Control Order Powers Report
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Section 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
The document “The Coalition: A. Programme for Government” released on 20 May 2010 and available to view at: http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk sets out the Government’s plan for the next five years. In that statement the Government stated that
“We will urgently review control orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes”.
This review is now being taken forward as a priority. We will report the outcome of the review to Parliament in due course.
The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
As explained in previous quarterly statements on control orders, 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 options for bringing each control order to an end while managing the risk to the public. During this reporting period, two CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
During the period 11 March 2010 to 10 June 2010, two non-derogating control orders were made with the permission of the court and served. Three control orders were renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period. In this reporting period there was one revocation of a control order on the direction of the court on the basis that the court considered that the order was not necessary.
At the end of the reporting period 12 control orders were in force, 10 of which were in respect of British citizens. All of these control orders were non-derogating. Four of the individuals subject to a control order were living in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals were living in other police force areas. During this reporting period, one individual has been charged with breaching his control order obligations; and one set of criminal proceedings for breach of a control order were concluded following a CPS decision that prosecution was no longer in the public interest.
During this reporting period, 43 modifications of control order obligations were made. Ten 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 under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act have been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period. A right of appeal is also provided by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation under the order. During this reporting period two appeals have been lodged with the High Court under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
One judgment has been handed down in relation to substantive judicial review proceedings under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AN, handed down on 12 March 2010, the court directed the Secretary of State to revoke the control order on the basis that the court considered that the order was not necessary. No further detail can be given for legal reasons.
One judgment has been handed down in relation to proceedings under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BX, handed down on 10 May 2010, the court upheld the decision to relocate BX on the grounds that his removal from his extremist associates was properly regarded as necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting BX’s involvement in terrorism-related activity and proportionate.
Another judgment was handed down in relation to BX by the Court of Appeal, on 4 May 2010. The court dismissed BX’s appeal, holding that the High Court had reached a proper decision in concluding on the material that there were strong grounds for an urgent relocation and in setting early hearings for disclosure and for the appeal. The court found that (other than in a rare case not so far identified) the proper and appropriate route of challenging a modification decision is by way of a statutory appeal under the 2005 Act and that an interlocutory application for an injunction can be made under section 10 of the Act.
One further individual previously subject to a control order has been granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Most full judgments are available at: http://www. bailii.org/.
Vetting and Barring Scheme
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am announcing today that the commencement of voluntary registration with the new vetting and barring scheme (VBS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which was due to begin on 26 July, will be brought to a halt as of today.
The Government have made clear their intention to bring the criminal records and vetting and barring regimes back to common-sense levels. Until this remodelling has taken place, we have decided to maintain those aspects of the new scheme which are already in place, but not to introduce further elements.
The safety of children and vulnerable adults is of paramount importance to the new Government. We will therefore maintain the current arrangements under which the Independent Safeguarding Authority is able to bar from “regulated activities” those considered unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults, and appropriate cases must be referred to them. Criminal records checks will also remain available for those eligible to receive them, and will continue to be required for certain posts where regulations are already in place.
However it is vital that we take a measured approach in these matters. Vulnerable groups must be properly protected in a way that is proportionate and sensible. The remodelling of the VBS will ensure this happens.
The terms of reference for the remodelling of the VBS and of the criminal records regime are currently being considered and a further announcement will be made in due course.
Identity Documents Bill
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am very pleased to introduce the first piece of legislation that the new Administration are putting before Parliament. It signals a profound change in the way in which Government will interact with the people they serve.
The national identity card scheme represents the worst of government. It is intrusive and bullying, ineffective and expensive. It is an assault on individual liberty which does not promise a greater good. The Bill is, therefore, partly symbolic. It sends a message that the Government are going to do business in a different way. We are the servants of the people, not their masters, and every action that we take must be considered in that context.
Of course our first duty is to keep people safe. That truism cannot be repeated often enough. We will do whatever it takes to honour that covenant. Sometimes, respecting the rights of the few while protecting the many will be a delicate balancing act. Not on this occasion. We have no hesitation in making the national identity card scheme an unfortunate footnote in history. There it should remain—a reminder of a less happy time when the Government allowed hubris to trump civil liberties.
Last month, the coalition set out its plans to abolish ID cards and the national identity register. The register contains the biographic and biometric fingerprint data of cardholders. In bringing forward this stand-alone Bill, we are now seeking swift approval to enable us to abolish both.
The Government are of course also bringing forward a freedom Bill, and will launch a consultation on the laws that the British people want to see repealed. So the Identity Documents Bill is just our first measure as we begin to restore the balance between national security and civil liberties—the crucial, delicate balance which was so carelessly abandoned during Labour’s years in office.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I opposed identity cards from the very beginning and I have not changed my views, but will the Home Secretary bear in mind that in 1996 the Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard, announced that the Conservative Government intended to bring in an identity card scheme? It was described as voluntary—whatever that meant. It was not possible to do so for obvious reasons: because of what happened in 1997.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of what was done in 1996 by a former Conservative Home Secretary and what was proposed. That Conservative Government did indeed look at the possibility. We have looked at the idea brought forward by the Labour Government and we do not think that it is right. We take a different view, which is that we should abolish the identity card scheme. The hon. Gentleman referred to his opposition and indeed a number of Labour Members objected to the proposals of their Front-Bench colleagues.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is talking about the abolition of the scheme. Is she telling the House, and the wider country, that the abolition of the scheme will include foreign nationals coming to this country?
Mrs May
No. I shall come to that point later. There are biometric residency permits for foreign nationals and they are completely separate from the identity card scheme. They were rolled into the ID scheme only because the Labour Government were trying desperately to bolster it; they claimed that the residency permits were somehow part of the ID card scheme, which they are not. Those biometric residency permits will continue to exist.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
As one of the Labour Members who opposed identity cards from the beginning, I am delighted that the Bill is one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government are putting through. Will the Home Secretary say something about people who went ahead and rather stupidly bought an identity card? Does she feel that they should be recompensed or does she think they should have listened to those of us on both sides of the House who said, “This is the wrong scheme and you shouldn’t be doing that”?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She does indeed have an honourable record of maintaining opposition to identity cards. I will make reference to this point later, but I can tell her now that we will not be offering refunds to all those who chose to get an identity card. [Hon. Members: “Outrageous!”] Labour Front Benchers shout “Outrageous”, but we made it clear that we were opposed to identity cards. The Liberal Democrat party made it absolutely clear that it was opposed to identity cards. People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary recall that the Labour party’s manifesto in 2005 had a commitment to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme? Does she recollect that it was the Labour party that won that general election? In what way was it illegitimate—or, indeed, “stupid”, to quote my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—for people then to buy a card that was legitimate and had been set out in the manifesto of the winning party?
Mrs May
I must make a confession; I did not study the 2005 Labour party manifesto in any great detail because I was too busy promoting the 2005 Conservative party manifesto—[Interruption.] I am not trying to rewrite history; the right hon. Gentleman and his party won the 2005 election and introduced the identity card scheme. Let us remember; the scheme was not introduced in the very early stages of the Government’s term, but we made it clear from an early stage that if the Conservative party came into government, ID cards would be scrapped. That was clear to people, and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I agree with the Home Secretary. Has there been any estimate of the cost of continuing the system for those few people who already have identity cards?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
No, I said that I was going to make some progress. I have been quite generous already in taking interventions.
Much of the Identity Cards Act 2006 will be undone but the Bill will re-enact certain provisions in the 2006 Act that do not relate solely to ID cards. Those provisions on offences and passport verification make available powers in relation to the detection and prevention of fraud, and the consular fees provision makes it possible to issue passports at subsidised rates. It will remain an offence to carry an identity document that a person knows or believes to be false or to hold a genuine document that relates to someone else, or that has been improperly obtained. Also it will remain illegal to possess equipment for falsifying documents. Under the Bill, ID cards will be invalidated. Holders will not be able to use them either to prove their identity or as a travel document in Europe. On the passing of the Bill, I will not issue any more cards. Following Royal Assent, cards will remain valid for just one more month.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way? I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for doing so. [Laughter.]
Mr Blunkett
The right hon. Lady paused and I believed she had given way. My apologies for that.
I have an ID card here. Is the right hon. Lady saying that from now on any use of the document to reinforce my identity would be illegal?
Mrs May
I have not said that that is the case from today. I have a rather greater belief in the value of Parliament than the last Labour Government showed. Any provisions will come into force only once the Bill has been approved by Parliament and has received Royal Assent. It is after Royal Assent that cards will remain valid for one more month only. I will be writing to all those who already have a card to inform them of the change, so the right hon. Gentleman can look forward in due course to receiving a letter from me. Let us get this in proportion: fewer than 15,000 people already have a card.
Mr Blunkett
I am sorry for intervening again, but as the House will appreciate, the subject is rather close to my heart. I understand entirely that the document will not be useable for travel purposes once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but I understood the right hon. Lady to say that it would not be valid in offering any proof of identity. Just before that, she said that it would be illegal. I am trying to ascertain whether using this document, which has my fingerprints and photo and is more authentic than my passport, would make me a criminal were I to use it for other purposes, such as opening a bank account.
Mrs May
I followed the right hon. Gentleman’s argument quite carefully and perhaps I can reprise what I actually said earlier. Under the Bill, the cards will be invalidated. Holders will not be able to use them either to prove their identity or as a travel document in Europe. On Royal Assent, they will remain valid for only one more month. I did not use the word “illegal”, except in relation to those who possess equipment for falsifying documents. I trust that, as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman is not intending to hold equipment for the falsification of documents.
Mrs May
For the record, the right hon. Gentleman nodded at that point.
The post of Identity Commissioner will be abolished. The public panels and experts groups that were established by the Identity and Passport Service have already been disbanded, and 60 temporary staff in Durham have already been released early.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am very grateful. The Home Secretary has just announced that 67 people in my constituency were made redundant last week because the Government are not continuing identity cards. What efforts will her Government make to get jobs for those people who lost them this week, and for those who are likely to lose their jobs because the Government are not going ahead with the second generation biometric passports?
Mrs May
If I can just correct a slight inaccuracy of terminology in the way in which the hon. Lady referred to the job losses in Durham, the people concerned were temporary staff on short-term contracts and they have been released early from those contracts. There are implications to abolishing the previous Labour Government’s scheme but, as the hon. Lady may know, we as a Government have considerable proposals for helping people who are unemployed to get into work. Our single work programme, which will replace the previous Government’s proposals for helping people into work, will give people much more focused individual help on getting them into the workplace and ensuring that they are retrained and given the skills that they need.
Mrs May
No, I am going to make some progress.
The Bill also places a duty on me to destroy all information recorded in the national identity register within two months of Royal Assent. Photographs and fingerprint biometrics will be securely destroyed. This will not be a literal bonfire of the last Government's vanities, but it will none the less be deeply satisfying. The national identity register will then cease to exist entirely.
The Government will always defend the security and integrity of the British passport, in order to safeguard the free movement of its citizens abroad and protect our borders from illegal immigration.
Mrs May
That will be for me to judge in due course.
We will continue to work to ensure the free movement of citizens abroad. We are halting work on fingerprint passports—the so-called second generation biometric passports—because we believe, in common with the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, that we can maintain the integrity of our passports by other security measures. Already a combination of physical and electronic security features makes the British passport very hard to counterfeit and forge. A new design with improved physical security features will be issued from 5 October, and we are considering ways to strengthen further the electronic security features.
In November 2008 the previous Administration began issuing to non-EEA nationals the biometric residency permits mentioned in an intervention. I want to reiterate the point that I made in response to that intervention. For purely political reasons those permits were referred to by the previous Government as identity cards for foreign nationals. Let no one in the House be in any doubt. They are not ID cards, and they will continue.
We anticipate that the net cost of the Bill will amount to about £5 million this year, which includes termination of contracts, writing off equipment, contacting cardholders and others to inform them that the project is over, exit costs for staff who cannot be redeployed elsewhere, and payments to contractors for secure destruction of identity information. I regret that another unavoidable cost is maintaining the ability to issue new cards before our statutory obligation to do so is removed. This is yet another example of why we want to act as quickly as possible.
The good news, however, is that the taxpayer, as I said in answer to a previous intervention, will be saved some £86 million over the next four years. Moreover, the public will not be hit with the roughly £800 million of ongoing costs over the next 10 years. To put that in perspective, that is a millennium dome’s worth of savings. At any time it is utterly wrong for Government to waste taxpayers’ money on a folly. In the current climate, it is obscene.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), she said that the staff were on short-term contracts. I should remind her that she, too, is on a short-term contract, as are all of us. How does she intend to use the provisions of the Bill in relation to the Consular Fees Act 1980?
Mrs May
I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman by saying that I will not give him a precise answer in response to that point. We are ensuring that we still have those abilities in the Act to allow discounts on applications for passports under the consular fees permission in the Bill. The Bill enables us to retain the ability to do that, should we at some stage choose to do so, but I shall not give the hon. Gentleman a more detailed answer at present. I am sure he can make his points known during the debate if he chooses to catch the Speaker’s eye.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
No. I shall go a little further in my speech. I return to the subject of savings. The Bill is not just about saving money. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I be the first to congratulate you on your appointment as Chairman of Ways and Means? I look forward to many debates in the Chamber under your wise rule in the Chair.
If an overwhelming case could be made that ID cards would keep us safe without intruding on civil liberties, we would find the funding. But that is not the case. First, if databases are compromised, so too is security. The Labour Government’s track record on this was appalling. We all remember the moment the House was told that HMRC had lost data for 25 million people, including their dates of birth, addresses, bank accounts and national insurance numbers, and that was just one example of many. We recognise that some data storage is essential, but these events do not point in the direction of a massive expansion of the surveillance state, which ID cards would necessarily involve.
Moreover, ID cards would not make us safer or beat benefit fraud. Benefit fraud usually involves people lying about their personal circumstances rather than their identity. Turkish and Spanish ID cards stopped neither the Istanbul bombers in 2003 nor the Madrid bombers in 2004; nor did German ID cards prevent terrorists plotting 9/11 in Hamburg. As Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, said after the 7/7 attacks here in London:
“I doubt”—
that ID cards—
“would have made a difference. I’ve never argued . . . that ID cards would prevent any particular act.”
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is right that ID cards did not stop the bombing in Madrid, but does she accept that ID cards in Spain allowed the bombers to be traced from the fingerprints on the Atocha bombs?
Mrs May
The point that I am making is a simple one. The last Labour Government claimed that this would be—[Interruption.] A shadow Minister on the Front Bench says, “No. we didn’t.” As I had not said what I was going to say the Government had claimed, I suggest that she is being a little premature, or perhaps she is learning the ways of opposition rather earlier than some of her colleagues.
Many claims were made at various times about what the Government said. One of them was that the purpose of ID cards was to keep this country safe. The examples that I gave show that ID cards do not keep this country safe and are an intrusion into civil liberties. The imposition of an enormously expensive system, which will be a target for computer hackers, might result in greater identity fraud and would not make us safer, cannot be justified.
There is one other objection to such an extension of the state’s surveillance powers, and it is one that Labour never understood: it is unBritish. We are a freedom-loving people, and we recognise that intrusive government does not enhance our well-being or safety. In 2004 the Mayor of London promised to eat his ID card in front of
“whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”
I will not endorse civil disobedience, but Boris Johnson was expressing in his own inimitable way a discomfort even stronger than the discomfort to be had from eating an ID card. It is a discomfort born of a very healthy and British revulsion towards bossy, interfering, prying, wasteful and bullying Government. The coalition Government are determined to do things differently.
I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so vigorously for the abolition of ID cards. They include N02ID, Liberty, and the parties that make up the coalition Government. I am also grateful that Members in other parts of the House, including Labour Members, as indicated earlier, have had the integrity to speak out and vote against the issue and, in the case of Labour Members, against those on their Front Bench. Indeed, Labour Members may even find that voting for the abolition of ID cards curries favour with the next leader of their party although, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), none of the leadership candidates appears to have taken an interest in civil liberties.
Let me read to the House what the hon. Lady said during her impassioned speech against the Identity Cards Bill in 2005:
“As the evening has worn on, the Government Whips have subjected several of my colleagues to their usual rough-hew methods of persuasion. However, I say to colleagues in the closing minutes of the debate that voting against the Bill would be far from betraying our Government or going against Labour principles, because we would be doing the Government a great service. The more the public hear of the Bill, the less they like it, so the sooner it is stopped in its tracks, the better.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1248-9.]
I could not agree more.
I urge Members in all parts of the House to vote with their conscience, and to show their constituents that they stand for freedom, sound expenditure and common sense. The case for ID cards has not been made and will not be. It is an extension of state power that we cannot, in any sense, afford. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alan Johnson
I will not give way because I am about to conclude.
My final point is that the Government intend not only to stop issuing cards, but to make the 15,000 already in circulation illegal. I find that despicable, and I do not think that that is too strong a word. How can any Government seek to punish hundreds of thousands of its citizens for having the temerity to take advantage of a scheme that was pledged in a manifesto, supported in law and introduced in an entirely legitimate way? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering from the Front Bench, but I will gladly take an intervention.
Alan Johnson
Fifteen thousand is a significant number of people—[Interruption.] On Monday, the Deputy Prime said that he had made a slip of the tongue when he told one of my hon. Friends that the Government will certainly campaign for a yes vote in a Welsh referendum to devolve powers to Wales, and I think I am entitled to make a similar slip of the tongue. Of course I am talking not about hundreds of thousands of people—it would have been if the scheme had gone on a few months longer—but thousands, and 15,000 is a significant number of people.
Those in possession of identity cards ought to be able to continue to use them as a legitimate form of identification, and to travel in Europe and access services. At the very least, they should receive a refund, or the Government should take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and offer a discount off future purchases. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for even thinking that they could treat people with such off-hand arrogance, and they must look again at that aspect of the Bill.
The Opposition remain unconvinced by the Government’s arguments for scrapping ID cards. The money saved will not pay for 3,000 extra police officers, as the Lib Dems claimed. In the long term, the proposals will cost us more money, hamper the efforts of the police to tackle identity fraud, and weaken rather than defend civil liberties. Illegalising cards that have already been issued will penalise those who bought them in good faith, including pensioners and students. Scrapping second generation biometric passports will threaten our borders and encourage illegal immigration, because our passport technology will lag behind that of our European neighbours. I urge the Government to rethink this expensive, misguided and spiteful little Bill.
G6 Meeting
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Varese, Italy on 28 to 29 May. Italy currently holds the presidency of the G6 group and the meeting was chaired by the Italian Minister for the Interior, Roberto Maroni.
The meeting was divided into three working sessions over two days, all of which were attended by G6 Ministers of the Interior, with the additional guest attendance of the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, the US Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security, David Heyman, the French Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, and the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström.
The first working session considered Europe’s approach to the management of migration from outside the EEA. Ministers also considered factors driving illegal immigration and the importance of international co-operation in combating criminal groups involved in illegal immigration and human trafficking. There was a discussion around ensuring that an increased focus on tackling illegal immigration should not come at the expense of vulnerable groups’ human rights, and of the importance of raising awareness of the positive contribution of legal immigration to society. The Home Secretary underlined the importance of evidence-based practical co-operation between EU member states and of work with source and transit countries upstream, rather than a reliance on new EU legislation.
The second session focused on the issue of organised crime. Ministers considered the increasing flexibility and diversification of organised criminals who take advantage of global trends and opportunities. The Italian Minister for the Interior gave a presentation on Italian methods for targeting illegal assets. Ministers discussed the promotion of a more joined-up approach between European States, EU Agencies and third countries in order to tackle this trans-national threat. In addition, Ministers considered methods of tackling money laundering and ensuring online child protection.
At the third session Ministers considered counter-terrorism. The importance of strengthening international co-operation was discussed, with particular focus on the relationship between Europe and the US. Discussion also centred upon the value of dialogue with third countries and the benefit of engaging and supporting countries in tackling violent extremism. At an operational level, discussion focused on the strengthening of aviation security, including the sharing of air passenger information, and on work into the threat posed by radicalisation.
In addition to the three plenary sessions, Italy gave a video presentation of its arrangements for handling serious road traffic accidents. The Home Secretary also held separate bilateral meetings with all of the other heads of delegation.
The next meeting of the G6 is expected to be held in Poland in the second half of this year.
English Language Requirement
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I wish to inform the House that I am today announcing the introduction of a new English language requirement for migrants applying to come to or stay in the UK as a spouse. Changes to the immigration rules will be laid before Parliament to bring this policy into effect in the autumn.
Non-European migrants joining a British citizen or non-European national settled in the UK will have to demonstrate a basic command of English in order to be considered for a visa. The rules will apply to spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners, same sex partners, fiancés and proposed civil partners, and will be compulsory for people applying from within the UK, as well as visa applicants overseas.
The Government believe that speaking English should be a pre-requisite for those wishing to settle here. This new English requirement for spouses will help promote the economic well-being of the UK, for example by encouraging integration and protecting public services. It will assist in removing cultural barriers, broaden opportunities for migrants and help to ensure that they are equipped to play a full part in British life.
This is only the first step. We are reviewing English language requirements across the immigration system with a view to tightening the rules further in the future. We will inform the House of our conclusions in due course.
Today’s announcement is one of a range of new measures the Government will be taking to ensure that immigration is properly controlled for the benefit of the UK. These include an annual limit on non-EEA migrants coming to the UK to live and work and measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes.
Cumbrian Shooting Incident
Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the shootings that took place yesterday in Cumbria. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones will make this statement in the other place.
I know that the whole House will want to join me in sending our heartfelt condolences to everybody touched by yesterday’s tragic events. In particular, our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who were so senselessly killed and injured in the shootings. We also send our thoughts to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who is in Cumbria today, in his constituency. He represents communities that have been touched by tragedy too many times in recent months—but they are strong communities and I know they will bear these sad events with dignity and fortitude.
I would also like to pay tribute to the police and emergency services. In my short time as Home Secretary I have been struck by the bravery, professionalism and sense of duty that police officers demonstrate every single day. Yesterday, the men and women of Cumbria constabulary—aided by the civil nuclear constabulary, neighbouring police forces and the other emergency services—showed these qualities in abundance. They have the support and admiration of the whole House as they go about rebuilding the lives of the people of Cumbria.
I spoke yesterday to Chief Constable Craig Mackey, and we talked again this morning. He has told me that his force is now conducting a full and thorough investigation to find out exactly what happened, how and why. More than 100 detectives have been assigned to the task. Their investigation will look into Derrick Bird’s history, his access to firearms and the motivations for his actions.
As I said yesterday, while the police investigation is ongoing, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any details beyond what has been released by Cumbria constabulary, but I would like to tell the House what I can.
Twelve people were killed yesterday, in addition to Derrick Bird. There were 11 casualties who were being or have been treated in hospitals in Whitehaven, Carlisle and Newcastle. Of those, four are stable, four are comfortable and three have been discharged. The police are confirming the identity of those who died, and names are being released by Cumbria constabulary as and when formal identification is confirmed and immediate family have been informed. More than 30 family liaison officers have been working throughout the night to identify formally the 12 people who were killed and notify their relatives. The police investigation is being led by a major incident group from the police headquarters in Penrith, and there are 30 different crime scenes.
Derrick Bird’s body was located in woodland near Boot at around 1.40 pm yesterday. No shots were fired by police officers. At this stage, the police believe that he took his own life. Two weapons were recovered by police and are being examined by forensic experts. They are a shotgun and a .22 inch rifle fitted with a telescopic sight. Derrick Bird was a licensed firearms holder. He had held a shotgun licence since 1995 and a firearms licence for a .22 inch rifle since 2007. I can now tell the House that the police have confirmed to me that his licences covered the firearms seized yesterday.
I will visit Cumbria tomorrow, together with the Prime Minister, so that I can meet Chief Constable Mackey and other senior officers in person and make sure that they have all the support that they need to complete their important work. I can also announce today that I will, if necessary, provide additional funding for Cumbria constabulary through the police special grant facility.
I spoke this morning to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has asked his Department’s emergencies management team to contact the local authorities involved to see what support and assistance they need. The Minister with responsibility for civil society, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), will talk to charities working in Cumbria and is looking at ways to provide them with extra support at a time when their work will be vital in helping the community to recover.
Undoubtedly, yesterday’s killings will prompt a debate about our country’s gun laws. That is understandable and, indeed, right and proper, but it would be wrong to react before we know the full facts. Today we must remember the innocent people who were taken from us as they went about their lives. Then we must allow the police time to complete their investigations. When the police have reported, the Government will enter into, and lead, that debate. We will engage with all interested parties and consider all the options, and we will make sure that hon. Members have the opportunity to contribute. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the best way to ensure that Members have such an opportunity before the summer recess.
Mass killings such as those that we saw yesterday are fortunately extremely rare in our country, but that does not make them any less painful, and it does not mean that we should not do everything that we can to stop them happening again, so where there are lessons to be learned, we will learn them, and where there are changes to be made, we will make them. But for now, let us wish the injured victims a speedy recovery, remember the 12 innocent lives that were taken, and pray for the families and friends left behind.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It seems perverse to welcome the Home Secretary to her first outing at the Dispatch Box, given the awful and tragic circumstances that have led to this unscheduled appearance, but we wish her well in her demanding job, and I thank her for providing me with a copy of her statement in advance. I join her in sending condolences to the families and friends of those killed yesterday, and we send our heartfelt hope that those who have been wounded recover from their injuries. As she says, the police and the emergency services have performed magnificently, and on behalf of those on the Labour Benches, I, too, pay tribute to the dedication and skill of those involved.
I appreciate that the Home Secretary’s ability to answer questions at this stage will be limited, given the ongoing police inquiries, so I will limit my remarks to a few areas on which I believe it may be fruitful to concentrate attention. As the Home Secretary said, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) is quite rightly with his constituents and cannot be with us in the House. I spoke to him yesterday and again this morning, and he makes the point that while we should not rush to change firearm laws, we should at least review them in the light of this case. Does the Home Secretary agree?
In particular, we may need to focus on the question of follow-up checks. Does the Home Secretary think that they are adequate, and does she agree that there may be a need for a greater role for GPs and the NHS? She will know that while there is a role for the applicant’s family doctor before a firearms certificate is issued, there seems to be little involvement thereafter to ensure that the certificate holder’s mental health, in particular, is not deteriorating.
Cumbria constabulary is, I know, an excellent force achieving excellent results. I am sure that it will be examining the whole question of response times and whether there was anything more that it could have done in the dreadful circumstances with which it was presented yesterday. As the Home Secretary says, such incidents are thankfully rare, but she will know that since the Mumbai massacre, our counter-terrorism capability has put in place strategies to deal with such an eventuality. Is she happy that the expertise and knowledge being assembled in this area is being disseminated across all forces, so that it can apply equally in a non-terrorist related incident, which is what the incident in west Cumbria appears to be? Does she think that a small, rural force such as Cumbria is properly equipped to deal with events that are more often predicted to happen in urban areas?
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday about doing anything that he could to help Cumbria police, who have had to deal with a series of tragic events. The House will recall the death of PC Bill Barker last year in the dreadful floods that badly hit the area. I am pleased to hear about the help that the Home Secretary will provide through the special grant facility; that is indeed good news. Presumably, she is confident that it will cover all that Cumbria police need for the ongoing investigations, and indeed what they may need for counselling for those officers directly affected.
The Prime Minister also rightly praised the work of the NHS, and in particular West Cumberland hospital. My hon. Friends the Members for Copeland and for Workington (Tony Cunningham) have today written to the Secretary of State for Health—who, I am pleased to see, is present—about the uncertainty over future funding for that hospital. That needs to be resolved quickly; the hospital’s work is difficult enough at this time without those continuing problems.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has asked me to express his thanks, on behalf of the community that he represents, for all the expressions of support that he has received from across the House. These are dark times for a strong and close-knit community, renowned for the beauty of its surroundings and the warmth and friendliness of its people. They will recover from these recent tragedies, but the help and support of everyone in this House and of those whom we represent will be essential to that process. The Home Secretary can certainly be assured of our support as she seeks to find answers to the questions raised by these tragic events.
Mrs May
May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome to me in my new position, and for his closing remarks about the willingness of the Opposition to provide support as we take these difficult matters through the House? We will all be searching for answers that will help to ensure that such incidents cannot happen again, but as I said, and as he acknowledged, in the current circumstances there is a limit to the extent to which I can answer questions, and the extent to which any of us should jump to conclusions about what is necessary. However, as I said, that does not mean that once the full facts are available to us, we should not look at them and see what action can be taken. That covers a number of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about follow-up checks. As he acknowledged, there is involvement of GPs and, further, there is the issue of individuals who have particular medical conditions applying for a firearms licence. He raised a number of other issues, and asked about ensuring that police forces learn from the expertise that is being built up in the centre as a result of counter-terrorism work. Of course, there is always room for ensuring that good practice is spread across our police forces and for ensuring that they learn from experiences elsewhere.
As regards the proper equipment for the Cumbria force, I spoke to the chief constable on a number of occasions yesterday and this morning, and he has assured me that although there were issues with the force not having equipment available—it did not have a helicopter, for example—it was able to use a helicopter from the Lancashire force that was made available to it. It had offers of help from a number of forces, including Lancashire, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, and Dumfries and Galloway, and from the civil nuclear constabulary, to which I referred in my statement, and which is based at Sellafield. From what I have heard from the chief constable, I am confident that the force has had resources available to it, and indeed other forces are continuing to make resources available to it for the ongoing investigation.
This is, of course, an event the like of which Cumbria force has never seen before. The force has very low levels of crime and, obviously, a largely rural area to police, but I am confident that support has been provided by neighbouring forces, where they are able to help, and that will be ongoing.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned West Cumberland hospital, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who is present, has heard the points that were made, and is indeed aware of that hospital, having visited it himself.
I spoke to the hon. Member for Copeland yesterday. He has obviously been considerably shaken by the events in his constituency, as any Member would be, particularly in a tight-knit rural community such as he represents—and we should all pay tribute to the calm and measured way in which he has dealt with the incidents in interviews and in the other remarks that he has made.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), with whom I have been in touch, is of course in his constituency, but speaking on behalf of a neighbouring Cumbrian constituency, may I tell my right hon. Friend that we here in the House and elsewhere quite rightly express shock, but that in Cumbria this is something that touches every life? I also thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that she is taking. She speaks and acts for all of us.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. That part of the country has been sorely hit by incidents in the past few months, but its people are people of fortitude who will, I am sure, come through, with their strength. However, they will need support, and we stand ready, through various Departments, to provide that support. Our thoughts are with all the people of Cumbria, who will have been deeply touched by those events.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
After what has been described as the blackest day in Cumbria’s history, now is the time for people to grieve. However, will the Home Secretary assure me that everything that can be done will be done to help and support those communities affected, and that in time there will be the fullest inquiry?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is correct about the impact on Cumbria. As I indicated in my statement, a number of Departments stand ready to provide extra support to Cumbria constabulary, local authorities and local charities, because the police investigation is not the only necessary process in this incident; many people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said, have been touched by the incident will require and look for support and help. We are making every effort to ensure that that is available through local authorities and other bodies that can be of genuine assistance to people.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
The Labour Government in 2005 rather clumsily tried to force police forces together. However, Lancashire and Cumbria constabularies were willing to work together, in particular because of the difficulties in delivering protective services throughout the vast spaces of Cumbria and north Lancashire. Will the Home Secretary look again at merging protective services, or offer some support to allow that to happen, so that in future Cumbria and Lancashire can ensure that they get the best value and deliver the right policing to the right parts of the country?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I am currently looking into those matters, and there is considerable benefit in greater collaboration between forces on protective services. As I said earlier, forces have been willing to support Cumbria constabulary, but there is a longer-term issue concerning protective services. My hon. Friend spoke of force mergers, and we were quite clear about opposing the attempts to merge forces. Some forces might look for voluntary mergers, and I would be willing to look at that, provided that it is the will of the local community. That is absolutely crucial.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her tribute to the Cumbrian people. Speaking as a new Cumbrian MP, and as a constituency neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), I must say that her words will be very much appreciated up there. I also associate myself with her tribute, and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), to the work of emergency services.
At a time like this, and after seeing the tragedy that unfolded, we in the House feel the acute limitations of government, and the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that there must be a period of reflection, and indeed grief. However, will she assure us that in the Government’s consideration of the issue they will look not only at firearms legislation but at the capacity, such as there is, to review community mental health services in order to understand how an apparently reserved member of the community suddenly snapped and became capable of such evil deeds?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The issue of mental health capacity might come out more fully as a result of the investigation, but as yet we cannot say exactly what caused that individual to undertake those actions. We must ensure that we know the full facts before we jump to conclusions. All I would say is that all parts of the House have for some time recognised the necessity for a wider debate about mental health in our society. As for the actions that could or should be taken as a result of what has happened, when we know the full facts we will genuinely look at this issue with a view to taking what action is necessary.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
May I, on behalf of my party and all elected representatives from the north-west, associate myself with all the condolences and expressions of support for all those affected by these tragic events? That beautiful part of the country has been disfigured by inexplicable, senseless and horrible violence. Death has rarely seemed so arbitrary. I welcome the assurances and positive help from the Secretary of State, and I praise the actions of the emergency services and the many formal and informal networks that will surely be needed—but will the Secretary of State explain how a simple taxi driver could possibly justify the apparently lawful possession of such a formidable and devastating arsenal for such a time? What, if anything, can prevent such things from happening again?
Mrs May
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he invites me to go into details, and down a road, that at this stage I do not feel able to embark on. Indeed, it would not be right for me to do so. He raises a question that will doubtlessly be in the minds of many people who look at those events, but it is right for us to wait for the police investigation and for their presentation of the full facts. Then it will be possible for us to debate the issues that he raised in his question.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House so soon to give us her statement, and I, like the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), other local MPs and the right hon. Lady, acknowledge how vital it is to establish the facts before we rush to judgment. However, while the police investigation is ongoing, will she look at one particular aspect of the matter, which may be unrelated to the circumstances but is related to firearms—the recommendation by the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament on minimum sentences for those who possess firearms? I am sure that she will look at all the legislation and review everything, but in the meantime can she assure us that when we have the full facts she will return to the House with a full statement?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I do intend to keep the House informed as further information becomes available and we have the full facts. As part of the coalition agreement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice will undertake a review of sentencing policy, and I am sure that in that review the Committee’s report will be brought to his attention.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, should lessons need to be learned from this terrible tragedy about the adequate response times of armed rapid-reaction forces, they will be learned and implemented forthwith, not only in Cumbria but throughout the country?
Mrs May
I assure my right hon. Friend that when we have had an opportunity to look at the full facts of this case, we intend to learn any lessons that come out of it. On the issue to which he alludes, I have spoken to the chief constable about the reaction times that were available. My right hon. Friend, and others, will be aware that there are particular circumstances in Cumbria involving its geography, and the knowledge of the local area of the individual concerned in this incident, Derrick Bird. Of course operational matters are for the police, but I assure my right hon. Friend that if there are any lessons to be learned, they will be.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her very measured statement. I do not think that words can really describe the horror of what happened yesterday. Does she agree that we already have the most stringent gun control laws in Europe, and that before making any changes, or doing anything that she thinks may be done, we should consider this in the widest and most measured way possible so that we do not stop people who legitimately use weapons for sport and in other legitimate ways, and do not have an automatic knee-jerk response? I very much welcome the fact that she wants to see all the facts before we make any decisions or even start to discuss this.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady is right that we have among the most stringent gun regulations in Europe. We must not respond immediately by taking a decision as to what is necessary, but wait until we know the full facts and then take the opportunity to look at the results of the police investigation, to consider what has happened in this incident and to ask ourselves whether there are lessons to be learned and whether we need to take further action. I am very clear that we must not have a knee-jerk reaction to this incident, but it is right to look at it properly in due course and take any decisions that are necessary. As I say, it would be my intention, subject to others, to provide an opportunity for Members of this House to debate these issues before the summer recess.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of those in this country who enjoy shooting will share her dismay at the events in Cumbria and will want to send their condolences, too? I very much welcome her statement that she will resist calls for a knee-jerk response to these incidents and will bear in mind the interests of the many thoroughly responsible shooters who wish to continue to enjoy their sport.
Mrs May
I do indeed accept that, as my hon. Friend says, there are many responsible shooters in the UK who will have been as appalled by these events in Cumbria yesterday as everybody else was. As I indicated in my previous answer, it is right that we should have an opportunity to consider these issues, but we should do so only when we have the full facts—when the police have been able to investigate and we know as much as we can about the events that took place in Cumbria. We must not leap to conclusions before we have those facts.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that today is a day for remembering the innocent victims. May I, on behalf of my party colleagues, extend our deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those who have been murdered, and to the wider community in Cumbria as well? May I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), and other local Members, about the need for continuing help for the area to assist the police, statutory agencies and charities as they continue with their important work in helping the communities through this awful time?
Mrs May
Indeed. I think we all recognise in this House that there are two jobs to be done: one is the police investigation, but the other is the need to provide support to the local communities in Cumbria so that they can recover from the terrible tragedy that has occurred. It is right that we recognise that there is a role for central Government and for local government in that, but there is also a role for others, including charities, many of which will be best positioned and best able to offer the sort of support, counselling, advice and practical help that people will need.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the strong legislation surrounding firearms at the moment, will the Home Secretary give an undertaking that she will not rule out the possibility of the complete prohibition of the private ownership of firearms as the best way of preventing such atrocities in future?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do precisely what I have said that I will not do, and leap to conclusions. As I said, we will aim to give the House an opportunity to debate these issues, and I am sure that when that time comes the hon. Gentleman will want to make his views known to the House in rather fuller detail. At the moment, however, it is right, before we jump to conclusions, to wait until we know the full facts and can learn from what has happened.