and protection arrangements
There will be full statutory protection for accrued rights for all members as follows:
a. all benefits accrued under final salary arrangements will be linked to the member’s final salary, in accordance with the rules of the member’s current schemes, when they leave the reformed scheme;
b. full recognition of a member’s expectation to double accrual for service accrued under the police pension scheme 1987 (“the 1987 scheme”), so that a member’s full continuous pensionable service upon retirement will be used to calculate an averaged accrual rate to be applied to service accrued under the 1987 scheme;
c. members of the 1987 scheme to be able to access their 1987 scheme benefits when they retire at that scheme’s ordinary pension age (i.e. from 30 years’ pensionable service; age 50 with 25 or more years’ pensionable service; or the member’s voluntary retirement age), subject to abatement rules for that scheme. Pensionable service for the purpose of calculating the ordinary pension age will include any continuous pensionable service accrued under both the 1987 scheme and the 2015 scheme;
d. members of the police pension scheme 2006 (“the 2006 scheme”) to be able to access their benefits under that scheme when they retire at that scheme’s normal pension age (i.e. age 55);
e. members will continue to have access to an actuarially assessed commutation factor for benefits accrued under the 1987 scheme.
There will be statutory transitional protection for certain categories of members, as follows:
a. all active 2006 scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to their current normal pension age (i.e. age 55) will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This protection will be achieved by the member remaining in their current scheme until they retire;
b. all active 1987 scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to age 55 or have 10 years or less to age 48 and are 10 years or less from a maximum unreduced pension, will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This protection will be achieved by those members remaining in their current scheme until they retire;
c. there will be a further period of tapered protection for up to four years for scheme members. Members who are within four years of qualifying for transitional protection, as of 1 April 2012, will have limited protection so that on average for every month closer to qualifying for transitional protection they gain about 53 days of protection. The period of protected service for any member under these tapering arrangements will have finished by 31 March 2022. At the end of the protected period, they will be transferred into the new pension scheme arrangements. Further details on how the tapered protection will apply are set out in the reform design framework.
Areas for further detailed discussion
As set out in the reform design framework, there will be further discussion on specific areas of detail, responding in part to issues raised during consultation with the Police Negotiating Board. In particular there will be further consideration of equalities issues that have been identified, or any which may be identified during further discussion, as well as arrangements to ensure compatibility between the new scheme design and recognised existing or future schemes for police officers exiting the service before normal pension age.
I believe this represents a fair outcome, reflecting the range of issues raised during consultation on my original proposal. This will continue to offer valuable pension arrangements for police officers which will be affordable and sustainable in the future.
The Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that this design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government in my proposal of 27 March. Copies of the reform design framework and the Government Actuary’s Department verification report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Olympics (Security)
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on Olympic security.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Since I updated the House on Olympic security last week, there have been several allegations in the media, and I want to deal with each of them.
First, it was reported that Ministers knew there would be a shortfall in security staff last year. This is untrue. Last September, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported, at my request, on the security preparations by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, and it recommended several measures. HMIC reported again in February and concluded that LOCOG had plans in place to deliver the required number of security personnel. Neither HMIC report identified specific problems with G4S scheduling.
Secondly, it was reported that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is the Minister for crime and security, had attended meetings in which he was told there was a security staff shortage. In fact, G4S repeatedly assured us that it would overshoot its targets. As I told the House on Thursday, G4S told the Government that it would be unable to meet its contractual obligations only last Wednesday, and we took immediate action.
Thirdly, it was reported that we must have known about the shortfall because the military was put on standby in April. This is also not the case. In fact, 7,500 troops have been part of the security plans since December, a further 1,000 were on standby in the event of flooding or other such civil emergencies, and we placed a further 2,000 on standby as a precaution in case the threat level increased. The 3,500 troops whose deployment I announced last Thursday are a direct response to the failure of G4S to meet its contractual obligations. A further contingency will remain.
The Government have strengthened the oversight of the security planning operation since we came into office. I will go through briefly what has happened since the bid for the games in 2005. From the beginning, the organisers planned to use private sector personnel for venue security. LOCOG confirmed that it would be using private sector security personnel well before the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It started the procurement process for security personnel in April 2010.
When we entered government in May 2010, we instigated a comprehensive review of Olympics safety and security planning, overseen by the then Security Minister, Baroness Neville-Jones. That audit and review identified a shortfall in LOCOG’s venue security budget, which we addressed in the comprehensive spending review.
We recognised that, with a project of this size and scale, even that additional funding might not ensure the level of security that we needed, so I asked for outside assurance of LOCOG’s venue security planning. In September 2011, I commissioned HMIC to carry out an inspection of LOCOG’s venue security plans. As I have said, that led to several recommendations that were acted on by the Home Office, the police and LOCOG.
LOCOG and the Home Office monitored delivery throughout the following months. G4S assured LOCOG and the Government continually that it would be able to deliver its contractual obligations. However, on Wednesday 11 July, following the difficulties with scheduling that the company has acknowledged, G4S notified LOCOG and the Government that it would not be able to provide the numbers of security personnel specified in its contract. I want to be clear that that was the first time that G4S admitted to any Minister that it would not be able to deliver the numbers of security personnel that it had promised.
We acted immediately to make further contingency arrangements by agreeing the deployment of 3,500 further troops. That brings the total military contribution to the games to 17,000, including personnel from all three services.
G4S has failed to deliver its contractual obligations, but we have the finest military personnel in the world—troops who are willing, ready and able to step in when their country calls—and we can be sure of their professionalism in helping to deliver a secure and safe Olympic games.
Yvette Cooper
Everyone wants the games to be an outstanding success. After the G4S shambles, we need things to be back on track and the Home Secretary needs to show that she is sorting it out.
First, will the Home Secretary tell us precisely how many people she now expects G4S to provide? It was contracted to provide 17,000, it now says that it will be 13,000, but it has admitted that the vast majority of those are still in process. Today, we learned that only a third of the expected G4S staff turned up to lock down a venue in Manchester and that the police had to do it instead. The monitoring has failed once spectacularly and the Home Secretary has failed to assess the numbers once before. Will she now tell us how many staff she believes G4S will provide?
Secondly, the Home Secretary told us on Thursday that 3,500 extra troops would be sufficient to fill the gap. If G4S fails to deliver the full 13,000 people it now promises, will those troops be enough? If more troops and police will be needed, she should say so now and not let this drift. The troops and the police will do an excellent job, but they need to be able to prepare.
Thirdly, the London Mayor said this morning:
“Everybody that was organising the Olympics knew this was coming up…ages ago.”
The deputy mayor said:
“This issue was flagged up repeatedly by both the Metropolitan Police Authority and subsequently the Mayor’s Office…for more than a year to G4S directly, the Olympic Security Board, and the Home Office.”
Even G4S says that it has been discussing the detailed shortfall for “eight or nine days”. And yet, last Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she was
“confident that our partners will deliver”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]
It is incomprehensible that the monitoring was that poor that no one told her until Wednesday. How on earth could the Minister responsible for delivering Olympics security be the only person who did not know? When was she first told that there was a problem with G4S?
We need to know why the Home Secretary has failed on this, because we need to have the confidence that she understands what went wrong and is competent to sort the problem out now, so that everyone can get on and make the Olympics a great success.
Mrs May
I will respond to the various points that the shadow Home Secretary has raised. She asked what the numbers look like. The revised solution of more than 23,000 personnel that was decided on at the end of last year was made up of 10,400 G4S guards, 7,500 military at peak, up to 3,000 Bridging the Gap, up to 3,000 volunteers and up to 2,000 incumbents that—
Mrs May
The very first figures that I gave were 10,400 G4S guards, 7,500 military, 3,000 Bridging the Gap, up to 3,000 volunteers and up to 2,000 incumbent security suppliers at existing venues. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asks, “Bridging what gap?” Bridging the Gap is the name of a programme under which students and others can get employment.
The shadow Home Secretary says that we need to get a grip, but that is precisely what we have been doing. When we came to office, we made an immediate security audit, increased the budget and revised the plans. I have commissioned several reports on Olympic preparedness, each of which has led to a refinement of the plans. When G4S told us last Wednesday that it would be unable to deliver its contractual obligations, we decided to deploy extra military personnel to fill the gap.
The right hon. Lady asked why the situation was not known about earlier. I have explained that we commissioned reports on G4S’s preparedness, which contained recommendations on which LOCOG, the Home Office and the police acted, but those reports all made it clear that subject to acting on those recommendations, LOCOG was on track to deliver the necessary security personnel. Last Wednesday, G4S told us that it would be unable to deliver its obligations.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about timing. On Friday 6 July the managing director of G4S Global Events told Reuters:
“We are delivering a London Olympics now. If there was a similar event going on in Australia, I would be bullish that we could deliver that at the same time.”
I suggest that the right hon. Lady listens to the comments of some of her colleagues. Lord West has said:
“I don’t think it will affect the security of the games. That’s been taken care of. The Government have sorted that out, because the military are in there.”
The shadow Olympics spokesman has said:
“The important thing now is to focus on the solutions.”
I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary listens to her colleagues.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that any costs associated with the additional measures will be met by G4S, not the taxpayer?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for agreeing to appear before the Home Affairs Committee as soon as the Olympic and Paralympic games are over.
May I take the Home Secretary back to the HMIC report? Is she telling the House that G4S was made aware of the contents of the report prepared by Sir Denis O’Connor? There were four copies of that report, and one went to Charles Farr, who chaired the Olympic security board. If G4S was aware that there were shortcomings, it ought really to have put them right before last Wednesday.
Mrs May
The HMIC report was on LOCOG’s security planning capabilities. It was a not a review of G4S. It outlined a number of steps that LOCOG needed to take to plan and manage the delivery of the venue security responsibilities. That predated the decision to increase the number of venue security personnel. A further report was commissioned from HMIC in February, and it said that it was reassured that LOCOG had plans in place to resolve any issue expeditiously. Issues were raised in those reports, but all those who were required to act on them did so.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary investigate claims that existing G4S staff in other parts of the country have been given the opportunity to fill Olympic security posts only if they take annual leave, despite the massive shortage?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an issue that has not previously been raised with me. I will look into it, but it is of course for G4S to decide how it will provide the numbers. It has had significant difficulties in scheduling both existing staff and the new staff that it is bringing in, but I have noted his point.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Given the scale of the shortfall between what G4S contracted to provide and what it is now providing, which must have been obvious upon inquiry, is the Home Secretary saying that G4S was guilty of wilful deception of HMIC, or was there some failure in the monitoring of what G4S was doing?
Mrs May
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks at some of the comments that G4S has made about its situation. It may be of interest to the House to know that the accreditation process has accredited more than 20,000 G4S personnel. The problem for G4S has been allocating personnel to particular venue security tasks through its scheduling programme. It was when it examined that situation and saw the difficulties it was having that it came to the Government last Wednesday and said that it could not meet its full contractual obligation.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no members of the armed forces involved in the deployment will lose their annual entitlement to leave or be left out of pocket?
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
We have the finest armed forces in the world, and they will step into the breach most admirably. The lateness of the decision, however, will add considerably to their discomfort and the burden that is placed on them. Given the size of the gap, there must have been a failure of monitoring or deliberate deceit—one or the other—for such a gap to exist so late in the process.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate the fact that it was at a stage fairly close to the beginning of the Olympic games that G4S began to schedule staff to particular venue security duties. It was when it began doing so that it discovered that it had a problem with the numbers. That is what G4S has absolutely made clear. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have just said: in fact, we have accredited over 20,000 G4S personnel. The issue was getting staff to the venue security task, and it was right that G4S came to us at the point that it did and said that it was not going to be able to fulfil the personnel numbers, which is why we have asked for the contingency from the military.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
So that we can see the full picture, will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly when in the preparations for the games that it was decided that the contract for security would be between LOCOG and G4S, and what was the ministerial input at the time into that decision?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said on more than one occasion that G4S deliberately deceived the Government. If that is the case in a £300 million contract, will it be allowed to tender for any further private contracts with the Government in future?
Mrs May
Well, there is a very great difference, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that difference. When G4S recognised that it was having difficulty scheduling and getting sufficient staff numbers to the posts for which they were required it came to the Government and said that it could not deliver the numbers that it thought it could.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
As we speak and as the House meets, athletes from all over the world are arriving at Heathrow to take part in one of the world’s greatest athletic gatherings. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things that undermines national security is petty point scoring and hysterical opposition, talking the games down?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are on course to deliver a safe and secure games that everyone will enjoy. We have had good cross-party support until now for the delivery of the Olympic games, and it is a pity that that has not continued under the shadow Home Secretary.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
In view of the discrepancy between the account that the Home Secretary has given the House this afternoon and reports from HMIC, the Mayor of London’s office and G4S, will she publish all the relevant contacts that she had with all those bodies so that we can judge for ourselves?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has made an assumption about differences in statements that have been made. I have explained: if he looks at what G4S has been saying, it made it clear that it realised only recently that it was not going to be able to deliver. It rightly, as a company, put its hand up and said, “We did have problems; it was our mistake.” As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), it is willing to provide funding to cover the extra costs that will be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman referred to other comments that have been made. I dealt with some of those in my statement.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Notwithstanding the abysmal failure of G4S to date, is it the intention once the games have begun that G4S will continue to recruit, train and schedule its security staff to Olympic venues, enabling some of our troops to go home early?
Mrs May
It is certainly the case that G4S will continue to provide staff at Olympic venues. Crucially, of course, it will also provide staff for the Paralympics. It will still make a significant contribution to venue security at the Olympic and Paralympic games. There will be more military personnel, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, they have already been informed that they will undertake these duties.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell us anything about the incident on Tyneside last Saturday, when 58 employees of G4S were supposed to turn up for work, but 10 actually turned up and the shortfall was made up by the Northumbria police? Will she confirm that Northumbria police will be fully compensated for its costs, and if she cannot tell us anything now, will she investigate the incident further and report back to us?
Mrs May
The example that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted—another example is going across the broadcasts today about the Manchester area—is an exact example of the problem that G4S encountered. In encountering that problem, it identified the fact that it would not be able to provide the security personnel. As to the costs to the police, G4S has stated that it will ensure that it covers the costs for the police and the military, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to write to him with more detail, I would be happy to do so.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary reassure the House and people who live in areas such as my Epping Forest constituency, which is close to the Olympic park, hosts an Olympic venue and, indeed, a Ministry of Defence security site, that the normal levels of policing and security that are necessary at this time will not be adversely affected by the current situation?
Mrs May
Of course all parties involved have been working to ensure that the security that is provided is the security that is needed for the Olympic games. That is what is being put in place, and that is why we took the contingency arrangements we did in immediately calling in those 3,500 troops to ensure that we could maintain the levels of security we require.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is inconceivable that the Cabinet Committee that was overlooking this matter did not spot this—or was it that it believed its own mantra: “public sector bad; private sector good”? Who is on this Committee?
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the failings of G4S will not cost any extra to the public purse in the running of the games?
Mrs May
Obviously, there is a contract between the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and G4S. There are penalties in it, and it is for LOCOG to deal with, but G4S is on record as saying that it will cover the extra costs of the military and the police.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Could it be the unanimous wish of this House that the British participants in the games do far, far better than the shambles we are now discussing?
Mrs May
I am sure it is the unanimous wish of this House that British participants in the games are going to do extremely well, that we will have a good medal haul and that Members like myself will have constituents who are medal hopefuls—and I wish them every good luck in their competitive events.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has outlined the checks and inspections that she rightly had in place, but does she not suspect that G4S is, perhaps at the very least, hiding the scale of the problem and has been doing so for some time?
Mrs May
No, I would say that G4S came forward and made a statement to the Government that it would not be able to provide the numbers required. It would have been easy for G4S to carry on saying, “We will provide the required numbers”—but it did not; it recognised that it could not and at that point it came to the Government and we took the necessary action.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
On 14 December, the chief civil servant in the Home Office gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, assuring us that everything was fine with the G4S contract. We now hear from G4S that 9,000 people are still being processed. Does the Home Secretary share her senior civil servant’s confidence now?
Mrs May
I explained this on a number of occasions last Thursday and this afternoon. There was a rolling programme for G4S for recruiting individuals and taking them through the training and accreditation process. G4S repeatedly assured us that it was going to overshoot rather than undershoot its target. It came forward and said it could not meet its contractual obligations only last Wednesday.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The contract is between LOCOG and G4S. What does this situation tell us about LOCOG and its effectiveness in monitoring what is happening?
Mrs May
The contract is obviously between LOCOG and G4S, but LOCOG has been party to discussions over time as we have been revising the numbers required, as all hon. Members know. The HMIC report that I commissioned last year was into LOCOG’s arrangements. LOCOG responded to that and made changes as necessary.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Hundreds of West Midlands police officers have been asked to stand in for G4S because its security guards have simply not turned up. The public have confidence in our police service but no confidence in G4S, yet the Home Secretary has spent £4 million promoting privatisation of essential police services, the principal beneficiary of which would be G4S. In the light of the Olympics debacle, will she now abandon her reckless plans?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary should have a gold medal for the speed at which she has corrected this problem. Why exactly cannot the 20,000 people whom G4S has recruited be employed? Are people just saying that they are not going to go to work?
Mrs May
There are a number of things, the first of which is the scheduling problems that G4S has had. Some individuals will now say, for a number of reasons, that they do not wish to take up the work. However, the problem was identified only in the past few days, leading to the decision by G4S last Wednesday, when it told us it could not meet its requirements.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
There is a similar problem in Salford—not Manchester—to the ones described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Athletes in a hotel in Salford are now being protected by our local police force rather than by G4S. Will our police continue to be overstretched in that way on an ongoing basis? When will they be helped? When will the Home Secretary accept that G4S is clearly not fit for purpose?
Mrs May
Some police forces have put extra personnel on certain venues as a result of what has happened. Hon. Members have made a number of comments about our wonderful military personnel, but we should also recognise that we have the best police force in the world. There are meticulous plans for the policing of the Olympic games and I have every confidence that our police will do an excellent job.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I understand the political difficulty of issuing a warning order earlier in the year, putting troops on standby for an increase in the threat or for a situation such as this. However, surely it was the right thing to do, not just for the safety of our citizens, but also to enable our armed forces better to plan their R and R and training obligations.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend, with her knowledge of the armed forces, makes a very important point. It is in the interest of our armed forces for us to give them sufficient notice of contingency arrangements. We have had to move on the 3,500 extra troops because of the lateness of the point at which G4S admitted to us that it was unable to meet its personnel needs. On the various other requirements, we have been able to give the notice to which she refers.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What is the precise number of security personnel that G4S will now deliver for the Olympics?
Mrs May
We are continuing to accredit personnel for G4S and it continues to schedule personnel for the Olympic games. The precise balance of the numbers it will provide will become clear over the next few days—[Interruption.] I suggest that Opposition Members should actually look at G4S’s statements on how it is dealing with the issue and on what the problem is. The suggestion that this is a problem for the Government is not the case.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
When G4S makes a colossal error such as this, the Army and the police step in to provide cover, which is effectively a form of insurance on the contract. What steps were taken when the contract was issued to ensure a level playing field between G4S and other private or public sector providers, and what steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure a level playing field in future?
Mrs May
LOCOG undertook a process of inviting bids for the contract, as a result of which it decided that G4S was the contractor it wished to employ and there is a contract between LOCOG and G4S. We have asked the military to increase the numbers it is making available so that we can provide for the security of the Olympic games and reassure people that our plans for a safe and secure games are in place and that the gap that has opened up will be covered by those military personnel.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The shadow Home Secretary clearly asked the Home Secretary to respond to comments in tonight’s Evening Standard from the Mayor of London and his deputy for policing that everyone knew about this ages ago. The Home Secretary declined to do so. Will she now say why, if the Greater London authority and the police authority knew about the problems, she did not?
Mrs May
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that all parties who were involved in preparations for the Olympic games have been working to monitor the arrangements for security and to monitor G4S, and last Wednesday—[Interruption.] On 6 July, G4S made clear its confidence in its plan, and last Wednesday, on 11 July, it said that it could not meet the numbers that it was required to provide. We have taken action to ensure that we provide the safe and secure games that I hope everybody in this House wants this country to have.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one group that has met its target is the reserve forces, more than 2,100 of whom have volunteered?
Mrs May
I am very pleased to confirm that. We have not just the finest regular military forces in the world, but wonderful reservists, who are willing to step up to the plate—including, of course, some in this House as well. I gather that 2,100 reservists have volunteered for the Olympic games. I pay tribute to them and to the work they will be doing.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Given that the police, as well as the troops, are having to step in and bridge the gap, will the Home Secretary provide us, as Parliament goes into recess, with the numbers of policemen and women in forces around the country who are having to be moved to guard Olympic venues and hotels? It is selling the police short.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady talks as though there was never any suggestion that the police would be involved in security provision for the Olympics. That is not the case: the police have always been part of the security for the Olympics, as has the military. Yes, the police are taking on some extra requirements, as is the military. We all have one aim, and that is to provide a safe and secure games that everybody can enjoy.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that a degree of humility on the part of the Opposition is appropriate, as it was Labour’s plans that deliberately downplayed the involvement of the armed forces in the first place? Our armed forces were required then and they are required now. They are among our very best ambassadors and will add materially to the quality of our Olympic games.
Mrs May
As I noted earlier, the decision that LOCOG would have a contract with a private sector contractor was taken under the last Government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the quality of our armed forces. I have every confidence that they will not only do a good job, but do so in a spirit that ensures that everybody coming to the games can enjoy them as a sporting event.
The Police ICT Company
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
As part of the wider reform of policing, I wish to update the House on the creation of a new police information communications technology (ICT) company.
Last year, I announced that I would help the police service set up a police ICT company to offer forces a route to better services and better deals. Since then, my Department has been working with key partners in the policing community to design a company that will be responsive to their needs and enable police forces to get better value for their ICT spend.
The company is intended to be owned by police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and led by police forces, as customers. Given that PCCs are not elected until November, my Department has been putting in place arrangements to create the company with interim owners. This will ensure that momentum for the company continues and policing partners can lead the shaping and development of its operations, so that a viable company can be offered to the PCCs to take forward once in office.
I am pleased to announce my Department has now legally incorporated “The Police ICT Company Ltd.”, a company limited by guarantee. The company is jointly owned by the Association of Police Authorities (APA) and the Home Office. The owners are appointing 12 directors from the policing community to form the board of directors of the company so the company will be police-led. The board of directors will be responsible for electing a chair and recommending the appointment of an interim CEO. The APA ownership will transfer to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) ownership in November, thus providing continuity through the transition.
The purpose of The Police ICT Company at this stage, through its board of directors, is to provide governance and oversight of the activities necessary to make the company fully operational after PCCs are elected. These activities include generating the long-term ownership group, agreeing the governance of the ownership group and development of the business plan and organisational design.
The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) functions transferring to the new company in due course (the Home Office in the interim) will include: ICT strategy, ICT contract management, procurement and service management, and the management and implementation of ICT projects and programmes.
Domestic Violence
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
From today we will be piloting a domestic violence disclosure scheme in Gwent and Wiltshire police force areas, and in Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire police force areas by no later than Monday 10 September 2012.
The pilot will test a process for enabling the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner where this may help protect them from violent offending. There will be two elements to the disclosure scheme. The first will be triggered by a request by a member of the public (“right to ask”). The second will be triggered by the police where they make a proactive decision to disclose the information in order to protect a potential victim (“right to know”). Both processes can be implemented within existing legal powers.
I am committed to strengthening our response to tackling domestic violence and supporting victims. I want to ensure that the public has confidence that a clear framework exists with recognised and consistent processes for disclosing information that meets their needs. We will therefore consider the learning from the pilot very carefully before deciding on next steps.