Serious Organised Crime Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Written Statements

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

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has today published its annual report and accounts for 2010-11. I have laid a copy before the House and made arrangements to place copies in the Vote Office.

UK Threat Level

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Written Statements

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

Yesterday, 11 July, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) changed the UK threat level from international terrorism from severe to substantial. This means that a terrorist attack is a strong possibility.

The change in the threat level to substantial does not mean the overall threat has gone away, there remains a real and serious threat against the United Kingdom and I would ask the public to remain vigilant.

The decision to change the threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers and is based on the very latest intelligence, considering factors such as capability, intent and time scale. “Substantial” continues to indicate a high-level of threat; and that an attack might well occur without further warning. The threat level is kept under constant review.

Contest (UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Written Statements

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

I have today published a revised version of Contest: The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

International counter-terrorism work has made very significant progress over the past 10 years. Al-Qaeda is weaker than at any time since 9/11. It has not conducted a successful attack here since 2005. It has played no role in recent political change in north Africa and the middle east. Its ideology has been widely discredited and it has failed in all its objectives. Continued international pressure can further reduce its capability, and the UK must work with other countries to seize those opportunities in the coming months and years.

But al-Qaeda continues to be a significant threat and other terrorist groups, some affiliated to al-Qaeda—notably in Yemen and Somalia—have emerged over the past two years to be a substantial threat in their own right. The threat from Northern Ireland related terrorism has also increased. The scale of the threat and of activity to contain it is reflected in the number of arrests and convictions here for terrorist related offences. These figures remain high. The Government will continue to give the highest importance to their counter-terrorism work.

The aim of our counter-terrorist strategy is to reduce the risk to the UK and UK interests so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence.

The scope of the strategy has been broadened to cover all forms of terrorism and has been changed to reflect the Government’s security and counter-terrorism policies.

Under our “Pursue” work, the purpose of which is to stop terrorist attacks, we have already reviewed the most controversial counter-terrorism and security powers which have been in place here and made significant changes to them. They are now more effective and more proportionate. We will work hard to maintain intelligence coverage of terrorist-related activity here and give the intelligence and security services and the police the capabilities they need. We will continue to try to prosecute or deport more of those who have been engaged in terrorist-related activity; and we will support foreign Governments in building their capacity to deal with terrorism overseas.

We have revised work on “Prevent”—which aims to stop people being drawn into terrorist activity—and have already published a comprehensive assessment or work to date and a statement of our future strategy. Like Contest as a whole “Prevent” has increased in scope to deal with all forms of terrorism and also to more clearly tackle extremism which is conducive to terrorist activity and can draw people towards it. We will make a clearer distinction between our “Prevent” work and our programmes to support integration. Our focus will be on challenging ideology, supporting vulnerable people, and working with key sectors where radicalisation may occur.

In our “Protect” work, we will continue to respond to recent threats to aviation security. We will further strengthen our borders—notably through the formation of the National Crime Agency—and the protection of our critical infrastructure. For “Prepare”—our contingency planning—we have learnt lessons from previous terrorist attacks. We will continue to build our capabilities to respond to a Mumbai style attack; to address the highest impact terrorist risks, including an attack which might make use of unconventional weapons; and to resolve issues of interoperability between the emergency services.

The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games will be the biggest sporting event in our history. Terrorism poses the greatest security threat to the games. Ensuring the security of the Olympics will be an absolute priority over the coming year.

The threat endures but al-Qaeda is significantly weaker than it has been for 10 years. There are opportunities for us and our allies to seize the opportunities we have now to further enhance our security and reduce the threats we face. This strategy is intended to enable us to do so.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

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

Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect in January 1986, it has been widely recognised by the police and the courts that time spent on bail does not count towards the maximum permitted period of detention without charge. That is entirely right and proper. Being held in custody in a police cell is clearly not the same as being free on police bail, even with conditions attached.

For more than 25 years, the sensible interpretation of the law has enabled the police to investigate crimes and keep the public safe, but on 19 May, in a judicial review, Mr Justice McCombe gave an oral judgment that it was his view that a district judge—as we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), Judge Feinstein—had been right to refuse a routine application for a warrant of further detention of Paul Hookway, a suspect in a murder investigation.

I should stress to the House that at the time of the oral judgment on 19 May, it was not at all clear what the implications of this case would be. Indeed, in his oral judgment, Mr Justice McCombe himself said that “the consequences” of this ruling

“are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases”.

At that time, it was not clear whether the ruling was restricted to the details of the Hookway case alone, whether it had a limited application or whether it was restricted to warrants of further detention beyond 36 hours. It was not until the complex written judgment was received on Friday 17 June—and considered in detail with the advice of counsel—that it began to become clear that this case had wider implications for police detention and bail.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I thank the Government for their speedy action on this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why we are here today is that judicial interpretation in recent years, as so often, has been in favour of the criminal rather than the victim? Does not this legislation shift the balance in the right direction?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but he tries to tempt me down a path of discussion which I think is probably inappropriate for today’s debate, although I have been on record in this House in commenting on previous judicial decisions. I know that there are those who do indeed feel the way my hon. Friend does, but we had better not get into that in today’s debate.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and thank her for giving evidence about this matter to the Select Committee on Tuesday. She mentioned the legal advice sought by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Has the Home Office sought its own independent legal advice? I see the Solicitor-General sitting beside the right hon. Lady. Presumably, the Home Office, independent of ACPO, is satisfied that everything is in order so far as the legal advice is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Given his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers never confirm or deny when asked what legal advice or opinion they have sought. However, I can tell him that the Home Office is satisfied that the legislation is necessary. If it were not, we would not be introducing it.

One hour and two minutes after the Home Office received ACPO’s professional, legal and operational advice on Thursday 30 June, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice delivered an oral statement to the House in which he announced our intention to introduce emergency legislation. The police’s professional and operational judgment, backed up by the legal expertise of two leading QCs, has guided the Government’s decision. Only fast-track primary legislation can give the police the necessary certainty and immediacy in restoring the law as it was understood to operate. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), what we seek to do is return things to how they have been for the last 25 years.

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

What many Opposition Members find difficult to deal with is the time scale. The Home Secretary says that the Government acted as speedily as possible, but Ministers did not meet representatives of ACPO until 24 June. The right hon. Lady could have read what was said by Michael Zander on 18 June, when he made it absolutely clear that we would need an appeal or emergency legislation. If she is the person in charge, why did she know nothing about that, and why did she not meet ACPO representatives until 24 June?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman asked me the same question earlier this week when I appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. The issue has also been raised by a number of other Opposition Members, who are doing their best to suggest that there was a delay. There was no delay. It was necessary for all the parties concerned to examine in detail the judgment that had been made available on 17 June. Professor Michael Zander is well respected in this field, in which he has considerable expertise, but I think that if I had come to the House and proposed to the Opposition that the Government introduce emergency legislation on the basis of an article that had appeared in a journal, the Opposition would have rightly told the Government that they should take a rather more professional approach.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday not to grant a stay in the case has made the legislation all the more vital and all the more urgent. I welcome the support for it that has been promised by Opposition Front Benchers, as well as the support given by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

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

It is clear to me, at least, that the Government acted with alacrity, but perhaps the Home Secretary can help me by explaining earlier events involving Greater Manchester police. Why, despite the discussion following the judgment, did they not apply for a certificate for an appeal on 19 May, and why did it then take so long for that to happen? In particular, why was no reliable written note taken of the oral judgment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The answer to the question about the written note is that we were waiting for the judge who had made the decision to produce his own written judgment, so that it would be absolutely clear to us what we would need to interpret. What Greater Manchester police were dealing with was the oral judgment that had been delivered on 19 May. As I have just said, Mr Justice McCombe himself indicated that he did not think that the consequences would be especially severe. Only after further consideration did Greater Manchester police conclude that it would be necessary to appeal against the judgment.

It is important to understand that it was not simply a question of looking at the legal judgment. It was for the police to consider, in operational terms, whether they were able to work within that judgment. When the written judgment was made available to them, the operational implications became clear. It is those operational implications that give cause for concern, and they are the reason for the Bill that we are introducing today.

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

The Home Secretary has been dealing with issues relating to the emergency legislation. Will she tell us why the Attorney-General did not immediately join Greater Manchester police in applying for a stay of judgment as well as joining them in applying for an appeal?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has already raised a number of questions relating to this matter, including the question of the stay of judgment. She has claimed that there was a considerable delay before we came to the House, but, as I said earlier, one hour and two minutes after we received the formal and final judgment from ACPO on the basis of advice from the two QCs whom it had been consulting, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made his statement here. As for her previous question about why the Home Office did not join the police in requesting a stay, the answer is simple: we had no locus standi. We were not part of the initial legal proceedings, and it was not open to us to be party to that request.

Let me add—just in case the right hon. Lady intends to ask about this—that she has implied in the past that if Greater Manchester police had applied for a stay earlier, a different decision would have been made and everything might have been okay. However, it is now clear, both from the decision that the Supreme Court issued earlier this week and from what has been said by leading legal commentators such as Joshua Rozenberg, that it is not even certain that the Supreme Court has the power to order a stay in relation to such an appeal.

[Yvette Cooper]

Did the Attorney-General consider joining the case for both the appeal and the stay as soon as he was made aware of the position? In the end the Supreme Court asked him to do so, but did he consider doing so as soon as he was told, and when was he told?

[Mrs May]

I thought I had made the position clear to the right hon. Lady. Those who were party to the initial legal proceedings were able to grant a stay, and Greater Manchester police were able to make a decision—which they did at a certain point in the timetable—on whether to apply for one.

If the right hon. Lady is trying to play party political games with the question of the application for a stay, she should consider the comments that have been made and the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as I have just said, suggests that there is considerable doubt not about the timetable for a stay, but whether the court even has the power to order one in this case. The right hon. Lady should think about that very carefully.

I think it important that the Home Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and also, fortuitously, an opportunity to ask me questions about it during the evidence session that I held with the Committee on Tuesday. I also note the support of leading legal figures such as Professor Michael Zander—who was mentioned earlier—and Liberty, which has said:

“Liberty supports the Government’s intention to amend the law as proposed. In our view the proposed reform is clarificatory and would do nothing more than return the law to the original intention of Parliament and the way in which it has been interpreted—by judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers—for the best part of 25 years.”

I could not agree more.

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

I fully support the Bill, but may I take the Home Secretary back to the last session of Home Office questions and her surprisingly dismissive comments about the Joint Committee that had been considering her proposals for emergency legislation in relation to pre-charge detention? The Committee had described those proposals as unsatisfactory and unreliable.

In the light of the experience of the last few days, is the Home Secretary beginning to revisit her views on the role of emergency legislation in dealing with pressing and urgent issues? In particular, will she tell us what she would have done if all this had happened two or three weeks later, and the House had been in recess?

[Mrs May]

The premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I was dismissive of the Joint Committee’s views at Home Office questions, but I was not. Indeed, I have not been dismissive of its views because I have made it clear that we are accepting one of the points it raised on the emergency legislation, and I hardly think accepting one of its points can be described as being dismissive of its views.

The Bill seeks to restore the law on police detention to the position as it has been understood for the last 25 years. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge.

[Paul Goggins]

rose—

[Mrs May]

Very well; I will give way again.

[Paul Goggins]

I am sorry to exasperate the Home Secretary, but I was rather hoping she would address the point I made at the end of my intervention: what would have happened if all this were taking place when we were in recess?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to debate hypothetical situations. It is right that we are introducing this legislation today, precisely so that it can be debated on the record and, we hope, receive Royal Assent before the House goes into recess. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well about the debates we have had on the emergency legislation for pre-charge detention and what would be applicable and possible for Parliament to do during a recess, and I am sure we will continue to have such debates. As I have said, I have accepted one of the Joint Committee’s points on this issue, and that can hardly be described as dismissing its views.

As I was saying, PACE set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge. It provides that once a person is arrested and brought to a police station, that person must not be detained for longer than 96 hours in total without being charged with an offence. Within the overall maximum permitted 96-hour period, continued detention must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent after the initial 24 hours, and by a magistrate after the initial 36 hours, with fresh warrants required at 36-hour intervals.

There are numerous other safeguards. For example, ongoing detention must be subject to periodic review, and an individual can challenge their detention at any time by bringing an action for habeas corpus in the High Court. The idea some have put forward that this judgment means the police should in some way just “work quicker” to gather evidence ignores the reality of policing and the necessity of the police being able to, for example, take forensics tests, and identify, contact and interview witnesses. The judgment effectively takes away police time in which to do such things.

The Bill seeks to reverse the effect of the High Court’s ruling, but it only seeks to reverse that. It amends PACE to make it explicit that in calculating any period—whether a time limit or a period of pre-charge detention—any periods spent on bail shall be disregarded. The Bill also amends PACE to make it clear that periods of police detention before and after a period of bail are to be treated as if they form a single continuous period. This is an important safeguard that the High Court judgment had overturned, and, again, it restores the position to what it has been understood to be for the past 25 years.

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

The Home Secretary clearly regards police bail as an important tool for bringing people to justice. It often applies to people accused of serious crimes, and they can be required to live at locations well away from their home address so that they do not mix with any associates who might be involved in crime. Will the Home Secretary therefore explain why in the terrorism Bill that has just left Committee she is proposing that the restrictions for those suspected of being involved in terrorism should be weaker than the restrictions in this Bill for people suspected of being involved in serious crime who are on police bail?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is asking me to talk about a Bill that is entirely separate from the one we are addressing today. As I think she knows, in replacing control orders with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—we have put together a package that includes both the measure itself and increased funds available to the Security Service and the police for surveillance. That is the basis on which we are going forward with that measure and that Bill.

The Bill before us today provides that the amendments to PACE should have retrospective effect. That means that they are deemed always to have had effect, despite the High Court’s judgment in the Hookway case.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I support the Bill, but the purist in me is slightly anxious about the concept of retrospective legislation. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about how normal that is and whether this step might be opening a door for rather more concerning retrospective legislation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend sneaked in with his intervention as I was nearing the conclusion of my speech. Perhaps I use the term “retrospective” a little loosely. This is not retrospective legislation in that it merely corrects the decision that has recently been made and puts the situation back to what it had been understood to be. That is supported by Liberty, which has said:

“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden. They would, in our view, not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law rule against retrospective penalties.”

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

Does the Home Office, any other part of Government or the Association of Chief Police Officers have any figures to show how many people have been on police bail for, let us say, more than six months and then are not charged?

[Mrs May]

I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what has been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.

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

I am not necessarily opposed to restoring the position to what it was before the court judgment, but I am always anxious about our rushing through all the stages of a Bill, as we are doing today. The Home Secretary has been very dismissive of critics, but my view is that if there was more time, those critics, who may or may not have a very reasonable case, would be able to put their case to Members and there would be further deliberations before we rushed into making law. I have many hesitations in my mind because, as the Home Secretary herself has admitted, when we have previously rushed through legislation, it has not always proved to be useful.

[Mrs May]

I understand the point that there have in the past been occasions when emergency legislation has been felt to have had consequences other than what was intended. This is a different kind of emergency legislation however, in that it simply reinstates the situation to what it was understood to be for the past 25 years in terms of the operation of PACE and detention and bail. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done what we can to ensure that there has been an opportunity for the Bill to be considered. I made the draft Bill available to Members and others on Monday, and it was formally introduced on Tuesday. We therefore made it available early so that people would have an opportunity to look at it. It is a very short Bill, and it does not need to be more than a short Bill because, I repeat, it is simply reinstating the situation to what it has been for the past 25 years.

The judgment in the Hookway case significantly impairs the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. I am not prepared to stand by and ask the police to fight crime with one arm tied behind their back. The Bill will restore vital powers to the police that they have operated under, without complaint from the courts, for the past 25 years. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The point is that the Home Office should have prepared. Immediately after the oral judgment was issued, it was possible that there would be concerns and Professor Zander knew enough about the judgment to write a considered view in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 17 June. He was clearly extremely worried and on that basis he was already offering advice. Home Office officials should have sought information and should have been concerned even on the basis of the oral judgment.

[Mrs May]

On a point of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm the time line? She just referred to Professor Michael Zander in a way that might give Members the impression that his article was written off the back of the oral judgment. Will she confirm that it was made available after the written judgment?

[Yvette Cooper]

The article was published on 18 June, following the written judgment becoming available on 17 June. He will have needed time to write it, however, and to seek more information and details about the case; Home Office officials, however, chose not to do that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches might think that this is amusing or a case for dismissing the argument, but they ought to consider the serious consequences for domestic violence victims and police operations across the country. Faced with such circumstances, Home Office officials are obliged to consider that risks are involved. They might not have known the final details until the written judgment arrived, but they should have been preparing, asking for further information from the judge and starting to work out options in case Home Office Ministers needed to act fast when the full information became available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I am sure that there would be a vote against it, probably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

It is important that Parliament is kept informed. The fact that this legislation had to be scrutinised in this way meant that the Home Secretary’s presence this week was very helpful.

Government Members need to be mindful of the fact that Opposition Front Benchers are supporting the Government on this matter. Government Members were a little unfair to the shadow Home Secretary. It is right that she is able to raise issues concerning the time line. Select Committee members from both sides of the House necessarily raised that issue with the Home Secretary on Tuesday, and indeed with the chief constable of Essex and the commander in the Met who deals with these matters. I commend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for their speeches. Although they disagreed on issues concerning the time line, there was absolute agreement with what the Government propose, just as there is unanimous support for it in the Select Committee.

I want to raise two issues with the Home Secretary. The first relates to the position of the Attorney-General and the importance of Law Officers being involved in this process. As the Home Secretary said and as I know from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s Department in the last Government, advice given by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General is by its nature confidential to the Government. However, when this case was first decided on in Salford, I think it was incumbent on Greater Manchester police, who had conduct of this matter, to inform Home Office officials about it, and I am sure that they did. I have not checked the time line, but I am sure that is what they said they did. The Home Office officials should then have consulted the Law Officers. After all, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have superintendence over the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose role is extremely important in these matters.

I am sure that if the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he will talk about the role of ACPO in this matter. Of course we are interested in the role of ACPO, because under the new landscape of policing, ACPO will be reformed. In making this legislation, we are putting a lot of faith in the advice given to ACPO by two Queen’s counsel, and in the advice that it gave Ministers. The chief constable of Essex clarified after the evidence session that he finally told the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice last Thursday that it was time to go back to the House to pass legislation, which is what the Minister told the House last Thursday. The chief constable had originally told the Committee in open session that it was the day after when he finally made up his mind.

I do not think that these issues ought to be left to ACPO. They are serious issues that ought to occupy the time of Home Office officials. I hope that Home Office officials in this case did alert the Law Officers. I am not asking for a time line from the Minister when he replies, but it would be nice to know whether that happened. I believe that the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department have a role in this, because at the end of the day, it is they who have to go to the courts to represent the Government. I accept what the Home Secretary says and that she has no locus standi in these matters, but this needs to be kept under review. If we look to the future rather than the past, and accept that what the Government have to do, as outlined by the Home Secretary, is the right approach, we should be aware that these things may well happen in the future. I know about the points made by Professor Michael Zander. I have not put down a parliamentary question to ask whether Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, where he wrote his article, is standard reading in the Home Office or the Law Officers’ Department.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is setting out his concerns in relation to the time line, and much has been made by his right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter. Every reference is being made to the legal advice. I am sure that with his immense experience at the Home Affairs Committee, he will accept the role that ACPO had, not only in seeking its own legal advice, but in looking at the operational implications. Understanding whether the police could operationally work within the judgment was a crucial part of the decision making in this matter.

[Keith Vaz]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right; the operational decisions have to be taken by ACPO. I just say to her that in her new landscape, ACPO’s role will change. She may therefore want to consider whether this area should be led by whatever ACPO becomes or whether it should be another part of the new landscape. This issue might happen again. I want to make it absolutely clear that none of this is the fault of Ministers. We raise the time line only—at least I raise the time line only—because should this happen again, we may need to look at the way in which things develop.

On that note, I will terminate my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can earn some brownie points for the future.

G6 Meeting (Madrid, 30 June 2011)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Written Statements

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

The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK held their most recent meeting in Madrid, Spain on 30 June under the Spanish presidency of the group. The meeting was chaired by the Spanish Minister for the Interior and Deputy Prime Minister Alfredo Pèrez Rubalcaba.

The meeting was divided into two working sessions which were attended by the G6 Ministers of the Interior. Germany and Italy were represented at ambassadorial and junior Minister level respectively. Additional guests included the US Deputy Attorney-General, James Cole; the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano; European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, and the EU Counter-terrorism Co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove.

The first working session considered the transnational threats of Africa’s Sahel region, including the strengthening of terrorist groups, notably al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM), and drugs, arms and people trafficking. Delegates agreed on the significance and nature of the threat and the security implications for the EU and the US, and recognised the importance of co-ordinated international action and increased capacity building in the countries of the region. There was wide concern about the negative impact of recent upheaval in north Africa and, above all, the conflict in Libya. The Home Secretary also underlined that the payment of kidnap ransoms was against international law and served to bolster terrorist and criminal groups. It was agreed that the election of the new President in Niger and the improvement in relations between countries in the region, notably between Algeria and Mali, was encouraging. There was seen to be a window of opportunity to put the EU Sahel strategy into action and to improve dialogue with the UN and the African Union.

The second session focused on the recovery of criminal assets. Ministers discussed both improvements in and ongoing difficulties associated with recovering the proceeds of crime. The Home Secretary outlined some of the UK’s successes in this area, announcing that it had impacted on over £1 billion of criminal assets in 2010 and that the National Crime Agency (to be launched in 2013) would play a key role in tackling money laundering and recovering the proceeds of crime through its economic crime command. The US underlined the importance of keeping legislative frameworks and processes up to date with ever changing money laundering methods. Delegates agreed that greater international co-operation and better use of the tools and powers available in the pursuit of criminal profits were essential, but that secure channels had to be used for the exchange of sensitive information.

In addition to the two plenary sessions, the Poles presented their justice and home affairs priorities for their EU presidency and the French presented plans for their G6 presidency, both of which would commence the following day (1 July). The Home Secretary also held separate bilateral meetings with the other heads of delegation to discuss a range of issues including extradition, north Africa, asylum, migration, counter-terrorism, aviation security, passenger name records (PNR) and the data retention directive.



The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in France in November or December.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What recent assessment her Department has made of the relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.

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

The Select Committee on Home Affairs said in February:

“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”

The Government agree.

[Gavin Shuker]

A 43% reduction in crime was achieved under the last Government, in part, and not least, because of the 17,000 new police officers that were brought in during that period. Why would the Home Secretary put that at risk by cutting 12,000?

[Mrs May]

I have answered the point about the relationship between police numbers and levels of crime and we have been absolutely clear that it is not simple. Our view is backed up by the Home Affairs Committee and by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who said last September:

“I don’t think it’s possible to make a direct correlation between police numbers and crime reduction”.

Once again, the Government agree.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

According to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, even when we had a record number of police officers, only 11% were visible and available to the public at any one time. Does that not show that it must be possible, even if the number of officers falls, to protect and perhaps improve the visibility of police on our streets?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point and that HMIC report’s importance lay in the fact that it pointed out the issues about the visibility and availability of police officers as well as that more police officers were visible and available on a Monday morning than on a Friday night. That came as news to many people living in town centres, where there are considerable problems on Friday nights. We must ensure that police officers are deployed in the most effective way so that they can fight crime.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

In 15 days’ time, 2,000 police officers will gather in Central hall to voice their opposition to the Government’s plans on their pay and conditions and the reduction in numbers. The Home Secretary is right to quote the Select Committee’s conclusions, but only two weeks ago the Police Federation told us that morale in the police service was at its lowest in a generation. What steps will she take to ensure that the police understand that what she is doing to reshape the landscape of policing, which is her right, is for the benefit of the public and of the police?

[Mrs May]

We are doing what we are doing with the distinct intention of ensuring that we have a police force that can move forward in the 21st century and provide the policing that is necessary and that people want. That means considering pay, terms and conditions and the flexibility of the work force as well as the bureaucracy that has tied too many of our police officers to their desks and to form filling rather than allowing them to be out on the streets fighting crime. This Government are making a distinct difference to that bureaucracy by slashing it, so that the police can do what people want them to out on the streets.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the Opposition consistently refer to 20% cuts in police budgets. Will she confirm that as there will be no cut in the precept funding and as public sector pay is expected to be frozen, the cut in money received by the police will be in the order of 6%, not 20%?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition talk about Government funding, but every police force in this country has funding available from the precept. At the end of the four-year period of the comprehensive spending review, police will have 6% less funding. That is the figure that people should concentrate on, rather than what the Opposition say.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

4. If she will assess the merits of excluding from entry to the UK those people who were involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

9. What recent estimate she has made of the number of people who are addicted to a class A drug.

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

The chaotic lives of drug addicts make it difficult for the Government to make an official estimate of the total number of people addicted to Class A drugs. However, for two drugs in this category—opiates and crack cocaine—the Government estimated in 2008-09 that there were more than 320,000 users in England. Figures for 2009-10 will be available later this year.

[John Mann]

We know that it is difficult for the coalition partners to agree on drugs, but surely that is no excuse for their total inaction and silence on drugs policy and on tackling drugs since coming into power. When will we see some action on drugs and some drugs policy emerge from this Government?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he could not be more wrong in his assessment of what the coalition Government have being doing. A few months ago we published a new drugs strategy, which is looking not only at the action being taken by the police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to apprehend those dealing drugs and importing them into the UK, but at responsibility for rehabilitation. We have a clear message that we can use payment by results, working with organisations in the private sector and in the voluntary and charitable sector, to ensure that we do not just churn drug addicts through courses that take them off drugs and then return them to the same environment where they are pressured back on to drugs, but instead that we give them a longer-lasting solution that helps them get off drugs forever.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Last week the Justice Secretary told the House that almost one tenth of people who have used heroin first did so while in prison. What actions have the Home Department’s national crime agencies taken to catch and seek to prosecute people who illegally take class A drugs into our prisons?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and action is taken in two ways. The Ministry of Justice is now looking at drug-free wings in prisons, so work is being done on that, but in the Home Office we continue, through not just regional police forces but the Serious Organised Crime Agency, to fight the fight against drug dealers and those who import drugs to this country, and that fight continues.

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

12. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of her plans for the national DNA database on the number of DNA matches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

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

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

The Home Office is committed to protecting the public, controlling immigration, securing our borders and helping the police to combat and prevent crime and terrorism. I recently announced to the House the outcomes of our review of the Prevent strategy to counter radicalisation and our plans for a new national crime agency, which will be a powerful body of operational crime fighters who will secure our borders, tackle organised crime, fight economic crime and protect vulnerable children and young people.

[Alun Cairns]

The Prime Minister had significant success in Brussels last week in maintaining strong rules on the deportation of illegal immigrants. What role will the border police command play in allowing that to be delivered?

[Mrs May]

The new border police command within the national crime agency will play a very important role in ensuring that we can protect our borders. What is crucial about its role within the agency is that we will be able to bring together a number of bodies that deal with crimes and activity across our borders. That will enable us to get much greater effectiveness in dealing with such problems.

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

In January the Government let lapse provision for pre-charge detention for 28 days. The Home Secretary said that she needed a fast way to restore it if needed, but her counter-terror review stated that the current order-making power was too slow. We warned her then that her new proposal for emergency primary legislation was not workable, and the senior Joint Committee has now concluded that it is “totally unsatisfactory and ineffective”. It is now six months since she changed the limit, and there is still no satisfactory emergency back-up plan in place. When will she get this sorted out?

[Mrs May]

We remain of the view that it is important to have that legislation available for Parliament to enact, and that in the vast majority of circumstances it is appropriate that that is done after Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the matter. There is a question about what happens when Parliament is dissolved. We have considered that and will bring forward proposals for an order-making power to cover the dissolution of Parliament.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

T2. I very much welcome the steps that the Government are taking to protect women and children from domestic and sexual violence. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituents from Esteem, based in Truro, who run the only service in England for men who suffer from those dreadful and often hidden crimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

The chief constable of South Yorkshire, Meredydd Hughes, has said that reductions in back-office support will put an increased operational burden on officers, which will detract from their front-line duties. Does not that show that the Home Secretary’s reductions in red tape are just a sham?

[Mrs May]

No. I am very pleased to say that the chief constable of South Yorkshire has also made the clear point that despite challenging times he is,

“confident that the men and women of South Yorkshire Police will continue to effectively serve their communities”

and that they are determined to uphold the standards that they have been able to maintain in recent years.

Throughout the country, chief constables are rising to the challenge and ensuring that they protect services to the public while making necessary budget cuts.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T5. What steps is the Home Secretary taking in these difficult times to support the work of women’s refuges, such as the one in my constituency, in their important work?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Home Office has, of course, protected £28 million over the next four years for specialist support services in relation to domestic violence and violence against women. At a meeting on 14 June, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I heard from stakeholders, including the providers of women’s refuges, about the funding issues that they face. We have discussed with local authorities, mainly through the Department for Communities and Local Government, how local authorities should continue to support women’s refuges in their important work.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Each year, 5,000 people are arrested but not charged with rape. Will one of the Ministers, hopefully the Home Secretary, tell me for how many of those 5,000 it is appropriate for the police to apply to hold their DNA on record?

[Mrs May]

The whole point of the arrangement under the Protection of Freedoms Bill is that it will be for the police to make a decision about those individuals for whom they think it appropriate to apply to retain that DNA. However, I repeat a point that fellow Ministers made earlier: we are taking a different overall approach from the previous Labour Government because we believe that we cannot assume that everyone who is arrested is automatically guilty. The Labour Government made that assumption. We are putting safeguards in place to ensure that the police can make a judgment and apply for the retention of DNA for those arrested and not charged in circumstances that the police believe to be operationally important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In the spirit of joined-up government, will the Home Secretary discuss with the Defence Secretary the future of the Ministry of Defence police? The previous Labour Government cut the number of MOD police officers in Colchester garrison from 30 to 3, and I regret that our Government now talk of cutting the number of MOD police by 1,000.

[Mrs May]

I note that my hon. Friend was quite careful in the phrasing of his question, because of course, this is an MOD responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have regular discussions on matters that affect both our Departments, and I am sure that we can put that on to the agenda.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

The Greater Manchester police announced this day, I believe, that more than 200 serving police officers and 600 back-room staff will be shed. Will any Home Office Minister come to the Dispatch Box and promise my constituents that, if the great gains in crime detection and prevention are not continued, they will reverse the cuts and allow numbers to go back to where they were?

[Nick Herbert]

rose—

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend and I are both eager to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

We know full well why it is necessary for police forces to make budget cuts—we need to make cuts overall because of the situation with the public sector finances. The chief constable of Greater Manchester police has been absolutely clear on a number of things. For example, he has been absolutely clear that this is a time for transforming how policing is undertaken, and that the changes he is making are focused on delivering the same good quality of service to the residents of the Greater Manchester police area. I would also point out that in evidence to a Select Committee of this House, he pointed out in terms that in the past, numbers were put up almost artificially, because police officers were put in back offices.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

What tools will the Home Department make available to local police and local agencies to tackle ingrained and site-specific antisocial behaviour?

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The Lucy Faithfull Foundation and Surrey police have successfully trialled software that monitors internet use by registered sex offenders, and the Home Secretary has indicated that she wants to take steps to close the loopholes in the monitoring of registered sex offenders. Therefore, why was there not one single word about the internet in her consultation on the monitoring of sex offenders when it was launched two weeks ago?

[Mrs May]

We retain an interest in the whole question of the internet. The consultation that we launched was about a number of proposals that we will put in place in reaction to the Supreme Court judgment on the interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998, and to the fact that sex offenders should now have the right of appeal as to whether they stay on the register. Alongside putting in the process for dealing with those appeals or a situation in which offenders ask for a review of their reference on the register, we will tighten the loophole by requiring them, for example, to notify the authorities when they are travelling abroad for more than 24 hours, and not the several days—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. With a degree of self-restraint, we can get through a couple more questions.

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend will expect, I do not intend at this stage to comment on that case in the House. A review of extradition law is being conducted by three eminent lawyers who hope to report later this year. The review will include the extradition treaty with the United States, European arrest warrants and other extradition matters.

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

May I return to the Policing Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), which was just not good enough? Many of my constituents consider a public front-desk facility at a police station or police post as part of the front line, so what can the Minister do to reassure the people of Greater Manchester that they will have face-to-face contact with their police service when they need it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that Mr Raed Salah has been invited to speak in the palace precincts. Given this man’s history of virulent anti-Semitism, will the Home Secretary ban him from entering the UK?

[Mrs May]

The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases. I will seek to exclude an individual if I consider that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good, and the Government make no apologies for refusing people access to the UK if we believe that they might seek to undermine our society. Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who seek to subvert our shared values.

EHRC (Annual Report and Accounts)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Written Statements

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

I am today laying before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2009-10 annual report and accounts. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

Control Powers (11 March - 10 June)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Written Statements

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

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 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 the control order powers during that period.

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

The future of the control order regime

On 23 May 2011, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. A copy of the Bill can be found on Parliament’s website. The home page for the Bill is:

http://services.parliament.uk//bills/2010-11/terrorismpreventionandinvestigationmeasures.html

The Bill makes provision for the abolition of control orders and their replacement with a new, less intrusive and more focused regime. The control order system will continue to operate until its replacement is in force.

The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter

As explained in previous quarterly statements, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that the obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During the reporting period, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders in force at the time. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.

During the period 11 March 2011 to 10 June 2011, one new non-derogating control order was made, with the permission of the court, and served. One non-derogating control order which was made, with the permission of the court, during a previous quarter was served during this quarter. A control order already in force at the beginning of this reporting period was revoked on the direction of the court and a new order made and served in its place. Two control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period.

In total, as of 10 June, there were 12 control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Three individuals subject to a control order were living in the metropolitan police district; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas.

One set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order was concluded during this reporting period following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest in the light of the revocation of the control order to which they were related.

During this reporting period, 60 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-five requests to modify control order obligations were refused.

Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Three appeals have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order or to modify any obligation under their order. During this reporting period two appeals were lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.

On 5 April 2011 a judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal in BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA CIV 366, in relation to the appeal brought by BM against the decision of the High Court to uphold his control order. The Court of Appeal allowed BM’s appeal. It found that the High Court did not consider the correct legal test at the initial review of the control order because it only considered whether the control order was necessary at the date of the hearing and not at the date it was made. It further found that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the control order was flawed from the outset. The Court of Appeal made clear that it only considered the open evidence against BM in reaching this decision. The judgment recognised that the Secretary of State argued that the control order was justified on the totality of the evidence, including closed evidence that was not before them, but found that they should consider only the open evidence that was before them so as to avoid delaying the outcome of this case. The Court of Appeal directed that the control order should be revoked 48 hours after hand-down with retrospective effect from the date on which it was made.

On 20 May 2011 a judgment was handed down by the High Court in CD v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011]EWHC 1273(admin) in relation to the appeal brought by CD under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against the decision to refuse to remove an obligation that would require him to relocate away from his previous area of residence. The judge dismissed the appeal, concluding that the relocation obligation was a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist related attack. The judge also found that the Secretary of State should contribute to the travel costs of CD’s family. He made clear that the finding in this case does not mean that a contribution to travel costs should be made in every case of relocation.

Most full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org.

Justice and Home Affairs (Post-Council Statement)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 9 and 10 June in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary of Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom, the following issues were discussed at the Council:

(The Council began in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The presidency reported that preparations for the VIS go-live date of October 2011 were on track. The Commission underlined the importance of member states notifying their preparedness by the end of July to allow time for the necessary legal and technical preparations.

The update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) confirmed that implementation was still on track.

The Council agreed the draft regulation on creating an IT agency. This will now be considered by the European Parliament to establish whether it can be the basis for a first reading deal.

In advance of the June European Council, Ministers held a wide-ranging debate on borders, asylum and migration, adopting conclusions reacting to three Commission communications on immigration issued last month. The UK highlighted that a stable, secure and prosperous future for the region required effective management of migration, mobility and security. Migration should be considered in assessing reform in the European neighbourhood. The global approach to migration provided the tools and principles for partnerships on migration and member state involvement was vital. Dialogue had to be balanced and transparent. On asylum, the UK raised concerns about the emphasis on legislative solutions: the problem was not a lack of rules, but implementation of the existing ones. While agreeing to the draft conclusions, the UK stated that they did not believe that the common European asylum system was in the UK’s national interest and any further opt-in decision would be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking account of national interests. The UK opposed suspension of the Dublin arrangements for the return of asylum seekers to their first port of entry into the EU and relocation or burden-sharing options but supported practical co-operation. Finally, the UK said a comprehensive approach to migration had to address the issue of free movement. Public support could not be undermined by fraud and abuse of residence rights and associated benefits. The UK and Frontex figures showed sham marriage was on the rise, with evidence of links to organised crime. The balance between safeguarding rights and protecting citizens was vital. The UK said that this issue should be discussed at a future meeting to meet the Stockholm programme commitments in this area.

The Commission presented proposals to amend Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 which lists third country nationals who must possess visas to cross the external borders of the Schengen area and those exempt from this requirement. The Commission’s amendments also include the introduction of a suspension mechanism to allow for the temporary reintroduction of visa requirements in an emergency situation. It would apply to all current and future countries granted Schengen visa waiver (not just the western Balkans). The Commission stressed that it would be applied only in very exceptional cases and as a last resort. The UK does not participate.

Next the Council discussed elements of amending the Frontex regulation. The Commission underlined the importance of reaching agreement with the European Parliament by the June European Council. Frontex agreed on the need for urgency; the agency was at a critical point and could not continue without a revised regulation. There was general agreement on balancing member state responsibilities for border control with the obligation of others to provide resources to support them. The Commission stated that the respect of fundamental rights was of the highest political importance to both the European Parliament and the Commission; the Council would have to agree to the independent monitoring of return operations. Member states disagreed on another name for the proposed “European Border Guard System”. Discussions on the regulation will continue at COREPER ahead of a further trialogue with the European Parliament next week.

The presidency presented Council conclusions confirming that Bulgaria and Romania had successfully completed the Schengen evaluation process; the Council will discuss accession in September.

Finally the Commission presented the main findings from the first six months of monitoring the impact of granting visa liberalisation to the western Balkans. Even though the large majority of travellers are bona fide, there had been a high number of unfounded asylum applications in certain member states relating to minority populations (especially Roma). The Commission underlined that the western Balkan countries were starting to address these problems. A number of follow-up measures would now be necessary, including targeted information campaigns, increased use of border controls and entry bans, and targeted assistance to minority populations.

Following Mixed Committee, Interior Ministers held a lunchtime discussion on asylum where the Commission presented revised proposals to amend the procedures and reception conditions directives. The upcoming Polish presidency said all their efforts would be focused on agreeing at least a core of a common system by 2012. The UK reiterated that a common asylum system would not be in the UK’s national interest.

After lunch, the Council resumed with the Commission giving a short update on three legal migration directives: seasonal workers, intra-corporate transferees and the single permit for residence and work on which they hoped the electronic storage of data would allow a way forward. The UK is not participating in these measures.

Next the Council agreed conclusions on establishing priorities in the fight against organised crime over the next two years.

The Commission presented its air cargo security progress report on the implementation of the EU action plan of 30 November 2011. Commissioner Malmström regretted the negative vote at the Regulatory Committee (the preceding day) due to “difficulty” between transport and security officials in member states and called for greater co-operation. The UK expressed “extreme disappointment” at the outcome in Regulatory Committee, emphasised the threat remained significant and that the proposals voted on would significantly improve standards and called for Transport Ministers to reconsider this.

The presidency adopted the Council conclusions aligning internal and external counter-terrorism. The EU counter-terrorism co-ordinator (EU CTC) presented his discussion paper, highlighting the Arab spring, EU engagement in Pakistan and disappointment at the Regulatory Committee vote. The UK welcomed the EU CTC’s paper, specifically the importance of communication; the link between CT and drugs, the rule of law and organised crime; nuclear security, aviation security; political dialogue with the Arab world and progress on EU PNR. The UK agreed the threat remained strong and said that the EU must target efforts on areas of greatest risk (while complementing member states’ actions) and welcomed the EU Pakistan strategy. The UK asserted the importance of EU passenger name records, committed to supporting the communicators’ network, thanked the Presidency for the conclusions on aligning internal and external CT and highlighted the launch of the UK’s new Prevent strategy.

Under AOB there was a presentation of the project “Police Equal Performance" which is designed to enhance law enforcement capacity in cross-border activities in the western Balkans; a finalised proposal should be completed by the autumn. The upcoming Polish presidency gave a presentation on their priorities which included the common package for asylum; action to tackle synthetic drugs; the Eastern partnership, civil protection; and management of the external border.

The justice day commenced with the Council reaching a general approach on the directive on combating attacks against information systems. The UK welcomed the text, although noted reservations about the developing trend of providing in all such instruments for extra-territorial jurisdiction based on jurisdiction; this should not become the default approach.

Next, the Commission introduced its package of proposals on corruption, including a Commission decision on an anti-corruption reporting mechanism and a paper on EU accession to GRECO (the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption). The Commission thought Europe had to take this in hand and that corruption had a significant cross-border element, hence the importance of EU involvement in improving the patchy implementation of existing international standards. The Commission was mindful of avoiding additional burdens through the reporting mechanism.

The presidency secured a partial general approach on articles 1 to 18 and Y of the draft directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO), although acknowledged that aspects of the text might need to be revisited at a later stage. Many member states congratulated the presidency on the progress made over the last few months, although it was clear that substantial concessions had been made across the Council, with the grounds for refusing to execute an EIO being the most controversial issue. The UK could not support the current text, maintaining its parliamentary scrutiny reservation. The UK disagreed with the current exceptions to the dual criminality check which executing states could undertake in respect of the most sensitive and serious investigative measures. The drafting of the provision on ne bis in idem might also need to be revisited at a later stage. The incoming Polish presidency intends to continue the negotiations.

Next the Council adopted conclusions on the memory of crimes committed by the totalitarian regimes in Europe. Several member states intervened to recall the importance of action in this area and said they would prefer a legally binding instrument in this field.

The Council then agreed the proposed resolution establishing a road map for future action on protection of victims’ rights. The road map is a statement of political intent, and sets out the basis for future legislative measures. The UK agreed the road map.

The Commission also presented the recently published victims package, including a draft directive on rights in criminal proceedings, a regulation on protection measures in civil matters and a communication on strengthening victims’ rights in the EU. The UK noted the presentation and has yet to make its decision on the opt-in for the directive and regulation.

The presidency also introduced its political guidelines which aimed to set the direction for fundamental issues in the matter of the proposed regulation on succession and wills. The compromise was welcomed by the majority of member states. The UK was grateful for explicit commitment to revisit some issues at a later point to facilitate its possible participation.

Over lunch, Ministers discussed a presidency paper on the future of EU criminal policy.

After lunch the Council noted the proposal for a regulation on electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union, which would give proper recognition and legal certainty to the electronic version. As some member states (including the UK) could not lift their parliamentary scrutiny reservations, the text could not be forwarded to the European Parliament for consent, but agreement would enable quick progress to be made should reservations be lifted.

The Council agreed the revised road map on implementation of the European e-justice action plan and endorsed the report of the working party on e-law, without discussion.

The presidency gave an update on the state of play on negotiations on the accession agreement of the European Union to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission expressed the view that considerable progress has been made in the timeframe and they looked forward to continuing work with the Council of Europe.

Then the Commission introduced the recently published communication on protection of the financial interest of the Union through criminal law and administrative investigations.

The Commission presented its communication on protecting EU funds against fraud and other criminal conduct. Commissioner Reding highlighted the proposed reform of the internal structure of Eurojust, in order to provide OLAF (the EU’s anti-fraud office) with a judicial partner, and the importance that a European public prosecutor (EPP) could play in protecting public money across EU. The Government have made it clear that they will not participate in an EPP.

There was a presentation on the missing children Europe conference that took place on 25 and 26 May 2011. The presidency and the Commission recalled the successful conference to raise awareness of the 116000 hotline for missing children, although were disappointed that a substantial number of member states had not yet fully implemented the helpline, the deadline for which had now passed. The UK has implemented the hotline and it is fully operational.

Slovenia also updated delegations on the Brdo conference of the western Balkans, held on 15 April at Brdo pro Kranju, which focused on improving judicial co-operation in criminal matters, in particular in relation to organised crime and asset recovery.

Germany also informed the Council of its impending accession to the network for legislative co-operation, which would take place on 17 June at the next meeting of the network, in Budapest.

Finally, Poland presented its priorities for the presidency, which begins on 1 July 2011, and confirmed that they would focus on protection of citizens’ rights. They hoped to make progress on the regulation on succession and wills and the Brussels I regulation and prioritise the Commission’s package of proposals on victims. Poland also indicated that it would hold discussions on EU contract law at the informal JHA Council on 18 and 19 July.

Women (Government Policies)

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

Yet again, we have heard a speech from the Opposition Benches that included no recognition of the economic mess that the last Government left us, no constructive suggestions and no positive policy proposals for the future of this country. That is not constructive opposition, it is shameless opportunism.

Let me remind the Opposition once more why we are having to take action to restore sanity to our public finances. They left us with the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, and they left us spending £120 million every single day just on paying the interest on the debt that they racked up. That is more than we spend each day on policing, schools or child benefit. They left us with a deficit higher than that of Portugal or Greece, which have had to go cap in hand to the EU for a bail out. The experience of those countries shows that the risks of not dealing with Labour’s deficit are not imaginary but very real.

[Yvette Cooper]

Does the right hon. Lady think that the Labour Government should have cut public spending in the middle of a recession, and not allowed additional support for those who were unemployed and for businesses? If so, does she think the economy would have been growing at the time of the election if that had been done?

[Mrs May]

The Labour party, and the right hon. Lady as a former Treasury Minister, knows full well the risks of failing to deal with the deficit today. That is shown not just by what we are doing, but by what the Labour party itself said it would do if it was in government. I am talking about the position that we are in today, which was left us by the Labour Government, and the actions that we are having to take to deal with it. She must recognise that if the Labour party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 that the current Government are cutting.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Opposition understand that the deficit must be dealt with and we want to get growth moving, but does the right hon. Lady think that that will happen if women are forced out of their jobs because they cannot pay their child care costs?

[Mrs May]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s claim that the Opposition understand dealing with the deficit rings false when we hear what they say the Government should do about the deficit. On the one hand, the Labour party tries to argue that what the Government are doing to address the deficit is wrong, and on the other hand Labour Members remain silent about the fact that a Labour Government would cut £7 of every £8 that this Government are cutting this year. We hear nothing from the Opposition about where those cuts would fall.

[Kate Green]

The issue for the Opposition is exactly where the cuts fall. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, not only is the bulk of the Government’s deficit reduction programme hitting women, but women’s unemployment is increasing disproportionately compared with men’s unemployment.

[Mrs May]

In the last three months, the increase in employment for women was greater than the increase in employment for men. Opposition Members, including the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), have said today that what the Government are doing is wrong. We hear that in debate after debate. Opposition Members stand up and tell us that the cuts in virtually every area of public sector expenditure are wrong. If they were in government, they would be making cuts. In that case, the question for them is where they would make those cuts.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the deficit was the price we paid to avoid depression? The choice for the Government is whether to make deep and savage cuts that will stop growth, and to increase VAT, which will stoke inflation, or to focus on growth and make more balanced savings over time, and, obviously, to make the bankers pay their fair share. In the case of the police, the Opposition would cut 12% rather than 20%. That is a more balanced approach that would not undermine growth or increase the deficit in the process.

[Mrs May]

The premise on which the hon. Gentleman began his intervention was incorrect, because he failed to recognise that we are dealing with a structural deficit. This is not about the world recession, but about the structural deficit that was built up by the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must remember that this is a debate about women. We do not want to go too far talking about the deficit. I know that the two tie in, but we are in danger of having a deficit debate rather than ensuring that the women’s debate is heard.

[Mrs May]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall move off the —[Interruption.]

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again to give me an idea of where the Labour party would make cuts if it were in government, he is free to do so.

[Geraint Davies]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that something like a third of the deficit was excess investment—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Answer came there none to my challenge to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government’s action is taking Britain out of the danger zone, but we are also taking action to deal with Labour’s record deficit in a way that protects the most vulnerable, whether they are men, women or children. We have therefore had to take some difficult decisions on public spending, but in a way that has allowed us to protect the public service on which women most rely—we are increasing spending on the NHS in real terms every year. The Opposition cannot say that they would do that, because they would cut spending on the NHS.

Yes, we have had to implement a public sector pay freeze, but that has allowed us to protect against more public sector job losses. Even as we implement the pay freeze, we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers, almost two thirds of whom are women. Again, the Opposition cannot say that they would do that.

Yes, the Government have had to make tax changes, but as we have done so we are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether, the majority of whom are women. That was opposed by the Labour party, which is surprising given that it claims to be committed to redistribution.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs May]

I shall make some progress.

Yes, the Government have taken the difficult decision to remove tax credits from higher earning families, but that has meant that we can increase child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against increases in child poverty. In fact, that decision has meant that we can increase child tax credits by £180 and then £110 a year over and above the level promised by Labour. Those policies are not just about helping women, but about protecting the most vulnerable.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady said that the increase in tax allowances helps women. In fact, the figures produced by the House of Commons Library show that the increase in the tax allowance benefited 13,500 women and 16,800 men. Even what she did to benefit households benefited more men than women. In addition, her cuts—in child tax credits, child benefit and so on—all came from women. That is the point. She is taking far more from women, but when she gives some back, she gives more back to men.

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely clear that the majority of the lowest-paid workers are women, as are the majority of workers who were taken out of tax. The right hon. Lady refers again to the House of Commons Library figures—she keeps quoting them—but they were produced on a remit that she gave to the Library. Interestingly, she earlier spoke of the distribution and sharing of incomes within households. However, the assumptions on benefits made in the figures that she quotes go against what she was saying about what happens within families.

For the first time, people will have the information to judge for themselves whether they think the Government’s decisions are fair. We have been making some difficult decisions, but for the first time the Government published an overview of the impact of the spending review on groups that are protected by equalities legislation, including women. The analysis demonstrated that our decisions mean that services used by women are protected. With our Budgets in 2010 and this year, and with the spending review, we published unprecedented distributional analysis of our proposals, as the IFS has acknowledged. Such analyses were never published by the previous Government. Perhaps if they had thought to publish such information, they would have avoided policies that hit some of the poorest the hardest, such as scrapping the 10p tax rate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned.

I reject the Opposition notion that we can judge the value of a policy simply by looking at the number of men or women who are affected by it. We should not reduce the amount that we invest in tackling youth unemployment just because more young men than young women are unemployed, but that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. They say that spending on tackling youth unemployment would be unfair on women.

We should not stop investment in policies that will return Britain to growth, such as cutting corporation tax, because more men run companies than women. However, again that is exactly what the Opposition’s analysis suggests we should do. I reject that argument. We need to ensure that more women can start businesses as we invest in getting Britain’s economy going. In fact, one symptom of the inequality between men and women is that more women than men rely on state spending.

We need to continue to support all women who need it, which is why we have ensured that we have protected child benefit and tax credits for women on low incomes, and why we will increase the value of the state pension, and protect benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for older women. However, if the previous Government taught us one thing, it is that more state spending might help to deal with the symptoms of inequality, but it does not address the causes. This Government are determined to get to grips with the causes of inequality between men and women, from job opportunities to the number of women in top, senior positions, to tackling the shameful levels of violence against women, and working to reverse the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will know that some of the key causes of inequality come into play during the very earliest years of a child’s life. Can she explain why her Government are cutting £5 million from the early intervention grant in Leicester, which covers children’s centres and Sure Start, which are crucial to giving all children the very best start in life?

[Mrs May]

We agree that early intervention is very important and, as the hon. Lady will know, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) produced a very significant report for the Government on the whole issue of early intervention. The Government are ensuring that, within the early intervention budget, there is sufficient funding to provide for a network of Sure Start centres. We are also ensuring—as we are in other areas, as I have mentioned in terms of focusing what the Government spend on the most vulnerable and those most in need—that Sure Start is returned to the early focus it was intended to have by the last Labour Government, which was helping those who are most in need, those on the lowest incomes and those who most need access to the sort of provision that Sure Start and children’s centres can provide.

I want the Government to take a new, more mature approach to engaging with women. I want to see women’s voices in government strengthened. That is why we launched a consultation on how the Government listen to and engage with women, which has already received nearly 900 responses. In today’s world, we need to make full use of communications technology, social media and other techniques to allow us to talk to women directly.

The Government are focused on giving opportunities to women. We need to move beyond just protection from discrimination and help women to get on in modern businesses and modern workplaces. Many women have benefited from the introduction of the right to request flexible working for parents and carers, but by restricting flexible working to certain groups, the idea was perpetuated that this is some sort of special treatment. We will therefore extend the right to request flexible working to all employees. This will not only shift attitudes, but will help to shift behaviour away from the traditional 9-to-5 model of work that can act as a barrier to many women and that also does not make sense for many modern businesses.

Another stereotype we need to shift is the idea that women should do the caring and men should earn the money when a couple decide to start a family. Our policy to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will make a real difference to working women who want to have children. For the first time, it will allow both parents to choose what is right for them and what is right for their family. If fathers want to take more of a role, they can. If mothers want to return to work earlier, they can. If parents want some time at home together after the birth of their child, they can have it. What matters is that they will have a choice.

[Helen Goodman]

I agree with the Home Secretary that we want to maximise people’s choices, but she must be aware that most non-resident parents are men and most parents with care are women, and that the latter have lower incomes. How can she justify putting a charge on those parents with care when the non-resident parent is not paying up on child maintenance?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have had a consultation on how we deal with the child maintenance issue. I hope that she would agree that despite the efforts of both Conservative and Labour persuasions over several years, we have not got the child maintenance system right in this country. There are too many people who do not see the absent parent paying child maintenance and we need to do everything we can to get a system that will work. As she will know, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), is looking at this issue and the alternatives available under the child maintenance proposals.

As well as giving all women better opportunities in the workplace, we need to do more to help those who aspire to the very top. Last year, only 12.5 % of all FTSE 100 board members were women. That is simply not good enough, and that is why the Government commissioned Lord Davies to look at how we can increase the number of women on company boards. We have made good progress in implementing Lord Davies’ recommendations. In May, the Financial Reporting Council launched a consultation on changes to the UK corporate governance code in order to help to achieve more diverse and more effective boards. The head-hunting industry has agreed a voluntary code on diversity, and we are building a strong sense of ownership and action in FTSE 100 companies. We have agreed with them a plan for how company aspirational targets should be published by September.

The latest figures suggest there has already been an improvement in FTSE 100 companies, just by our shining a light on this area. Some 31% of new board members appointed since Lord Davies’ report have been women, up from just 13% last year, and the number of male-only boards has dropped from 21 in October to 14.

We are also helping women to break through the glass ceiling by providing an all-age careers service. The new service will be fully operational by next April, and will provide high quality, professional careers guidance that will be open to all young people and adults. That will help women to make the right choices for themselves and for their careers. For the lowest paid, we will raise the minimum wage to £6.08—two thirds of those on the minimum wage are women.

In other areas we are also making the right decisions to help the most vulnerable. On pensions, again we have had to make some difficult decisions. Yes, we have proposed accelerating the rate at which the state pension age for women becomes the same as the state pension age for men. With life expectancy rising—and one in nine women pensioners is now expected to live to more than 100—and with the overwhelming need to reduce the deficit, this was a decision we could not duck. But it means that at the same time we have been able to commit to a triple guarantee, which will increase the basic state pension by earnings, prices or by 2.5%, whichever is highest.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford claimed that the earnings link had been restored by the Turner report. Of course the Turner review referred to the earnings link, but the last Government did not restore it. This Government have restored the earnings link and gone further with the triple guarantee.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Do I take it from what the Home Secretary says that the reason for the acceleration of the state pension age to 66 by 2020 is that the Government can pay for the triple lock on today’s pensions? It cannot be about deficit reduction because it comes after the deficit is supposed to have been abolished.

[Mrs May]

In fact, by the end of the comprehensive spending review period we will still have a debt of £1.4 trillion, which is three times the debt in 2006-07, so we will still need to look carefully at our public sector finances. It is this Government who have introduced that triple lock on pensions that will benefit today’s pensioners. For too long under the previous Government, older women had to rely on means-tested benefits, with many not claiming their entitlements at all. Our triple guarantee will help to improve the value of the state pension, giving real security and a decent income for all women pensioners. Although women will experience the rise in the state pension age more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the state pension for an average of 23 years.

[Dame Anne Begg]

To be clear, is the Home Secretary agreeing that the triple lock will be paid for by the 500,000 women who will have to wait longer for their state pension in order to reduce Government debt? That returns us to the essence of this debate—why should women bear a higher proportion of reducing the deficit than men?

[Mrs May]

It is not the case that there is a simple link between the acceleration of women’s pension age and the expenditure on the triple lock. What is happening with pensions is more complex. Two things are happening in relation to the state pension age. The first is the overall acceleration for men and women, raising the age of state pension entitlement. That will bring in significant sums of money and is a reflection not only of Government finance issues but of increased longevity. When the state pension was first introduced, people lived for a very short period, comparatively speaking—a matter of two to five years—beyond their retirement. Today, people live for a significant length of time beyond their retirement. The Government therefore need to raise the state pension age, as has been recognised by previous Governments—the initial decisions to accelerate the rise and raise the state pension age were taken by previous Governments. We have had to take these difficult decisions. As I said, however, although women will experience the rise more quickly than previously planned, they will still draw the pension for an average of 23 years.

[Claire Perry]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of this point, but in the proposals for 2016 and thereafter will we not be addressing the long-standing problem of women who have taken career breaks being ineligible for a state pension, which is a travesty that we should have sorted out before? Under the proposals we will bring forward, there will be much more parity in that area.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that I was about to deal with. In the longer term, we want to take reforms even further. The state pension Green Paper proposed a single-tier state pension combining the state pension and the state second pension to provide an estimated £140 per week, which would be of particular benefit to women who have had to take time out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities. The coalition Government are not just talking about this—we have actually made proposals to help women in this regard.

On health, we are pursuing policies that give real help to women. We have stuck to our promise to increase health spending in real terms; we are sticking to our coalition agreement commitment to increase the number of health visitors by 4,200 by 2015; and we are making available £400 million over the next four years to support breaks for all those hard-working carers, many of whom are women.

I have made it absolutely clear, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, that tackling violence against women and girls is one of my top priorities, which is why in March we published an action plan to tackle the problem; it is why we have provided more than £28 million of stable Home Office funding until 2015 for local specialist services; it is why we have provided £900,000 until 2015 to support national helplines; and it is why for the first time we have put funding for rape crisis centres on a stable footing. We will provide more than £10 million over three years to support their work, and we will open new centres where there are gaps in provision. This should not be a party political issue. It is about helping the 1 million women who suffer domestic abuse each year; the 300,000 women who are sexually assaulted; and the 60,000 women who are raped. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, and that will often be accompanied by years of psychological abuse. That is why the Government take violence against women and girls so seriously.

We will only change damaging behaviour, however, after we have changed the underlying attitudes that cause that behaviour. Those attitudes are fundamentally affected by the culture and society in which children grow up. We share the concern of many parents that children are now being exposed to sexualised images and an increasingly sexualised culture from an early age, which is why we commissioned Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Mothers’ Union, to lead an independent review of the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. He has listened to parents’ concerns about explicit music videos, outdoor adverts and the increasing amount of sexual content in family programming on television.

Reg Bailey’s recommendations call on businesses and broadcasters to play their part, and they include putting age restrictions on music videos, covering up explicit images on the front pages of magazines and newspapers and restricting outdoor adverts near schools, nurseries and playgrounds. He also recommends that retailers sign up to a code of practice that checks and challenges the design, display and marketing of clothes, products and services for children. There has been a great deal of goodwill from the broadcast, retail and advertising industries throughout this review. They know that family-friendly practices make good business sense, and the Government will now look to work with business to implement the review’s proposals.

As well as helping women in this country, we are doing more than ever before to help women overseas. We are putting women at the heart of our international development policies, because in development there are few better options than investing in women. In Ivory Coast, for example, an increase of just $10 in women’s income achieves the same nutritional and health outcomes for children as an increase of $110 in men’s income. On international women’s day, the Department for International Development published its new strategic vision for girls and women. It sets out that, by 2015, our international development work will have saved the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies; will have allowed at least 10 million women to access modern methods of family planning; will have supported more than 9 million children in primary education, of whom at least half will be girls, and 700,000 girls in secondary education; and will have helped 2.3 million women to access jobs and 18 million women to access financial services.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

The majority of part-time students studying for first degrees are women. Ten years ago I graduated as a mature part-time student—and I was pleased to note then that the majority of students were women. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government’s decision to extend loan support to part-time students, which will give women the opportunity to advance their careers through further education?

[Mrs May]

I commend my hon. Friend on his experience and how he got his qualification—I am choosing my words carefully, given what he said about the number of females on the course. However, it is important that we support part-time study, because it is an option that people are increasingly considering. The extra support that we have provided and the way we have dealt with the issue are important steps forward. As he said, such support will have a particularly significant impact on women, given that many part-time students are women.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

On students, women in my constituency often tell me about the need for good English language schools. The Home Secretary will know that the co-financing proposals for speakers of other languages will affect women disproportionately— 74% of those affected by the proposals will be women. What conversations has she had with the relevant Minister about that issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have had a number of conversations over time with the relevant Minister on the issue of English language schools and colleges.

I wish to finish the point about tackling violence against women and girls overseas. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has also been appointed as our overseas champion for tackling violence against women and girls. We have a moral duty to act to support women around the world.

The Opposition’s record on women speaks for itself. They left government with 1 million women unemployed and 200,000 more women unemployed than when they came to power—and that is without even mentioning the deficit. We are sorting out their mess and protecting the most vulnerable, even as we deal with Labour’s deficit, and we are giving women the opportunities they need to be successful: flexible parental leave; more women on boards; careers advice for all; flexible working extended; NHS spending protected; resources for violence against women defended; international development spending centred on women; low-paid people taken out of income tax; pay rises for low-paid public sector workers; child tax credits higher than under Labour; a triple guarantee on pensions; and the minimum wage up. Which of these policies do the Opposition disagree with? Where is their plan to deal with the deficit, to sort out the public finances, and to get Britain back up off its knees? They have no policies that would benefit women, no positive ideas, nothing to say to protect the most vulnerable, and therefore no credibility. All they offer is empty opposition, and that is why their motion deserves to fail.