Emergency Services: Closer Working

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Written Statements

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

Efficient and effective emergency services are essential to keeping our communities safe. Closer working between the police, fire and rescue and NHS ambulance services can improve the way they serve communities, protect the public and provide value for money for taxpayers.

The Government are committed to supporting collaborative and innovative blue light working, and have invested over £80 million in such projects. While there are good examples of joint working in some local areas, there is much more to be done before collaborative working becomes the norm. For example, there could be savings to be made from greater sharing of premises, back offices, IT and procurement systems, which can release valuable resources to the frontline.

I have worked closely with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Health to develop a range of proposals to enable closer working between the emergency services and to provide for stronger local accountability. On 11 September 2015, we published a joint consultation paper setting out our proposals and seeking views on how best to implement them. The consultation ended on 23 October 2015. Over 300 responses were received from national, local and regional organisations, police forces, police and crime commissioners, fire and rescue authorities, local councils, ambulance trusts, front-line practitioners, associations and other interested groups and individuals. We would like to thank all those who gave their time to respond and contribute to the consultation process.

Today, we have published the Government’s response to the consultation, which summarises the comments we received and sets out how we intend to proceed.

Having carefully considered all the consultation responses, we intend to legislate to:

introduce a high-level duty to collaborate on all three emergency services, to improve efficiency or effectiveness;

enable police and crime commissioners to take on the functions and duties of fire and rescue authorities, where a local case is made;

further enable police and crime commissioners to create a single employer for police and fire staff where they take on the responsibilities of their local fire and rescue service, and where a local case is made;

in areas where a police and crime commissioner has not become responsible for fire and rescue, enabling them to have representation on their local fire and rescue authority with voting rights, where the fire and rescue authority agrees; and

abolish the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and give the Mayor of London direct responsibility for the fire and rescue service in London.

The intention is that these measures will ensure collaboration is widespread and ambitious across the country.

Bringing police and fire together locally under the leadership of a PCC will provide greater direct accountability for the public and will accelerate local collaboration. This does not mean a takeover of the fire service by the police. The important distinction between operational policing and firefighting will be maintained, with the current law that prevents a full-time police officer from being a firefighter remaining in place, and with no intention to give firefighters the power of arrest.

Alongside this, the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that responsibility for fire policy has transferred from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Home Office shows the Government’s commitment to closer collaboration between police and fire and rescue services. Bringing together responsibility for fire and police in the same Department provides the same clear leadership in central Government that our proposals on emergency services collaboration seek to deliver locally. It provides an excellent opportunity for sharing good practice to drive reform and to deliver better outcomes for the public.

These measures will apply to England only. Further details on the measures and how the consultation has informed them, are set out within the Government’s published response.

Copies of the Government’s response to the consultation will be placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS489]

Litvinenko Inquiry

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Alexander Litvinenko on 23 November 2006 and the statutory inquiry into that death, which published its findings this morning.

Mr Litvinenko’s death was a deeply shocking event. Despite the ongoing police investigation and the efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service, those responsible have still not been brought to justice. In July 2014, I established a statutory inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr Litvinenko’s death, to determine responsibility for his death and to make recommendations. It was chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a retired senior High Court judge, and it had the Government’s full support and access to any relevant material regardless of its sensitivity.

I welcome the inquiry’s report today and would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Owen for his detailed, thorough and impartial investigation into this complex and serious matter. Although the inquiry cannot assign civil or criminal liability, I hope that these findings will provide some clarity for Alexander Litvinenko’s family and friends and all those affected by his death. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Mrs Marina Litvinenko and her tireless efforts to get to the truth.

The independent inquiry has found that Mr Litvinenko died on 23 November 2006, having suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of acute radiation syndrome, caused by his ingesting polonium-210 on 1 November 2006. He ingested the fatal dose of polonium-210 while drinking tea at the Pine bar of the Millennium hotel on the afternoon of 1 November 2006. The inquiry, which in the course of its investigations considered “an abundance of evidence”, has found that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, whom he had met at the Millennium hotel on the afternoon of that day.

The inquiry has also found that Lugovoy and Kovtun were acting on behalf of others when they poisoned Mr Litvinenko. There is a strong probability that they were acting under the direction of the Russian domestic security service, the Federal Security Service or FSB. The inquiry has found that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev, the then head of the FSB, and by President Putin.

The Government take these findings extremely seriously, as I am sure does every Member of this House. We are carefully considering the report’s findings in detail, and their implications. In particular, the conclusion that the Russian state was probably involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko is deeply disturbing. It goes without saying that this was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and of civilised behaviour, but we have to accept that this does not come as a surprise. The inquiry confirms the assessment of successive Governments that this was a state-sponsored act. This assessment has informed the Government’s approach to date.

Since 2007 that approach has comprised a series of steps to respond to Russia and its provocation. Some of these measures were immediate, such as the expulsion of a number of Russian embassy officials from the UK. Others are ongoing, such as the tightening of visa restrictions on Russian officials in the UK. The Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s murder remains open. I can tell the House today that Interpol notices and European arrest warrants are in place so that the main suspects, Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, can be arrested if they travel abroad. In the light of the report’s findings the Government will go further, and Treasury Ministers have today agreed to put in place asset freezes against the two individuals.

At the time, the independent Crown Prosecution Service formally requested the extradition of Mr Lugovoy from Russia. Russia refused to comply with this request and has consistently refused to do so ever since. It is now almost 10 years since Mr Litvinenko was killed. Sir Robert Owen is unequivocal in his finding that Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun killed him. In the light of this most serious finding, Russia’s continued failure to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice is unacceptable. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning asking her to consider whether any further action should be taken, in terms of both extradition and freezing criminal assets. These decisions are, of course, a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but the Government remain committed to pursuing justice in this case.

We have always made our position clear to the Russian Government, and in the strongest possible terms. We are doing so again today. We are making senior representations to the Russian Government in Moscow. At the same time we will be summoning the Russian ambassador in London to the Foreign Office, where we will express our profound displeasure at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers. Specifically, we have demanded, and will continue to demand, that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in this case.

The threat posed by hostile states is one of the most sensitive issues that I deal with as Home Secretary. Although not often discussed in public, our security and intelligence agencies have always, dating back to their roots in the first and second world wars, had the protection of the UK from state threats at the heart of their mission. This means countering those threats in all their guises, whether from assassinations, cyber-attacks, or more traditional espionage. By its nature this work is both less visible and necessarily more secret than the police and the agencies’ work against the terrorist threat, but it is every bit as important to the long-term security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

The House will appreciate that I cannot go into detail about how we seek to protect ourselves from hostile state acts, but we make full use of the measures at our disposal, from investigatory powers right through to the visa system. The case of Mr Litvinenko demonstrates once again why it is so vital that the intelligence agencies maintain their ability to detect and disrupt such threats.

The environment in which espionage and hostile state intelligence activities take place is changing. Evolving foreign state interests and rapid technological advances mean it is imperative that we respond. Last November the Chancellor announced that we will make new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers. In the same month, I published the draft Investigatory Powers Bill so that we can ensure that the intelligence agencies’ capabilities keep pace with the threat and technology, while at the same time improving the oversight of, and safeguards for, the use of investigatory powers.

In the Government’s recently published national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review, we set out the range of threats to the UK and our allies, including from Russia, and our comprehensive approach to countering these threats. Since publication of the previous SDSR in 2010, Russia has become more authoritarian, aggressive and nationalist. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilising actions in Ukraine have directly challenged security in the region. These actions have also served as a sobering demonstration of Russia’s intent to try to undermine European security and the rules-based international order. In response, the UK, in conjunction with international partners, has imposed a package of robust measures against Russia. This includes sanctions against key Russian individuals, including Mr Patrushev, who is currently the Secretary to the Russian Security Council.

The Government are clear that we must protect the UK and her interests from Russia-based threats, working closely with our allies in the EU and NATO. This morning I have written to my counterparts in EU, NATO and “Five Eyes” countries, drawing their attention to both the report and the need to take steps to prevent such a murder being committed in their streets.

We will continue to call on President Putin for Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to engage responsibly and make a positive contribution to global security and stability. It can, for example, play an important role in defeating Daesh and, together with the wider international community, help Syria work towards a stable future. We face some of the same challenges, from serious crime to aviation security. We will continue to engage, guardedly, with Russia where it is strictly necessary to do so to support the UK’s national interest.

Sir Robert Owen’s report contains one recommendation that is within the closed section. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot reveal details of that recommendation in this House, but I can assure them that the Government will respond to the inquiry’s chair on that recommendation in due course.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the Government’s determination to continue to seek justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko. I would like to repeat my thanks to Sir Robert Owen and, in particular, Marina Litvinenko. As Sir Robert states in his report, she has shown “dignity and composure” and

“has demonstrated a quiet determination to establish the true facts of her husband’s death that is greatly to be commended.”

Mr Litvinenko’s murder was a truly terrible event. I sincerely hope that for the sake of Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, for the sake of Mr Litvinenko’s wider family and friends, and for the sake of justice, those responsible can be brought to trial. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary said, this is one of the most shocking and disturbing reports ever presented to Parliament. It confirms that the Russian state, at its highest level, sanctioned the killing of a British citizen on the streets of our capital city and, in so doing, exposed thousands of Londoners to unacceptable levels of risk—an unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism that must meet with a commensurate response. So far-reaching are the implications of the report that it is important not to rush to judgment today. Time must be taken to digest its findings and consider our response. There are difficult questions that need to be asked in formulating that response, and I intend to focus on those.

First, however, I echo the Home Secretary’s words of praise for Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team, without whose painstaking work this important truth would not be known. I also extend the gratitude of Labour Members to the Metropolitan Police Service for what the report calls an “exemplary investigation” and to the Litvinenko family’s legal team, particularly Ben Emmerson, who supported them on a pro bono basis, and probably without whom we would not be here today.

More importantly, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending a message of admiration, sympathy and solidarity to Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, who have fought so courageously to make this day a reality. People will of course leap to the international and diplomatic issues that arise, but it must be remembered, first and foremost, that this was a family tragedy, and their wishes surely matter most. With that in mind, would the Home Secretary be prepared to meet Marina and Anatoly to discuss this report, its findings, and the British Government’s response? I have spoken to Marina, and I know that she would welcome that.

Let me now turn to that Government response. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about renewing efforts to bring the murderers to justice, and her new approach to NATO and EU allies. However, given that these two individuals are reported to be travelling, will she go further and directly approach all EU, NATO and Commonwealth allies individually to ask for their immediate co-operation on extradition?

There may be other individuals who are British citizens and who are facing similar dangers. Will the Home Secretary provide assurances that there will be a review of the security of those most at risk? Has she reviewed the level of security that was provided to Mr Litvinenko by the British security services, and can any lessons be drawn from this in better protecting others? That is important, because there is a real possibility that this was not an isolated incident. The House may be aware of an ongoing inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny, a prominent Russian lawyer who dropped dead in Surrey after going for run. While there is a limit on what we can say about an ongoing inquest, does the Home Secretary believe that there is a case for it to be upgraded and provided with extra support, possibly from Sir Robert himself?

I will now turn to potential action against the wider network of Russian interests linked to the perpetrators. Of course, no individuals commit these crimes alone, and today’s report confirms that there is a network of people who will have known about and facilitated this crime. I gather that Mrs Litvinenko has prepared a list of names, to be submitted today to the Government, of people who have aided and abetted the perpetrators, and against whom she believes sanctions should be taken. This could include the freezing of UK assets and property and travel restrictions. Will the Home Secretary give an in-principle commitment to look seriously at that list and those requests? Further, can she say whether, going forward, action of this kind would be facilitated by new legislation along the lines of the Magnitsky law in the US, and whether the Government are giving any consideration to that?

Finally, let me turn to our wider relationship with Russia. The Home Secretary indicated that there will be new diplomatic pressure, and I welcome that, but I have to say, having listened carefully to her, that I am not sure that it goes anywhere near far enough in answering the seriousness of the findings in this report. Indeed, it could send a dangerous signal to Russia that our response is too weak. What has been announced today cannot be the end of what the British Government are prepared to do.

Given what we know about the way the Russian state operates, is there not a case for a wide-ranging review of the nature and extent of this country’s relations with it—diplomatic, political, economic, and cultural? Given the proven FSB involvement, will the Government consider expelling all FSB officers from Britain immediately? More broadly, can the Home Secretary say whether the Prime Minister has ever raised this case directly with Vladimir Putin, and whether he is seeking an urgent conversation with him today to discuss the findings of this report?

On parliamentary matters, it beggars belief that one of the suspected murderers is today a leading Member of the Duma and even second in command of its Security Committee. Given that fact—this may be a question for you, Mr Speaker—what is the correct relationship for this Parliament to have with its Russian counterpart?

On cultural collaboration, given what the report reveals about the Russian Government and their links to organised crime, and given what we know about corruption in FIFA, is there not a growing case for this country to engage with others in a debate about whether the 2018 World cup should go ahead in Russia? On the economy, are the Government satisfied that the current EU sanctions against Russia are adequate, and is there a case to strengthen them?

I ask those questions not because I have come to a conclusion about them, but because I believe they are the difficult but right questions that fall out of the report and that this country now needs to debate them in the light of its findings, if we are to do justice to the Litvinenko family.

There is a question about how the Government go about formulating their response and the considerations that will guide them. Although the Home Secretary ordered this review, it is important to note that she originally refused to do so, citing international issues. She has mentioned them again today, but should not it be considerations of justice, not diplomacy, that lead the Government’s response? Will she give a categorical assurance to that effect? There can be no sense of the Government pulling their punches because of wider diplomatic considerations. If we were to do that, would it not send a terrible message to the world that Britain is prepared to tolerate outrageous acts of state violence on its soil and appease those who sanctioned them?

Once all those considerations are complete, will the Home Secretary commit to coming back to this House and updating it on the final package of steps that the Government will take? The Litvinenko family deserve nothing less after their courageous fight.

I wish to finish by recalling Alexander Litvinenko’s last words to his son, Anatoly, who was then 12 years old. He said:

“Defend Britain to your last drop, because it has saved your family.”

He believed in Britain and its tradition of justice and fairness, standing up to the mighty and for what is right. Should not we now find the courage to show his son and the world that his father’s faith in us was not misplaced?

[Mrs May]

First, may I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about the investigation by the Metropolitan police? As he said, it was identified by Sir Robert Owen as exemplary and, as I indicated in my statement, the investigation remains open. The right hon. Gentleman also said right at the very beginning of his comments that time needs to be taken to look at the report. It is very thorough and detailed, and he is right to say that we need to look at it carefully.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would be willing to meet Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko. I wrote a private letter to Marina Litvinenko yesterday and I would be very happy to meet them to discuss these and other issues that I understand she has raised today in response to the report.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions, including about a potential Magnitsky Act. I know that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman, has raised that issue in the Chamber on many occasions. There are a number of actions we can take in preventing individuals from coming to the United Kingdom, but in this case, of course, we actually want Lugovoy and Kovtun to be in the United Kingdom to be able to face justice. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were reports of them travelling. There are Interpol red notices and European arrest warrants in place, which will lead to their being arrested if they travel outside Russia.

Of course, we take the security of individuals in the United Kingdom very seriously and look at and review those issues regularly. The right hon. Gentleman said that we need to review our relationship with Russia. We have just been through the exercise of the national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review. I referred to that in my statement, and that makes very clear the issues in relation to Russia. I assure him that the Prime Minister will raise the matter with President Putin at the next available opportunity. EU sanctions are of course agreed across the European Union, and the UK has actually been leading on EU sanctions and encouraging such action to be taken.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the importance of justice. We agree on this issue. Everybody in the House recognises the significance of this report’s findings, and the significance of the fact that this act of murder took place on the streets of London and was state-sponsored. We want to see justice for the family: we want those who undertook this murder in London to be brought to justice. That is something which we share, and we will make every effort to ensure that justice is found for Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comprehensive response to the report. Sir Robert points out not only that Lugovoy has not been extradited to the UK, but that he

“has been lionised in Russia. He has become a member of the Duma, and indeed was awarded an honour by President Putin during the course of the Inquiry’s hearings.”

This calculated snub adds insult to injury. Is it not clear that, while such a position is maintained and the suspects are not extradited, the Putin Government can never and should never be treated as an equal and full partner in global political affairs?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what has happened in relation to Lugovoy in Russia. That tells us all we need to know about Russia’s attitude to the action that took place on the streets of London. Russia does of course participate in such a way—it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council—and, as I said in my statement, there will be national interests that require the British Government to engage guardedly with Russia. For example, there are issues relating to Syria and the resolution of the conflict there. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that we are very clear about such issues in relation to Russia. We were clear about those issues in the SDSR. That is why, when we engage with Russia, we will, as I say, do so guardedly.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I pay tribute to Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team for their work, and indeed to all those who have contributed to getting to the truth. All Members will share a sense of outrage at this cowardly and awful murder, and we again express our condolences to Mr Litvinenko’s family. As the Secretary of State has said, the apparent involvement of the Russian state at the very highest level makes this murder doubly shocking.

It will clearly take some time fully to digest all the findings and recommendations of the report and to think through its implications, but some initial questions arise. Most immediately, we need to know what more, if anything, can be done to bring Mr Litvinenko’s killers to justice. We welcome the action against Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy announced today, and the request made to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, what, if any, further options are being considered? Will we hear from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about what he believes to be the appropriate response?

To look back at the circumstances of the murder, will the Home Secretary say what, if any, information our security and intelligence services had about Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy prior to their meeting with Mr Litvinenko? Were they aware that the meeting was taking place, and had they assessed whether it represented a risk to his life? Most importantly, what do we know about how the killers were able to acquire such a significant dose of radioactive polonium and use it in this country as a weapon? Finally, what more can be done to prevent any such awful event from happening again in future? Has any assessment been made of the risk to those who have fled regimes and sought shelter in the UK, so that we can prevent such attacks from happening again?

[Mrs May]

As I have said, we all share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to bring these individuals to justice. That is why I have written to the DPP this morning to ask her to explore whether there are any other options that she can look at in relation not just to the extradition of the two individuals, but to criminal asset freezes.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should make a statement on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman can see, my right hon. Friend is present. The statement I made is obviously the view of the Government, and we have discussed the approach we are taking on these matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked about access to polonium-210. As I said earlier, this is a very detailed report, and sections of Sir Robert Owen’s report cover that particular issue. We are grateful to Sir Robert for the thoroughness with which he has conducted his inquiry.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for the tenor and thrust of her statement. The magisterial report written by Sir Robert Owen says in paragraph 10.16:

“The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.”

Given the secrecy of the Russian state, I do not think we need to worry too much about the word “probably”. This is way beyond the normal civil legal requirements and what is needed to take economic, political and diplomatic action. What is certain is that the Russian state under President Putin has killed over 100 opponents—lawyers, accountants, journalists and politicians. It is a kleptocratic state that uses assassination as a policy weapon.

May I ask the Home Secretary what we intend to do about Patrushev and Putin? We cannot tolerate their ordering assassinations on the streets of our country. Will she take targeted economic sanctions against them and, where possible, travel sanctions, although obviously those are not possible with a Head of State? Will there be an expulsion of intelligence officers—both FSB and others—from the Russian embassy, which would be entirely appropriate? It has been asked whether we should encourage our allies to help us. Of course we should, but we should also tell countries such as the Bahamas, Switzerland and Cyprus—all the Russian financial boltholes—that there is no hiding place for the money of these people.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what has to be described as a comprehensive question.

[Mrs May]

First, on the results of the inquiry, what Sir Robert Owen has found in relation to the individuals responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko and, indeed, the responsibility of the Russian state will come as no surprise, as I said in my statement, because successive Governments have made the assessment that there was state involvement in this act. That is why the Government at the time took a number of measures, some of which remain in place today, in relation to our relationship with the Russian state. I assure my right hon. Friend that it is in no sense business as usual and that there is not the sort of relationship that we would have with most states.

As I indicated, action has already been taken against Mr Patrushev in his current role in the form of sanctions. As my right hon. Friend himself indicated in his question, relationships with a Head of State are a different matter. As I indicated earlier, the Prime Minister will raise this matter with President Putin.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is this not proof, were any further evidence needed, that what we are dealing with in Putin’s Russia is a rogue state? The British public will be aghast that the two murderers have only today had their assets frozen by the Treasury. Does that not point to complete complacency on the part of this Government? When will they take meaningful action against the dirty Russian money and property here in London that sustain the Putin kleptocracy? When will the Government implement the will of this House, which in 2012 voted overwhelmingly in favour of passing Magnitsky Act-type legislation?

[Mrs May]

I have answered the last point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Magnitsky Act that exists in the United States. We have measures that we can take to prevent people from coming into the United Kingdom. In respect of the two individuals whom the inquiry found committed this murder on the streets of London, it is important that we take every step to bring them to the UK, rather than stop them coming here, because we wish to see them brought to justice. He talked about the position of Russia. As I indicated, we have seen recent examples of the increasing nationalism, authoritarianism and aggression in Russia.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why the asset freeze has been put in place only today. Obviously, I looked into what further action could be taken following the results of the inquiry by Sir Robert Owen. Of course, action was first taken in relation to this matter in 2007 as a result of the initial investigations and the initial assessments that were made by the Government and others. Asset freezes were not put in place at that time. We have looked at that and decided to do so today.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why was my right hon. Friend’s case put to the High Court in January 2014 in the following terms:

“There was no clear public interest in the immediate establishment of a statutory inquiry to investigate the Russian state responsibility issue.”?

Does she regret that that was put on her behalf?

[Mrs May]

Successive Governments, including this one, have wanted to try to get to the truth behind this issue, but it was not until 2011 that the coroner decided that the trial was unlikely to take place, so that an inquest could go ahead. That inquest was started, and at the time we felt that the most appropriate form in which these matters should be assessed was through that inquest. It then became clear through a decision of the divisional court that certain evidence was necessary and not available to the inquest. At that stage, in order to ensure that all evidence was available and that all matters could be considered, I decided to turn the inquest into a statutory inquiry.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Well, they’ll be quaking in their boots in the Kremlin today, won’t they? Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London, and nothing announced today will make the blindest bit of difference—nothing at all. We need much tougher measures to target Putin and the people around him, and those calling for a US-style Magnitsky Act are completely right. We need to target the crooks and murderers who have been involved in murders and corruption, and prevent them from coming to the UK, from keeping their money in British banks, and from buying property here in London.

[Mrs May]

I say once again to those who think that the creation of a Magnitsky Act and a list of people who are excluded will, in some sense, add to the strength of measures that we already have that it is already possible for us to exclude people from the United Kingdom. I repeat: we want those individuals who came to London and committed this act on its streets to be brought to the UK to face trial, so that justice can be done.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are constantly reminded of Russia’s human rights abuses against its own citizens, and we have initiated sanctions against Russia for its abuse of human rights against citizens of other countries such as Ukraine. Surely it is now imperative that we initiate sanctions against Russia, as well as against those individuals responsible for killing a British citizen on British soil.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s portrayal of the Russian state is right, but a number of sanctions have already been implemented in relation to this matter. As I indicated, in 2007 the then Government took a number of measures, including the expulsion of certain officials from the Russian embassy and visa sanctions, and some of those measures remain in place. Sanctions have been implemented, and further sanctions have been taken against individuals in relation to Russia’s actions in the Crimea and Ukraine. We are very clear about the nature of Russia, which is why we have continued to consider steps that can be taken. Anybody who thinks that sanctions are not in place is wrong—sanctions are in place.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary and Parliament have before them a report that sets out that the Russian state probably sponsored and sanctioned the murder by nuclear material of a UK citizen, just a couple of miles from this building. Does the Secretary of State agree that her refusal to act strongly in response to that, including taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council, will be seen as a sign of British Government weakness by Putin?

[Mrs May]

I am not sure what action the hon. Lady thinks the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a permanent member, would take in relation to this matter. I have drawn the issue to the attention of a wide variety of colleagues in the European Union, the “Five Eyes” countries and NATO, to ensure that they are aware of the findings of this inquiry and its potential implications for them.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The public inquiry has been a triumph for Marina Litvinenko and the British justice system. It has established in the open what the Government have either known or certainly assumed for the past decade about the nature of the current Russian state. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the current state of relations with Russia is already heavily conditioned by that understanding? The challenge remains, with this as the background, to advance our remaining common interests, not least in the fight against violent Islamic extremism and in bringing to an end a bloody civil war in Syria. That challenge, answering the difficult questions posed by the shadow Home Secretary, is at the core of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s current inquiry into the British-Russian relationship.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that his Committee is undertaking that important review into the British-Russian relationship. He is absolutely right. Our relationship with Russia is already heavily conditioned. As I indicated earlier, shortly after the murder took place sanctions of various sorts were put in place, including visa sanctions. Those have remained. Our relationship with Russia is, as he said, heavily conditioned. As I said earlier, it is also the case—he is absolutely right—that there are issues in the British national interest on which a guarded engagement with Russia may be important. Of course, the future of Syria and resolving the conflict in Syria is just one of those issues.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

A slap on the wrist for Russia won’t do it. President Putin’s heart will not miss a beat if the UK cancels a trade mission here or a cultural visit there, but it will if we expand the scope of the sanctions already in force because of Russia’s illegal activities in Ukraine. Will the UK Government now ban any other Russians implicated in the murder, however senior, from travelling to the UK and freeze their assets? An assault on our sovereignty, which saw a British citizen murdered on British soil in a nuclear attack, requires nothing less.

[Mrs May]

As we have said, it is of course right that we take extremely seriously the nature of the attack that took place and the findings of the inquiry. As I indicated, this is not something that comes as a surprise. An assessment has been made by successive Governments of the responsibility and involvement of the Russian state in the act, as well as of the two individuals who have been named as undertaking the act here in the United Kingdom. We have a series of sanctions in place. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the reaction to Ukraine. I indicated earlier that it is in fact the United Kingdom that has been leading the European Union effort in placing sanctions on individuals in Russia.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Russia’s incremental bilateral relations are improving on the issues of Syria, Iran and global counter-terrorism. Is it not the case that, while that is welcome, the diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Russia can never be fully re-set until there has been justice over what the Home Secretary has rightly said is state-sponsored murder on the streets of London?

[Mrs May]

We are very clear that it is not business as usual with the Russian state. Our relationship with Russia is heavily conditioned. As I have indicated, there may be some issues on which it is necessary to engage with Russia very carefully, but it is not the case that we are lifting or changing the relationship. Successive Governments have been clear since 2007 that it was necessary to take action. That action has remained.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

What we are looking at here is an act of terrorism sponsored and carried out by the Russian Government. The report leads only to one possible conclusion: we now have to regard the Russian state as an organisation actively involved in commissioning, funding, supporting and directing acts of terrorism against UK citizens within the United Kingdom.

I appreciate that the Home Secretary cannot go into detail about everything that is happening in response to that, but may we have an assurance that, in the pursuit of justice, the Russian terrorist organisation and those involved in directing it will be pursued with exactly the same vigour as anyone else who directs acts of terrorism against United Kingdom citizens?

[Mrs May]

We are very clear that we want to ensure that those responsible for the murder are brought to justice. That is why, as I have indicated, every effort is being made in relation to the two individuals named in the report as having conducted the act here in London. The investigation is ongoing and every effort is being made to ensure that they can be arrested and brought to justice here in the UK.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I, too, was struck by the reported final words of Mr Litvinenko to his son, Anatoly. What an assured and articulate man he has grown into, as we saw on the TV recently. To repay the confidence of Mr Litvinenko in this country, may I ask the Home Secretary to go further? In particular, will she respond in detail to Mrs Litvinenko’s request regarding the additional names she has prepared with Ben Emmerson, and whether those individuals should be banned and sanctions taken against them?

[Mrs May]

I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about Anatoly Litvinenko. His demeanour in the interview on television last night showed a fine young man who has grown up in this country against a background of very difficult circumstances, given what happened to his father. As I indicated earlier to the shadow Home Secretary, I would be happy to meet Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko. Obviously, that would provide an opportunity to discuss the matters my hon. Friend raises.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Bill Browder, a British citizen, wrote his book “Red Notice” explaining how he took the Magnitsky Act to the United States, because he could get no interest in it here in the UK. Is it not now time for the Home Secretary to meet Bill Browder, look at how the Magnitsky Act has made such a huge difference and consider what the United Kingdom can do to introduce the Act here in the UK?

[Mrs May]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I will repeat what I have said to a number of Members who raised the issue of the Magnitsky Act. The Act excludes or stops certain individuals from coming into a country, in this case the United States. We already have powers that are at least as robust, if not more so, than the powers in the Magnitsky Act. It is on that basis that I think we have the powers we need to exclude people. I repeat the point I made earlier: if people think that introducing the Magnitsky Act will mean that those who perpetrated this heinous crime will be brought to justice, they are very wrong.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

A unilateral boycott of any sporting event in Russia by this country would be futile. There is no denying that delivering the world athletics championships, the winter Olympics and the 2020 World cup, while behaving like an international pariah, is a major propaganda coup for Putin. What does the Home Secretary think we can do to work with sympathetic nations to ensure that Putin cannot deliver these sorts of propaganda coups in future?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that a number of Members have indicated their desire for the Government to intervene in decisions taken by various sporting authorities. I have set out that a number of decisions have been taken by the Government. Sanctions have been put in place over a period of time in a number of different ways against the Russian Government. We are very clear that we maintain measures started under the Labour Government in 2007. As I have indicated, we are looking to see what further action can be taken against Lugovoy and Kovtun as a result of the report.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s report and I look forward to seeing what extra measures and actions she takes as a result of it. I am very concerned about people currently living in this country who have spoken out against the Putin regime. We already knew they were in a dangerous position, but clearly it has now been proven that they are in a dangerous position. Will she look at their security arrangements? Will she review how the polonium-210 came in, and how secure we are living in a city with the threat of it just wandering around our streets?

[Mrs May]

We look very carefully at the measures taken on our borders in relation to goods and individuals coming into the United Kingdom. On sanctions or other actions taken against individuals and the Russian state, I have answered that question on a number of occasions already.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The House should pay tribute to the great British scientists without whose dedication and expertise it is widely accepted we would not have come to the truth. Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking them?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to do just that. The work of the Atomic Weapons Establishment played an important part. The scientists who helped to investigate and get to the truth of the matter did a very important job.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I am sure I speak on behalf of my constituents and the whole nation when I say that my thoughts are with the Litvinenko family and that everything must and should be done to ensure they have justice. My constituents will be extremely concerned that a foreign nation could have come to our country—to our heartland of London—and, bearing in mind how it killed Litvinenko, put our citizens at risk. Based on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and others have said, can the Home Secretary honestly say she is doing everything she can to keep our citizens safe?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government take extremely seriously their prime responsibility for maintaining the safety and security of British citizens. We have, for example, introduced legislative proposals, and continue to do so, to ensure that our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Given the revelation that President Putin most likely signed off on the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko and the fact that decency and moral correctness mean nothing to the Russian authorities, does she agree about the importance of sanctions? That said, many people inside and outside the House, and perhaps she herself, are frustrated that sanctions do not seem to be biting in the way they should. Will she outline what new and unique sanctions are in place to make these people more accountable?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to comment again on the sanctions put in place against the Russian state and individuals. I repeat that we continue with the visa sanctions introduced in 2007. As I indicated, the UK led the economic sanctions that resulted from the EU discussions that followed Russia’s action in Ukraine, and of course any sanctions applied at EU level require agreement throughout the EU.

Police Reform

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Written Statements

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

The Government consulted in September 2015 on a series of reforms to enhance the powers of designated police staff and, for the first time, enable volunteers to be designated with powers without taking on the office of Special Constable. We also proposed that, for the first time, a single piece of legislation should set out the core list of powers available only to those that hold the office of constable.

As I said when I launched the consultation in September, the office of constable is central to the delivery of policing in England and Wales. But I was equally clear that we needed to explore whether police staff and volunteers could play a key role in helping officers to police our communities, bringing new skills and expertise, and freeing up police officers to concentrate on the core policing task that most requires their particular powers and experience.

Today I am announcing the Government’s consultation response, which sets out the key themes highlighted in the consultation and our response to the issues raised. We received 150 responses from a wide range of representative bodies and individuals, from members of police forces, existing police staff and volunteers and from the wider public.

The majority of the responses were supportive of all our proposed reforms and were clear that there is indeed a role for police staff and volunteers, provided of course that they are appropriately selected, trained and accountable for the role that they undertake.

The vast majority of responses (86%) agreed with the principal proposal to give chief officers a greater level of control over the designation of powers on their staff. Sixty seven per cent of responses agreed that chief officers should be able to designate powers on volunteers.

The proposal to create a list of powers exercisable only by police officers was very well received, with 92.5% of respondents welcoming this. The content of that list, as set out in the consultation document, was also well received, with few proposals to add to the list and none to subtract from it. We have accepted the suggestion from the Police Federation of England and Wales to add the power to conduct intimate searches to this list.

Given the majority of respondents welcomed all of the proposals, with the caveats in some areas as summarised above, we intend to legislate in the forthcoming Policing and Crime Bill to give effect to the proposals consulted on, with the small number of changes set out in the consultation response which has been published today.

[HCWS478]

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

1. If she will ensure that the proposals in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill are limited to the police and security services.

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

A small number of public authorities have the ability to use investigatory powers where it is necessary, proportionate and for limited purposes. All public authorities that have powers to acquire communications data have made a strong operational case to retain those powers. In his review of investigatory powers, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, said that there was no public interest in reducing the number of such bodies.

[Stephen McPartland]

The United Nations has condemned the Bill, which introduces mass surveillance, as having a chilling effect. Will the Home Secretary be kind enough to clarify how many organisations, including local authorities, and employees would have access to communications data as a result of the draft Bill?

[Mrs May]

I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom does not and has not participated in, or undertaken, mass surveillance. The investigatory powers in the Bill are necessary, and they are used proportionately by the police and other agencies. They are particularly important for the police, including those in his own Hertfordshire force, in dealing with not just terrorists and serious criminals, but the area of child protection, in which he has a particular interest. There is only one new power in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which is access to internet connection records, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that local authorities will not have access to such records.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of concerns among journalists that these powers, which the security services and the police need to keep us safe, might have a chilling effect on their ability to publish and to report. What steps is she taking to try to guarantee free speech for journalists within the Bill while enabling the security services and the police to have access to the information that they require to keep us safe?

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of the concerns of journalists, specifically about the powers to access information that might lead to the identification of their sources. They feel that that could have a chilling effect. We have already made a change in the code of practice to require a higher level of judicial authority to allow access to something that could relate to journalists’ sources, and we will legislate on that in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The David Anderson report refers to Cambridgeshire county council’s Operation Magpie, which relied on communications data to protect more than 100 elderly and vulnerable persons from attempts to defraud them. Does the Secretary of State agree that such operations may benefit from the powers in the Bill to protect the most vulnerable?

[Mrs May]

My hon. and learned Friend raises a very important case, and provides a good example of why it is necessary sometimes for local authorities, such as Cambridgeshire county council, to have access to such powers so that they can do that important job of keeping people safe. After the Government were elected in 2010, we increased the requirements on local authorities in terms of gaining access to the most intrusive surveillance powers, but as she makes clear, in trading standards and other such areas, these powers are necessary to keep people safe.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

2. What steps the Government are taking to prevent abuse of the immigration system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to promote co-operation between police services.

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

The Government are supporting local policing leaders to invest in cross-force capabilities and collaborative initiatives by protecting police funding over the course of this Parliament, using the police innovation fund to incentivise collaboration, and providing new transformation funding to drive further investment and innovation.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is a very encouraging answer, but bearing in mind the work of the ministerial taskforce on child protection, what steps is the Home Secretary taking to make sure that the police co-operate well with other agencies in schools, in the healthcare system, and in social work?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the police’s interaction with other agencies in dealing with child protection. On Friday, I visited a school and talked to people there about the work they do with the multi-agency safeguarding hub in bringing together police and various parts of the school and the local authority to deal with those issues. We recognise the role that schools have to play, including through personal, social, health and economic education and through sex and relationships education. We also announced in March, when we launched our “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report, that we will be looking at the training of staff, to enable them to be better able to spot the signs of where children may be being exploited in that way.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that, although there is a lot of good co-operation across the police services in Yorkshire, many criminals in our part of the world flee to Pakistan and, given that we do not have an extradition treaty, that is becoming a great burden on the police services when dealing with very serious crimes?

[Mrs May]

I am, of course, aware of a small number of particular cases where concern has been expressed. I would not want to comment on individual ongoing police investigations, but both we and the police recognise the significance of the issues. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, some of the cases involve very serious crimes indeed.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will know, Avon and Somerset police and Wiltshire police are working together strategically to help increase efficiency. The police and crime commissioner elections are coming up in May. Does she agree that PCCs across the south-west should work together to help merge the authorities in order to not only increase the efficiency of the police, but help tackle cross-authority crime?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Some weeks ago, I visited the new combined firearms training facility that is being used in that way by the Avon and Somerset, Wiltshire and, indeed, Gloucestershire forces. That is a very good example of collaboration. It is absolutely right that police and crime commissioners should also be looking for ways in which they can collaborate, not just in relation to the police, but, increasingly, in relation to fire services.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Such co-operation is vital for the Disclosure and Barring Service to meet its target of 40 days to deal with applications, but it is taking much longer in many cases, including that of a constituent of mine who has been waiting five months since his initial application, causing serious hardship. Is the Home Secretary aware of such delays, particularly within the Metropolitan Police, and what steps will she take to correct the situation?

[Mrs May]

I assure the hon. Lady that I am aware of the delays taking place in the Metropolitan Police, which is a matter that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), is taking up and looking into in detail.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Northamptonshire has been extremely innovative in developing new policing models, particularly in relation to rural crime, so what steps will the Home Secretary take to share that best practice nationally?

[Mrs May]

Northamptonshire has indeed taken a number of initiatives and I am very pleased to say that, in collaboration, the police and crime commissioner, Adam Simmonds, has been particularly innovative in his thinking, looking at ways in which collaboration, not only between police forces but with other agencies, can take place. It is part of the role of the College of Policing to ensure that good practice, where it occurs, is spread so that other forces are aware of what action can be taken, to help them deal with the same issues, such as rural crime.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Could the Home Secretary update us on the progress she is making on co-operation between emergency services, be they the police, the NHS or the fire services?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I will refer later to some of the steps the Government are taking in relation to that collaboration. We are encouraging police forces and fire services in particular to look for collaboration where they can find it. In some parts of the country, such as Northamptonshire, the police and crime commissioner is also actively looking to see what action can be taken in relation to ambulance services, too.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

8. What her policy is on the inclusion of international students in net migration figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

15. What steps the Government have taken to tackle violence against women and girls.

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

Tackling violence against women and girls is a key Government priority. We have introduced a new offence of domestic abuse and are consulting on new measures to protect victims of stalking. We have already committed £40 million between 2016 and 2020 to support victims of domestic abuse. We will publish shortly a refreshed violence against women and girls strategy, setting out how we will do more still to support all victims.

[Maggie Throup]

Following the meeting with the Derbyshire police and crime commissioner candidate, Richard Bright, I was shocked to learn that on average between July and September last year one rape a week was reported to Derbyshire police, linked to nights out in Long Eaton, Ilkeston and Derby. Will my right hon. Friend outline what is being done to ensure that victims receive a good level of practical and emotional support following a sexual assault? What can be done to help the police bring predators to justice?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. First, we have generally seen an increase in the number of reports of rape and other sexual violence. It is good that people have more confidence to come forward, precisely because of the support they now feel they will get from the police and other services. It is, of course, important to ensure that support is available to individuals, for example at Rape Crisis centres. I am pleased to say that over the past five years the Government have made money available to ensure that new Rape Crisis centres have opened, unlike under the previous Labour Government when they were closing.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is believed that 170,000 women and girls in the UK have endured female genital mutilation. It is right that the Government have introduced legislation and are funding projects in Africa and training NHS and education staff, but without significant UK grassroots intervention to change cultural norms, we will never prevent this horrific child abuse. When will the Secretary of State change her approach and invest in helping communities to prevent FGM, rather than failing to prosecute once the crime has been committed?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have taken the question of forced genital mutilation extremely seriously, which is why we have significantly strengthened the law on FGM and have issued a range of materials to support professionals in being able to understand these issues and spot signs of somebody being taken out of the country. I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on female genital mutilation and, in particular, of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has ensured that information is made available to communities and community groups about what can be done to prevent forced genital mutilation and to ensure that people can spot the signs and stop it taking place.

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

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

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

Colleagues across the House will recognise the dedication and commitment of the emergency services in response to the current widespread flooding. It has been a demonstration of public service at its best and a testament to the ability of our police and fire and rescue services to work together to keep the public safe from harm. We believe we must build on this foundation and encourage greater collaboration between local police and fire services—an issue raised in questions previously. On 5 January, the Prime Minister informed the House that responsibility for fire and rescue policy in England had transferred to the Home Office with immediate effect, and I am delighted that the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, himself a former firefighter, is the new fire Minister, in addition to his policing, victims and criminal justice responsibilities.

This machinery of government change is a natural progression of the Government’s work on emergency services collaboration. Police and fire services are sharing control rooms and back-office services, and we will shortly publish legislative proposals to enable police and crime commissioners to take on the governance of local fire and rescue services where a local case is made. I am keen to go further still and apply the lessons of police reform in the last Parliament to the fire and rescue service and ensure that policing learns from the tremendous success of fire prevention in recent years.

[Mr Speaker]

That was extremely informative but far too long. We need to be briefer from now on.

[Mrs May]

Yes, we have extended the list of criteria on vulnerability according to which we take people from the camps, but we have also provided specific expertise—for example, by working with the French Government to identify those who have been trafficked.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I shall take the Home Secretary back to a question she was asked several times last week but refused to answer. In late 2014, a terror suspect from east London well known to the UK security services skipped police bail and walked freely out of the UK to Syria via Dover. Let me try again: when was she first informed that this individual had absconded and were any checks made on his passport before he left?

[Mrs May]

I said to the right hon. Gentleman and other of his colleagues last week, and I will say it again today: I will not comment on individual cases because of issues relating to police investigations and proceedings. I would say, however, that this Government have taken significant steps to enhance our border security, including by establishing the UK Border Force, thereby taking it out of the failed UK Border Agency, which was set up by the last Labour Government.

[Andy Burnham]

That is not good enough. The public are concerned about this and deserve answers. A UK terror suspect broke police bail and walked out of this country unchecked, but it gets worse: yesterday, it was reported that the mastermind behind the Paris attacks last year freely entered this country, through Dover again, despite being known to the authorities in Europe. Is this true, and were any checks made on this individual on his arrival in the UK?

[Mrs May]

I make it absolutely clear to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government have taken steps to enhance our border security, taken the UK into the second-generation Schengen information system, introduced exist checks, and decided to do what the last Labour Government failed to do: put the UK into the Prüm system.

[Andy Burnham]

Two straight questions; no answers. On matters as serious as this, that is simply not good enough. Terror suspects are freely walking in and out of the United Kingdom on this Home Secretary’s watch. Terror suspects know the sea border is a weak link, partly because she delayed UK involvement in the Schengen Information System, which would have given the UK access to EU security checks. The British public need answers, not Ministers hiding behind excuses. Will she today order an urgent review of our border security at our ferry terminals and of the police bail regime for terror suspects?

[Mrs May]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration indicated earlier, we take a number of steps in relation to our border security, and indeed always look to see whether more can be done in relation to our border security, but I repeat what I said earlier—indeed, I said it to the right hon. Gentleman last week. The Labour Government had opportunities in relation to SIS II and Prüm. The Labour Government failed to get this country into Prüm; it is this Conservative Government that have taken the action necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T2. People across the country are rightly very anxious that the Government do everything they can to keep our borders safe at this moment in time. On that basis, for the Secretary of State to stand there and blame a Government that have not been in power for five and a half years is an absolute dereliction of her duty. What can she say to constituents across the country who want to know what she is doing and what responsibilities she is taking to keep our borders safe, in the light of the incidents raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), which people are justly concerned about?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman mentions people’s concerns about border security. It is precisely because this Government recognise the importance of border security that we have taken the steps to enhance our border security that I outlined in response to the shadow Home Security, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). It is this Government that have ensured that the UK is now a member of SIS II and can join Prüm. It is this Government that have introduced exit checks. All these are measures that enhance our border security.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T7. Following the horrendous attacks in Paris, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that young people’s minds in the UK are not poisoned and that they are not radicalised by the poisonous ideology put forward by Daesh?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Home Secretary said earlier that she had extended the vulnerable persons scheme to help those who were at risk of being trafficked. On that basis, will she ensure that it is extended further to help vulnerable children, who are at more risk of trafficking and exploitation than anyone else and who are alone and abandoned in Europe? Masud, whom she heard about earlier, suffocated to death in the back of a lorry.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, which gives me an opportunity to clarify what I said earlier. I apologise if the way in which I put it gave the wrong impression. I said that we had extended the criteria of vulnerability that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was using to determine who should be resettled under our Syrian refugees resettlement scheme. However, we have also, separately, offered extra support to the French authorities in relation to the identification in the camps of those who have been trafficked.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T10. Given that 1.5 million migrants entered the European Union in 2015 and a similar number will do so in 2016, will the Home Secretary confirm that all European leaders are aware of the impact on fellow EU nations and, in particular, on the United Kingdom, which is already experiencing unsustainable levels of migration?

Counter-terrorism

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about our work to counter the threat that we face from terrorism, in the light of the latest propaganda video from Daesh.

This weekend, Daesh released a video depicting the sickening murder of five men whom they had accused of spying for Britain. The video also featured a young boy. Let me echo the Prime Minister's words: this is a barbaric and appalling video. Daesh seek to intimidate and spread hateful propaganda, but in doing so they only expose their own depravity, and the emptiness of their proposition.

The House will understand that this is an ongoing police investigation. and that I cannot comment further while that investigation continues. To do so could prejudice the outcome of any future judicial process. For the same reason, I cannot comment on the alleged identity of the man or the child in the video.

Since the start of the conflict in Syria, more than 800 people from the UK who are of national security concern are thought to have travelled to the region, and we believe that about half of them have returned. Those who have travelled include young women and families. We have seen deadly Daesh-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe and other countries, including the attacks last year in Paris, Lebanon, Turkey, Kuwait and Tunisia, where 30 British nationals, along with others, were murdered at a tourist resort.

It is imperative that the police and security services have the resources and the powers that they need to keep us safe. Since 2010, we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget, and, as we announced in November, through the strategic defence and security review, we have made new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies. That will provide for an additional 1,900 officers, an increase of 15%, at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and will enable us to respond better to the threat that we face from international terrorism, cyber-attacks and other global risks. We have also strengthened the powers available to the police and security and intelligence agencies.

In 2013, I updated the criteria governing the use of the royal prerogative, which allows the Government to cancel the passports of those planning to travel to engage in terrorist-related activity overseas, and in 2014 I removed 24 passports from people intending to travel for terrorism-related activity. Last year, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act provided new powers to deal specifically with the problem of foreign fighters and to prevent radicalisation. This included a new power to temporarily seize the passports of those suspected of intending to leave the UK in connection with terrorism-related activity. These powers have been used on more than 20 occasions and in some cases have led to longer-term disruptive action such as use of the royal prerogative to permanently cancel a British passport. In November, we published the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny.

Since April last year, exit checks have been in place on all international commercial scheduled air, sea and rail services using the UK. The information this provides is already supporting our intelligence work, enabling us to make appropriate interventions. In addition, the UK has joined the European watch list system—so-called SIS II—meaning we are now alerted when any individual is stopped at a border checkpoint or by police anywhere in Europe and is checked against the system. Through our Prevent and Channel programmes we are working to protect people from being drawn into terrorism. In partnership with industry, we are working to secure the removal of extremist videos through the police counter terrorism internet referral unit. They are currently securing the removal of around 1,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content every week.

It is clear that Daesh will continue to try and poison minds, and to hurt people in Europe and other parts of the world. We must not let that happen and we stand with all those who want to stop it. Time and again we have seen people of all faiths and backgrounds join together and demonstrate their opposition to terror, and their stand for democracy and freedom. Britain will not be intimidated by Daesh, and together we will defeat it.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary has just said, people will have been sickened to see images from the latest Daesh video on their television screens last night. What makes it even more disturbing are the British voices in the video and reports that one of them is a UK national who absconded to Syria while on police bail for terrorism-related offences. Clearly, something has gone seriously wrong. People will rightly want to know how on earth this could possibly have happened and will want reassurance that steps are in hand to prevent a repeat

The Home Secretary has not provided that today. I do appreciate that there is a limit to what she can say, but she is only saying anything at all because we applied for an urgent question that was upgraded by the Government into this statement. I believe the public are owed more than that so I want to set out the questions that she will need to answer, if not today, then over the coming days and weeks, both on the specifics and the wider implications of this case.

I will deal first with the case itself and the reports concerning Mr Siddhartha Dhar. Whether or not he is the person in the video does not matter; the system has failed because it allowed him to abscond to Syria, and it is the system’s failings I want to focus on, rather than the identities of people in the video. He was well known to the authorities having been arrested six times on terror-related offences before being placed on police bail in 2014 and asked to surrender his passport. It was when he failed to comply with those bail conditions that it emerged he had absconded. This brings me to my first question: can the Home Secretary tell the House when she was first made aware that this individual had absconded? Did she order an inquiry at that time, and if she did, can she tell us what it revealed and what immediate action she took to tighten up procedures? If she did not order a review, can she say why she did not do so? Was he placed on a watch list and, if so, when? If not, why not?

At the heart of this case is the system of police bail for people arrested for terrorism-related activity and whether it offers the potential for loopholes. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether the authorities followed the correct procedures between arrest and the bail hearing?

Even if the correct procedures were followed, I have evidence that they were far too weak. I have here the letter sent to Dhar setting out his bail conditions after he was bailed on 26 September 2014. It reminds him that he was due to surrender his travel documents by 3 October 2014, but this letter was sent over a month later, on 7 November. Let me quote from the letter. It states: “It has come to our notice that condition number 3 has not been complied with, or so our records suggest. Are there any changes to your circumstances that the police need to be aware of? Could you please contact the police on the telephone number listed above as a matter of urgency?” Does that in any way sound like an adequate response to the seriousness of the charges? It is clear that Mr Dhar had left this country long before that letter was sent. As I have said, regardless of which individuals might be in the video, this particular individual has absconded and the Home Secretary needs to provide answers.

I turn now to the wider implications of this episode. Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many other individuals are currently on bail for terror-related offences? Is she satisfied that their bail conditions and the monitoring of those individuals are adequate? Is this the only example of an individual absconding while on police bail, or are there others? On the question of the passport, can she say whether, in cases of this type, the authorities should seize a passport immediately rather than waiting for it to be surrendered voluntarily?

Will the Home Secretary also tell us whether individuals in terrorism-related cases should immediately be placed on the watch-list for all airports and seaports at the point of arrest? There are also wider implications about border checks, and anecdotal reports suggest that people continue to be waved through at seaports. The Government committed to check all passports on exit from the UK by the end of the last Parliament. Has that been implemented? If every passport is not currently checked, when will the figure reach 100%? Even if Mr Dhar’s passport was not checked here, it should have been checked on arrival in the Schengen area. However, at the time he went through the border, the UK was not party to the Schengen Information System, which allows the sharing of our watch-lists across Europe, because the Home Secretary had delayed our participation in it. In retrospect, does she now accept that that delay was a mistake and that it weakened our security arrangements? Can she confirm that we are now playing our full part?

We know that the Border Force has undergone a huge upheaval since 2010, involving losing staff, and that it is today facing further cuts. Does the Home Secretary believe that the numbers of border staff are adequate to the meet the threat level and that further cuts will not leave us exposed?

In conclusion, we appreciate that this is an ongoing police investigation, but the fact that this individual could abscond while facing major charges raises serious questions about counter-terrorism policy. We need a commitment from the Home Secretary today that there will be an inquiry into this episode and that its findings will be made available to the House. There has clearly been a major lapse in security, and the onus now is very firmly on the Home Secretary to demonstrate that she is taking all the necessary action to strengthen our systems of monitoring people who pose a risk to our country.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has asked a number of questions. He is right to say that I will not comment on individual reports in the papers relating to the Daesh video. That is an ongoing investigation. An initial assessment has been made, and work on it is continuing. He asked further general questions about the conditions for police bail and on checks at the border. I assume that, as shadow Home Secretary, he knows that the decision whether to place someone on police bail, and the conditions relating to that bail, are operational matters. Those decisions are taken by the police. I seem to recall that when counter-terrorism legislation has gone through the House in the past, the official Opposition supported proposals from organisations outside the House that more use should be made of police bail for terrorist offenders.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about border checks and about whether the procedures had been tightened up. As I indicated in my statement, we have introduced exit checks. They are now taking place at the various ports of exit and in a variety of ways, according to how the information about someone’s exit is being held. We have introduced the checks and they are now providing support for our intelligence operations. He also talked about the border system that I referred to—the Schengen Information System II—suggesting that somehow this Government had delayed joining it. I seem to recall that SIS II was first proposed when the Labour party was in government, and that it was this Government—the coalition Government followed by this Government—who actually ensured that the UK went into SIS II and is now able to make use of it. We are looking across Europe to see how—I talk with my European counterparts about this—we can continue to enhance the use that can be made of SIS II. It is an important tool and we think there are ways in which we can make better use of it. We are discussing those and will be bringing them into place. We continually look to ensure that we can make any necessary moves to enhance our ability to deal with these issues, and we have done so—people can see the counter-terrorism legislation we have introduced in the past five years. We are continuing to do that, because we recognise our role and responsibility as a Government to keep people safe.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It seems to me that the one key issue that arises from this story is whether the Home Secretary is satisfied that there is an adequately rapid notification procedure following somebody being granted police bail and where the withdrawal of their passport is included, and in the event of a request that somebody surrender their passport if they appear in court. As long as those two things are now happening expeditiously, I venture the suggestion that the problem being talked about today is unlikely to recur through a mechanism of failure of notification. Having listened to the exaggerated froth that has come from Opposition Members this afternoon, I simply add that the single biggest change is the exit checks that my right hon. Friend is responsible for introducing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right about the importance of the exit checks that have been introduced. He asks about notification in relation to when the surrender of a passport is requested. Passports will be surrendered under different powers and in different circumstances so the whole process will be carried out on a case-by-case basis. For example, when a royal prerogative is being exercised a different process will potentially be used from when a police bail decision has been undertaken. In the latter case, it is up to the police to determine the speed with which it is necessary to remove the passport.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

The contents of this video are utterly abhorrent, and we hope that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the identity of this individual as swiftly and accurately as possible. A reasoned and proportionate response to this threat is essential. The Scottish National party is committed to supporting all efforts to counter terrorism and to working to safeguard the lives of citizens of this country. If someone has a passport removed as a condition of their bail, are additional options open to a judge to prevent that person from fleeing the country? What more could have been done or can be done in similar circumstances?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the video, echoing the remarks that both I and the shadow Home Secretary made about the appalling and barbaric nature of not only the video, but the organisation of Daesh. She referred to bail that has been ordered by a judge, but of course bail will often be ordered by the police. If someone has not been charged with an offence, the police will determine their bail to return on a particular date and the conditions applied to that bail. As I have indicated, there are a number of processes whereby other measures can be taken. For example, if the police determine at the port, under the new powers that we have introduced, that somebody’s passport should be temporarily removed for further investigation, that can lead to its permanent removal through a royal prerogative being exercised or to other action being taken. The exercise of a terrorism prevention and investigation measure—a TPIM—can also contain measures aimed at preventing an individual from travelling. All of these decisions as to which powers should be exercised are taken on a case-by-case basis.

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

I have formed an impression from media coverage, which may not be accurate, that a disproportionate number of violent Islamist extremists are converts to the Muslim faith. Is there any basis for that impression and, if there is, has any analysis been done about the way in which these people were converted in the first place?

[Mrs May]

I am not aware of any figures that show overall what proportion of jihadists have previously been allied to another faith and have converted to Islam. It is certainly the case that there have been reports in the press, obviously recently but also previously, of individuals who have converted to Islam. A lot of work has been done and continues to be done on this whole question of how people are triggered into radicalisation and terrorist activity. In most cases, a number of factors come together that lead to an individual becoming radicalised, potentially to the point of undertaking violence. What we do with our counter-radicalisation programmes, particularly with Prevent and Channel, is aim to interrupt that process and stop people who have started down that route to radicalisation.

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

I am asking not about the vile video that the Home Secretary has rightly condemned, but about Siddhartha Dhar and the factual questions that have been raised. Will she tell the House when she was told that he had absconded, whether she asked for an inquiry and also whether the Home Office holds figures on the number of people who abscond while on police bail for terrorist offences?

[Mrs May]

I said that I would not speak about the individual who has been named in the press. I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary, because he did ask me about the number of people who have absconded while on police bail for terrorist offences. Those figures are not collected. Figures are collected for the number of people who are convicted of failing to surrender to bail, but those are not separated into those who have undertaken terrorist offences.

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been working closely with her opposite numbers in the EU—Ministers of the Interior and so on. Will she update the House on what further co-operation is now taking place given the fact that, over the past six months, there have been a number of incidents in which intelligence exchange has obviously failed?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend has raised an important issue. There has been considerable progress recently in looking at the exchange of information between intelligence services around the European Union. I am talking about not just the exchange of intelligence that takes place between intelligence services, but the role of Europol. I have been talking with my opposite numbers specifically about a better exchange of information on criminal records, including terrorism offence records, further to enhance our ability to identify people who may pose a threat and to take the appropriate action. As I said earlier in response to the shadow Home Secretary, we are also looking at how the SIS II system can be improved to ensure that maximum information is available and dealt with properly.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is aware of the fact that Daesh is probably the most media-savvy terrorist group that ever existed. It is very welcome that, through a combination of the police and their partners in the industry, 1,000 pieces of content are taken down every week, but for that to happen those pieces of content must have been put up in the first place. Will she undertake to ask the internet providers to monitor more closely content going up so that it does not get on there in the first place?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. A number of initiatives are already taking place. In the UK, we hold a regular dialogue with the internet service providers. In December, the European Commission brought together EU Interior Ministers with representatives from some of the major internet service providers to discuss precisely those issues about how we can better prevent material from getting on to the internet in the first place and ensure that that material can be taken down. Here in the UK, we have had a long-standing view—across both the previous Labour Government and this Government—that we should work with the internet service providers to encourage them to use their terms and conditions as far as possible to remove material so that it is not available to promote that sort of propaganda.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

A key part of our counter-terrorism narrative is that in the United Kingdom we respect religious freedom, which makes even more disturbing the increasing reports of verbal and physical assaults on ladies who wear a veil or hijab while out shopping or taking their children to school, so can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will carefully monitor the number of such incidents and the effectiveness of the police’s response?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend, too, raises an important point and I can assure him that through the reports to Tell MAMA we look at the instances of Islamophobia that take place, as well as looking at the instances of anti-Semitic incidents that take place. We are committed to ensuring that police will now record hate crime which has an Islamophobic element to it so that we can get a better understanding of exactly what is taking place.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is aware that the terror threat was already “severe”, which means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. In view of the content of this vile video and the imminence of the first anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, has she put in place better protection for UK media, institutions and citizens against an attack within the UK?

[Mrs May]

We constantly look at the measures that we need to take here in the United Kingdom to protect against an attack. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack, discussions were held by the police with various media outlets to discuss with them their security. Of course, following the terrible attacks that took place in Paris on 13 November last year, we have looked further at the whole question of protective security. The right hon. Lady is right—the current national terrorist threat level is at “severe”—a terrorist attack is highly likely. The decision as to what that threat level should be is a matter for the independent joint terrorism analysis centre.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

In 2014 I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for increasing Prevent funding to Crawley constituency. Can she give assurances to the House that she will continue those efforts to ensure that young British Muslims are not tempted by the vile and sick propaganda of Daesh that she has rightly condemned?

[Mrs May]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have taken a number of steps in relation to an uplift in Prevent funding that is taking place. Also, an important step that we took was putting the Prevent duty on a statutory basis. From everything I have heard, I think that is already having an impact out there and ensuring increasingly that those in the public sector who come into contact with young people and others, but particularly young people, are looking to spot the signs that somebody may be being taken down the route of radicalisation, and to take appropriate action.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The House will understand and accept the Home Secretary’s concerns about interfering in a live police investigation, but she must surely accept that the information that is already in the public domain risks undermining public confidence in the police bail system. She or somebody in the police service today or some other time will have to give the information to the public to assure that there is no risk as a result of the operation of that system. The videos that we are concerned with today are—it is almost trite to say it—abhorrent and horrific, but they are merely the symptom of the wider disease of radicalisation. It is believed by many people that the radicalisation process is funded from sources in Saudi Arabia. Will the Home Secretary undertake today to investigate whether that is the case and, if it is, will she undertake to do what is necessary to shut off that source of funding?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about looking at the source of funding for extremism and terrorism here in the United Kingdom. There is a specific piece of work that we will be undertaking, which the Prime Minister referred to when he gave his statement to the House in November in relation to Syria. That will be done through the extremism analysis unit that has been set up in the Home Office, looking specifically at the funding of the extremism here in the United Kingdom.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I appreciate the work of the security services and the police in dealing with counter-terrorism. Clearly a great deal of their work is focused on overseas issues and security within the capital. Can the Home Secretary assure me that she is confident that enough counter-terrorism work is being done to ensure the safety and security of the British people in other cities and towns up and down the country?

[Mrs May]

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that counter-terrorism units exist not just in London, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Following the Paris attacks last November, a piece of work has been started—we are now finessing it—in relation to armed police response, looking across the United Kingdom to ensure that we have the appropriate numbers of trained armed officers in the right places.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Of course, the Home Secretary has form when it comes to absconding. Can she update the House on the current whereabouts of Ibrahim Magog, who absconded in a black cab in January 2013? Can she update the House on the whereabouts of Mohamed Ahmed Mohamed, who absconded wearing a burqa in November 2013? Both were on terrorism prevention orders at the time, under the instruction of the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to speak about previous absconds, because I seem to recall that seven people absconded under the Labour Government’s control orders, only one of whom was ever found.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

The Home Secretary quite rightly said that there has been enhanced funding for the security and intelligence services, but may I ask—this adds to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) made—that those extra resources and armed response units also go to our regional towns and cities, not just the capital?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in response to our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), the work that we are undertaking looks across the country at what is appropriate for armed response availability and response times. There will be an uplift in the number of armed officers within the police. As I have said, the exercise is looking precisely at how that should be done and where those officers should be, and it is not only looking at London.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for yet again putting clear blue water between our fellow Muslim countrymen and those who are extremists and involved in terrorism within this country. To reinforce that point, does she accept that it would be better to pursue counter-extremism and counter-terrorism right across the country, irrespective of geographic location, race or creed? With that in mind, are there any aspects of the counter-extremism strategy that could be operated in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the confidence he has shown in the counter-extremism strategy and in the work that we have developed and are developing on counter-extremism. As he knows, we have had discussions with the devolved Administrations on how the strategy should apply in those parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland and Scotland. Of course, work is already undertaken in Northern Ireland, in a separate strand of action, and that has been shown to be very valuable. Obviously, as he will be aware, at the moment the counter-extremism strategy that we are developing does not apply to Northern Ireland.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Internet-based propaganda does a huge amount to radicalise and brainwash people living in the UK into planning atrocities or travelling abroad to fight. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional resources invested in our security services, including GCHQ, which is based in my constituency, significantly enhance our ability to hunt that material down and remove it?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Importantly, we have enhanced the resources going into our security and intelligence agencies. He of course has a particular interest in GCHQ, given his constituency. The work being done there is very important, not just because of the information and intelligence that might be helpful in counter-terrorism, but because of what is done there to counter the cyber-security threat we face.

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

Many people in Waltham Forest are extremely shocked at the possibility that someone who lived in our community could be involved in atrocities. They would want me to make it clear that we do not consider that he represents either our community or Islam, and we condemn utterly his ideals and actions. However, the Home Secretary will also be aware that there are growing concerns that innocent individuals and families may be unfairly caught up in the activities necessary to keep our country safe. Will she meet me and other MPs representing those UK citizens who have been denied the right to travel to discuss their experiences and how we can reassure them that efforts to tackle terrorism are based on good intelligence and effective partnership, not prejudice?

[Mrs May]

First of all, I thank the hon. Lady for the remarks she made about Waltham Forest in her constituency and her constituents’ condemnation of the barbaric activities of Daesh and anybody involved in them.

The hon. Lady asks me about the whole question of those who have been denied the opportunity to travel through the exercise of the royal prerogative. If she wishes to bring up particular cases, I am sure that the Minister for Security will be happy to meet her. But I have to say to her that on the one hand her party’s Front Benchers are encouraging us to exercise greater powers and make greater use of the power to prevent people from travelling while she is indicating concern about it. They ought to get their story straight.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

One of the chilling aspects of the latest Daesh video is the exploitation of a very young child. On the issue of the radicalisation of children, what progress is being made by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education on ensuring that all madrassahs are registered and that all of them, even those that are unregistered, are monitored in order to safeguard our national security and our national way of life?

[Mrs May]

We have been working with the Department for Education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been developing proposals for the registration of madrassahs, starting with those providing a certain length of time of more formalised teaching. Action is under way in relation to that particular issue.

My hon. Friend raises a matter that concerns many people about children involved in Daesh in Iraq and Syria—children who may be taken away by their families and taken abroad to that environment. In the last year, in a significant number of instances, court powers have been used to prevent families from going abroad. This is quite simply a safeguarding issue and local authorities are increasingly looking at the issue and taking action.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

When was the Home Secretary told that Siddhartha Dhar had breached his police bail conditions? What actions did she take as a consequence of that information?

[Mrs May]

I have been asked this question before and have said that I am not giving indications in the Chamber today about any particular individual. Decisions about whether somebody should be on police bail are taken by the police. They decide the conditions of police bail, and that is as it has always been.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Many of my constituents tell me that they are not particularly perturbed at radicalised extremists who are leaving the country, but they are very perturbed about them coming into the country. What could the Home Secretary tell us about what she is doing to make sure that these people are not allowed back into the country, whether they are British citizens or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

We have taken a number of increased powers in relation to people who may be coming into the country to do us harm. First of all, we put our no-fly scheme on a statutory basis in legislation that we passed early last year. We also introduced in that same legislation the new temporary exclusion orders, which enable us to manage the return of individuals of concern when they are British citizens and cannot be rendered stateless. Decisions on that are taken on a case-by-case basis.

We also enhanced the ability of the Government to remove British citizenship from those who might be in the position of having alternative citizenship. We have increased our ability to take citizenship away from those individuals when there is a concern about the threat they might pose to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Further to the question by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary confirm what increase she has made in the number of Border Force staff to enable her to carry out full exit controls? When does she plan to have full controls for the people who are returning, and what implications will that have? How will she deal with the issue of biometric passports when people are returning on that basis?

[Mrs May]

For the benefit of the House, let me say that I think there are some inaccurate assumptions about the way in which exit checks are undertaken. It is not the case that every single exit check will be undertaken by a member of Border Force staff checking somebody’s passport as they go through a point of exit. A lot of this information comprises data that are being gathered electronically, and it is therefore not necessary for Border Force staff to be available to undertake that task.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

As well as propaganda online, much planning for modern terrorism takes place on the internet. The Home Secretary mentioned the draft Investigatory Powers Bill. Will she reassure the House that she is determined to come to a workable arrangement with the major internet companies to make sure that there is no safe space online to plot terror?

[Mrs May]

Absolutely. We continue our discussions with the internet companies on a variety of aspects, not least the operation of the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill and elements within it. It is important that we work with the internet service providers, which have a very key role to play in this area in relation to propaganda that can appear on their systems and the response that they give to warrantry requests from the authorities.

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

The Home Secretary will be aware of concerns I have had for a number of years about exit checks, following the worrying situation in which an individual known to the security services was able to travel with a passport from my constituency to Syria. Will she be absolutely clear on the point about exit checks? Are all individuals leaving the UK through a port of exit by commercial means being checked electronically at the point of exit on their passport, yes or no, and if not, why is that not being considered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

As I have indicated, the way in which the information is being taken varies from port of exit to port of exit. Some of the information in relation to flights, for example, is the advance passenger information that is available to the authorities and has been for some time. At other ports a specific swipe of a passport will be taken. All this information is being held electronically.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was quite right to conduct a review of the operation of the Prüm convention before deciding to opt into that convention before Christmas? Does she agree that cases like the one that the House is discussing today show why that was exactly the right decision?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that it was a sensible approach to look at a proper business case for going into Prüm so that we were not just making a decision based on no evidence. It was clear from the evidence available to us that there were advantages to Prüm, and I am glad to say that an overwhelming majority of Members of this House supported it. It is indeed absolutely right and it will be a very valuable tool for us.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am not asking about the correctness of the decision to bail Dhar, but what I would like to know is this: did the Home Secretary learn from Home Office officials, from the police or from the media that he had absconded?

[Mrs May]

I think there is somehow, somewhere, a view on the Opposition Benches that Home Secretaries spend all their time scouring the media, or indeed anything else, looking at individual cases. As I said earlier, decisions as to whether somebody should be put on police bail are operational matters for the police. I receive regular security briefings from the police and from the security and intelligence agencies on individuals of concern and on high-priority cases.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I welcome what the Home Secretary has said about the Government’s work to stop Daesh poisoning young people’s minds with its perverted ideology. Will she join me in praising community groups across the UK, including Building Bridges Pendle in my constituency, for their great work on community and inter-faith cohesion?

[Mrs May]

It is absolutely right that across the United Kingdom many groups are working very carefully and very hard within communities to build bridges within their various faith communities. I commend Building Bridges Pendle, the organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. One of the elements of the counter-extremism strategy that we are developing is precisely to try to find ways in which we can help those community groups to further enhance the work that they are doing to increase their voice so it is the mainstream voice that is heard.

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

I think the House, and maybe even the public, might be interested to know what interest the Home Secretary thinks she is protecting by refusing to tell us when she was advised that Siddhartha Dhar had absconded and whether she did anything about it.

[Mrs May]

I am not protecting any interests.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Daesh represents such a serious threat largely because of its widespread use of technology and social media to radicalise people in their bedrooms, on their smartphones, covertly but sadly compellingly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our security services and police need special powers to collect internet connection records and bulk communication data to protect the nation’s security and stay ahead of the terrorists in this complex environment?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend puts her point extremely well and she is absolutely right. It is important that we are able to access these internet connection records and to have the powers that we are hoping to introduce in the Investigatory Powers Bill. It is entirely right that the Government should continually look to see what further measures we need to take to enhance the powers of the police and security and intelligence agencies to keep us safe, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given recent events, will the Home Secretary let us know when we will finally have the counter-extremism strategy?

[Mrs May]

I am not able to give an absolute date for the hon. Lady, but I hope to be in a position to be able to—[Interruption.] In fact, the counter-extremism strategy has been published, and we are now looking at the question of the legislation that we would undertake through it. The specific piece of work by Louise Casey on the cohesion of communities will not be available for some weeks, or potentially months, because it is ongoing. I would hope to be able to update the House soon on any legislative proposals.

Independent Police Complaints Commission

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Written Statements

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

Today, I am launching a public consultation on reforming the governance structure of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The consultation proposals form part of the Government’s continuing programme of policing reforms, including changes to the police complaints and disciplinary systems.

Public confidence in the police is the basis for our long-established model of policing by consent. The IPCC plays a critical role in securing and maintaining public confidence, providing independent oversight of the police complaints system and investigating the most serious and sensitive matters involving the police. I am committed to ensuring that the IPCC has the resources and powers it needs to perform these vital functions.

In March 2013, I announced that resources would be transferred to the IPCC to enable it to expand to undertake many more independent investigations. This major change programme is progressing well and in 2014-15 the IPCC started more than twice the number of investigations it began in the previous year. The IPCC are taking on more again this year, while concluding more cases than ever before.

On 12 March 2015 I gave a statement to the House in which I set out a number of radical reforms on police integrity which included giving the IPCC new powers and strengthening its role as an independent oversight body. The Government will be legislating for these changes in the forthcoming policing Bill.

As part of this package of reforms, I also asked the IPCC to consider reforms to its governance arrangements and structure to help it, as a significantly larger organisation, to deliver more cases and to increase public confidence in the reformed police complaints system.

Following the publication of the IPCC’s proposals in August, I invited Sheila Drew Smith OBE, a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to undertake an independent review of the IPCC’s proposals, in particular to consider their likely impact on public confidence and, as appropriate, provide recommendations for alternative reforms to governance structures.

Today I am publishing Sheila Drew Smith’s report alongside the public consultation on the Government’s proposed reforms to the IPCC’s governance. I am proposing that the existing commission model should be replaced by a single Crown appointee, supported by a unitary board, providing one single, clear line of decision-making in the organisation from top to bottom. These changes, and others set out in the consultation, are designed to deliver a more capable, more resilient IPCC, with clear lines of accountability and decision-making, and will help ensure that complaints made against the police are responded to in a way that builds trust and public confidence, and allows lessons to be learned.

I would like to record my thanks to the IPCC and to Sheila Drew Smith for their efforts in considering these important changes.

The public consultation will run until 28 January 2015. Following the publication of a response to the consultation, the Government intend to legislate as soon as practicable. Copies of the consultation document and of Sheila Drew Smith’s report will be placed in the Library of the House and also published alongside the public consultation via the Home Office pages on the gov.uk website.

I hope that those with an interest in the IPCC will take the time to respond to the consultation.

[HCWS424]

G6: London

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Written Statements

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

On 9 and 10 December 2015, the UK hosted the most recent meeting of the informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior.

I chaired the meeting which was attended by the Interior Ministers of Germany (Mr Thomas de Maiziere), Spain (Mr Jorge Fernandez Diaz), France (Mr Bernard Cazeneuve), and Italy (Mr Angelino Alfano) and the Polish Ambassador to the UK (Mr Witold Sobkow). The United States of America were represented by the Attorney General (Ms Loretta E. Lynch) and the Secretary of Homeland Security (Mr Jeh Johnson). The European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship (Mr Dimitris Avramopoulos) also attended.

The meeting commenced on the evening of 9 December with a working dinner where we discussed the threat from Daesh/ISIL and how the Governments represented can collectively step up the fight against terrorism. Our discussion focused on the importance of sharing information, aviation security, and the practical steps we can take to counter extremism and radicalisation, including by working with and empowering communities. We had a very productive and informative discussion and there was collective agreement to publish a statement outlining our shared commitment to countering terrorism through a strong yet proportionate national and international response. The draft was produced overnight and agreed the following day when I introduced the statement to a group of selected journalists. The statement is available on gov.uk at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g6-statement-commitment-to-fighting-terrorism

On 10 December we reconvened at Lancaster House and began the day with a plenary discussion on migration and asylum. The discussion reflected on the unprecedented flows of people into Europe and the developments over the autumn, including the relocation mechanism, hotspots and the importance of identification. The discussion also touched on the broader questions of how best we ensure asylum systems are helping the right people, addressing migratory flows at source and upstream and reducing the abuse of asylum systems.

The second plenary session of the day covered data protection and the importance of striking an appropriate balance between privacy and security. There was a discussion on the recent developments in data protection, including the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of “Schrems” (C-362/14), the new EU data protection package and the role of communication service providers and how we can work effectively with them.

Over lunch, the discussion turned to modern slavery and I invited the UK’s independent anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Hyland, to introduce the session by sharing his experiences on upstream prevention and innovative approaches in source countries. All those at the table shared their experiences of tackling modern slavery which varied in approach and success. The discussion then moved on to the question of working with business to eliminate demand in supply chains. In conclusion there was collective agreement on the importance of the sharing of best practice between countries to address this appalling issue.

The final plenary discussion of the day addressed the threat posed by illicit firearms and built on the recent discussions at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The European Commission noted the UK’s longstanding contribution on this debate and gave a clear exposition of their approach to the firearms deactivation regulation and the amendments to the firearms directive. The discussion covered the benefits of enhanced information sharing and the importance of tracking the movement of firearms. I concluded the discussion by noting the collective agreement on the direction partners were taking to tackle the threat from illegal firearms and encouraged others to consider this issue and share their experience.

The informal chairmanship of the G6 group will now pass to Italy, who will host the next meeting.

[HCWS425]

Police Integrity Reform

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Written Statements

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

The Government take policing integrity very seriously. It is at the heart of public confidence in the police and underpins the model of policing by consent. It is what gives rank and file officers the legitimacy to do their jobs effectively. The Home Office has responded to public confidence in police integrity by introducing a programme of measures to improve standards of conduct in the police. This follows various high-profile cases on police failures both current and historic, as well as numerous HMIC inspections and IPCC reports relating to corruption.

We are already expanding the IPCC to deal with all sensitive and serious cases involving the police. We have introduced legislation to prevent officers from escaping dismissal by retiring or resigning; we have introduced the holding of disciplinary hearings in public; and we are introducing legally qualified chairs in disciplinary hearings. The college has produced the code of ethics; laid in Parliament (July 2014) as a statutory code of practice.

In 2016 we will go further with an important programme of reform including primary legislation in the upcoming Bill. We will make the police complaints system more independent of the police through an expanded role for PCCs. We will change the definition of a complaint and simplify the system, making it easier for the public. We will introduce a system of super-complaints to enable systemic issues to be raised.

The “Improving police integrity” consultation, and the previous Government’s response to it in March 2015, set out several proposals to strengthen the IPCC. We will bring forward legislation to implement these proposals. They include the following measures: ending managed and supervised investigations; providing the IPCC with the power of initiative to instigate investigations; clarifying the ability of the IPCC to make determinations; giving the IPCC the power of remedy; and ensuring the IPCC can present its case at disciplinary hearings following an IPCC investigation.

The measures the Government have implemented and the further reforms announced will ensure that local communities continue to trust the police to uphold the highest standards of integrity—but that where they do not, the public are able to hold the police to account.

[HCWS400]

National DNA Database Strategy Board

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that I am, today, publishing the annual report of the National DNA Database (NDNAD) Strategy Board.

Chief Constable Chris Sims, Chair of the National DNA Strategy Board, has presented the annual report of the National DNA Strategy Board to the Home Secretary. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The report provides demonstrates the important contribution of the NDNAD to the investigation of crimes. I am grateful to the Strategy Board for its commitment to fulfilling its statutory functions.

Copies of the report will be available from the Vote Office.

[HCWS389]

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

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

A meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 3 and 4 December: 3 December was the justice day, and the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and my noble Friend Lord Faulks QC, Minister for Civil Justice, attended; 4 December was the interior day, and I attended on behalf of the UK.

The justice day began with the Council reaching political agreement on a regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU, a successful outcome for the UK. The regulation covers a number of civil status documents and will reduce the bureaucratic and financial burden on citizens who need to show such documents issued by one member state to the authorities of another member state. The Commission urged swift implementation and a future review to consider including business documents.

On the directive for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, the presidency updated Ministers on progress since the October JHA Council. Negotiations on this directive will now be taken up by the Dutch presidency, with the issue of VAT fraud remaining the main area of contention.

Ministers reached agreement in principle on articles of the proposed regulation to establish the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), covering the EPPO’s competence and related matters. The UK is clear that it will not participate in an EPPO.

During lunch, the presidency facilitated a discussion on the fight against online hate speech which was broadly welcomed by the UK, in particular the voluntary notice and take-down procedures. The UK maintained that the EU should consider this work stream within its broader extremism strategy to avoid separate discussions and duplication of work. The UK also spoke against moving towards common European standards on hate speech, and reminded others of the continuum between illegal and simply unpleasant behaviour. The UK suggested that the take-down procedure should be speeded up, and that the EU should provide support in maintaining pressure on the IT industry to continue to improve the process.

The Council discussed the proposed regulations on matrimonial property and the property consequences of registered partnerships. The UK has not opted in to either proposal. Two member states made it clear that they could not accept the latter proposal because, in their view, it would require indirect recognition of same-sex relationships that are not provided for under their national laws. Given that unanimity was required, and the desire for the proposals to be agreed as a package, the presidency concluded that agreement was not possible. Other members states expressed their profound disappointment at this negative outcome to such a long and difficult negotiation. A significant number of member states confirmed that they would be willing to pursue enhanced co-operation, work on which will be taken forward under the Dutch presidency.

The presidency put a number of questions to Ministers about the situation across member states on the collection and retention of communications data, in the wake of the invalidation of the data retention directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling in the case of Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12). The presidency noted that the picture was fragmented across the EU, with some member states maintaining their domestic legislation, some introducing new measures, and a few finding their frameworks struck down by their domestic courts. Ministers were asked several questions including whether an EU or member state response was the best approach, and whether the Commission should be invited to present new legislation. The Commission stated that it had no intention of coming forward with a new proposal.

The UK, supported by four member states, urged caution, noting that access to communications data was of utmost importance and we should not rush to implement a measure if this risked ultimately reducing our operational capabilities. A number of member states supported new EU legislation, but many stressed the need to at least await the outcome of cases pending before the CJEU before proceeding. The presidency concluded that member states agreed on the legality of bulk data retention itself and that while many supported an EU measure, there was also a desire among many to await the outcome of those cases currently before the CJEU.

The presidency presented a paper on the challenges of evidence in the digital age, an issue to which the Dutch presidency will return at the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council in January. The Commission reminded member states of the importance in this context of implementing the European investigation order in full and to time. The Commission expressed concern about direct approaches to internet service providers, arguing that it could be outside a legal framework and could violate EU rules and undermine the new data protection regime. There was consensus on the need to address the challenges posed by e-evidence. The UK intervened to support looking at alternatives to formal mutual legal assistance where appropriate, acknowledging the importance of safeguards and oversight.

The presidency presented a paper on the migration crisis: judicial co-operation and the fight against xenophobia, updating Ministers on actions discussed at the October JHA Council.

The presidency and Commission provided an update on current legislative proposals. The Commission highlighted in particular the importance of reaching agreement swiftly on the data protection regulation and directive, and its optimism that this was possible before the end of the year.

The presidency noted that the western Balkans conference on 7 and 8 December will focus on migratory flows, terrorism, trafficking, firearms and judicial co-operation.

Finally, the Netherlands presented their three justice priorities: criminal co-operation on cybercrime, victims’ rights and a European forensic science area. Regarding the legislative agenda, the focus of the Dutch presidency will be the consolidation and implementation of existing instruments.

The interior day began with a discussion on passenger name records where I urged member states to take the opportunity to conclude the proposed directive. The Council agreed the compromise text negotiated with the European Parliament. Over lunch, Ministers agreed a Council declaration that all member states would make use of the option to collect data on internal EU flights and allow collection from non-carrier economic operators such as travel agencies and tour operators, with the aim of sending a strong message about the necessity of processing PNR, in advance of a vote in the European Parliament, scheduled for 10 December.

The Council approved the compromise text agreed with the European Parliament on a draft regulation on Europol. Formal adoption of the regulation is expected in the coming months. The UK has not opted in to this regulation, but will consider opting in post adoption.

Denmark updated the Council on the outcome of their referendum on moving from a block opt out of all EU Justice and Home Affairs measures to the UK and Irish opt-in model. Denmark expressed regret at the “no” vote and noted that this would make it very difficult for Denmark to participate in important EU initiatives, in particular co-operation with Europol. Denmark explained that the referendum had been heavily influenced by the uncertainty created by the situation at the borders.

The presidency updated Council on the implementation of the internal security strategy.

The presidency reminded Ministers of the strong commitments made in the 20 November Council conclusions in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and called for rapid implementation. I noted the positive progress made, citing the Syria strategic communications advisory team, Europol’s internet referral unit and stronger standards for deactivation of firearms, but stressed that further work was required on a number of fronts: first, to reduce terrorists’ access to weapons, particularly through improving our collective understanding of firearms trafficking through better exchange of information, including on ballistics. Secondly, it was necessary to make enhanced use of existing systems; in particular the Schengen information system, and to improve the interoperability of the various EU databases, including SISII and Eurodac . Thirdly, member states needed to step up co-operation with middle east and north African states to improve their capabilities, especially on aviation security. Finally, I stressed that all of this had to be underpinned by strong strategies to challenge extremist ideologies and prevent people from turning to terrorism in the first place.

Ministers were briefed on the EU-US dialogue which took place in Washington on 13 November.

The Council received an update on the migration situation, with the Commission calling for implementation of measures already agreed, and the EU agencies (EASO; Frontex: EU-Lisa) providing updates on their efforts regarding the external borders. Some progress was reported on hotspots but as there had been over 800,000 arrivals this year the situation remained critical.

There was broad support for the need to strengthen the external borders of the EU, with some member states advocating the development of a proposal for a European border guard.

I joined others in pressing for further, immediate progress on hotspots, reiterating the UK’s willingness to provide practical assistance. I stressed that it was critical for member states to tackle abuse of the asylum system by economic migrants, and that the principles underlying the Dublin regulation remained sound and should be retained. I set out that we are making good progress in our national resettlement scheme; but stressed that any further expansion of resettlement activity should be linked to actions by third countries to reduce illegal migration flows and avoid unintended “pull factors”.

The presidency provided an update on the negotiations on the permanent crisis relocation mechanism. Three meetings had taken place at technical level. However, several member states were against such a mechanism and wanted to wait to evaluate and draw lessons from the temporary mechanism. The Government do not support relocation as it is the wrong response to the migratory pressures the EU faces. It undermines the important principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country and does not address the causes of illegal migration.

The presidency said it would continue to progress proposals for a common EU list of safe countries of origin. Three areas for discussion were fundamental rights assessments, the interaction with national lists and the nature of implementing acts.

The Council reached political agreement on a directive on the admission of third country student and researchers, which is aimed at harmonising member states’ requirements governing the entry and stay of these groups. The United Kingdom has not opted in to the measure.

Under AOB, the presidency noted the outcomes from the Valletta conference and the EU-US ministerial meeting. The presidency also noted the upcoming EU-western Balkans forum meeting in Sarajevo on 13 December.

[HCWS386]