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]

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House, wishing to see serious crimes solved, to counter terrorism and to see foreign criminals prosecuted and deported, supports opting in to the Prüm Decisions; notes the views of senior law enforcement officers that the Prüm Decisions are an important aid to tackling crime; notes the success of a pilot that demonstrated that the Prüm Decisions mechanism is both swift and effective; and further notes that only a subset of the relevant national DNA and fingerprint databases, containing data relating to individuals convicted of recordable offences, will be made available for searching by other participating States, and that the higher UK scientific standards will be applied to matches in the UK.

Recent events in Europe, particularly in Paris, have highlighted the very real need to co-operate with other countries in order to keep our citizens safe and to hunt down criminals and terrorists. Following the attacks in Paris, we know that the French authorities have been co-operating and co-ordinating with a wide range of law enforcement agencies in other countries, and that one of the tools they have found most effective has been the Prüm mechanism, the subject of today’s debate. Indeed, it is thanks to Prüm that they were able to identify at least one of the attackers so quickly.

Prüm—so-called after the German town in which it was agreed to develop the mechanism—is about the sharing with other countries, in strictly controlled circumstances, of DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data in order to prevent and investigate crime. My French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, wrote to me recently to set out his first-hand experience of Prüm and his hopes that the UK and France can improve our co-operation through it. While I never accept the views of others unquestioningly, I think it is wise to listen carefully to those with recent experience of such chilling events, and they believe this system to be hugely beneficial. The experience of France and others, and our own detailed study of Prüm, leads me to conclude that it is in the national interest to sign up to it, and I will set out in more detail why I think so.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that the dreadful carnage in France was to some extent the result of the failures of the authorities in that country. Why should we place so much trust in those who have had that kind of experience?

[Mrs May]

I have to say that the blame for the carnage in France lies fairly and squarely with the terrorists who caused it. I believe it is absolutely right to listen to those with experience. I will come on to describe other examples of how the exchange of data is beneficial in a variety of circumstances. Before I do so, it might be helpful to the House if I set out how we have come to this point, exactly what the system is and what it is not.

As I have said, Prüm is primarily about the sharing of DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data with other countries in order to prevent and investigate crime. It is worth noting at the outset that we already share such data with other countries via Interpol, so this debate is not about whether we should do so, but about how. This system automates the front end of an existing manual process to access that information. It will make information exchange subject to the touch of a button, rather than a lengthy manual process. That means that it will be quicker and easier for our police to check the national databases of other member states, hugely increasing the reach of UK law enforcement. It is important to remember that this is not a centralised EU database.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes a very strong case for this technical function, but I am concerned that the threats we face extend far beyond Europe and the European Union. Will she say more about why it is so difficult to get Interpol and its member countries to adopt a similar system?

[Mrs May]

Because of the number of countries involved in Interpol and the amount of information that is available, there are very real difficulties and physical issues in getting all those countries to agree to such a system. In the European Union, countries have come together and decided that it would be beneficial to have such an automated process. So far, Interpol has retained the manual processes. Later, I will exemplify the difference in timing between the automated process of Prüm and the manual processes of Interpol.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to opt in to this mechanism. It is not about giving information away in its totality, but about sharing information. One of the lessons from Paris is the importance of EU countries knowing who is coming through the external borders. Does she agree that it is essential that when countries have concerns about individuals, they put them on the databases as quickly as possible?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. One of the arguments that we are making in Europe is that we should make better use of other databases, such as the Schengen Information System II border database, to ensure that we do the job that we all want to do. Criminals and terrorists do not recognise borders and do not stop at borders. It is therefore important that data are shared between countries so that we can identify them and bring them to justice.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Ideally, we would want Interpol to come to a similar agreement on the sharing of information through an automated system. The fact that Interpol is not in that position today does not mean that we cannot take action now with our European partners and share the information in an automated fashion. Given the tragic events in France, is this not a time for further collaboration and co-operation with our European partners, rather than retrenching into our own silo?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the interplay between Prüm in the European Union and Interpol, and he is right that now is the very time when we need to work more in collaboration with our partners to ensure that we share the data that are necessary to keep us safe.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have been very generous in giving way, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).

[John Redwood]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. As someone who wishes her to use all decent means to track down terrorists, I think it is a good idea to get access to more information, but I also want her to help us uphold our manifesto promise that there will be no transfer of powers to the EU and that there will be a reduction in the EU’s powers, so why can we not do this by intergovernmental agreement, rather than by submitting it to the European Court of Justice?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend has challenged me on similar issues in relation to justice and home affairs measures in the past. The fact is that because Prüm already exists within the European Union, attempts to exchange these data in other ways would require not only an intergovernmental agreement, but the building of separate systems. That would take far longer, and we would not have access to the data for a significant period. Other member states would point out that a mechanism is already available, and that if we wish to exchange data in such a way we should join that mechanism.

Let me explain a little more about the sort of data exchanged and the processes. For DNA, a crime scene profile is sent from one country to all the other countries simultaneously, and it is automatically searched against the profiles held in those countries’ databases. If there is a match, the requesting country receives a hit report back. At that stage no information is exchanged that would allow a person to be identified—none.

Prior to any personal details being released, all hits must be verified scientifically. In broad terms that is the same system as for fingerprints. Hits are reported within 15 minutes for DNA, and within 24 hours for fingerprints. With Interpol the same manual process means that the average time to report a hit is more than four months. For vehicle registration data, a country that is investigating a crime in which a foreign-registered car is believed to have been involved can request details of that vehicle. Those details are provided in 10 seconds. I think that bears repeating: our police would be able to get details of foreign-registered vehicles in 10 seconds, rather than the months it can take at the moment.

As I said to this House in July last year, Prüm is about the

“easy, efficient and effective comparison of data when appropriate”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]

Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt recall that Prüm was part of the 100 or so measures that we opted out of last year when we exercised an opt-out that the Labour party negotiated but had no intention of using—that was the greatest repatriation of powers in this country’s history.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Have there been any discussions with the Republic of Ireland about introducing Prüm, and does she believe that that will happen in future?

[Mrs May]

I have not held any of those discussions. Within the European Union a small number of member states have not yet joined Prüm, but they are being encouraged to do so precisely because of the value that has been noted by member states already using the system.

As I said, we repatriated those powers, but we did not seek to rejoin Prüm at that time. That was because although the Labour party signed us up to a measure, it did nothing to implement it. If we had then rejoined, that would have opened us up to fines for non-implementation that could have run into tens of millions of pounds. A pragmatic decision was taken at the time, but as I also said:

“All hon. Members want the most serious crimes such as rapes and murders to be solved and their perpetrators brought to justice. In some cases, that will mean the police comparing DNA or fingerprint data with those held by other European forces. Thirty per cent of those arrested in London are foreign nationals, so it is clear that that is an operational necessity. Therefore, the comparisons already happen, and must do so if we are to solve cross-border crime. I would be negligent in my duty to protect the British public if I did not consider the issue carefully.”—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]

By way of consideration, I promised to run a small pilot with a small number of other countries focused on DNA, and to produce a full business case on Prüm. I also made clear that the final decision on whether to sign up to Prüm would be one for this House. We have now run that pilot, and we have published a thorough business case by way of a Command Paper. We are here today to debate and decide whether we should participate in Prüm or not. I believe strongly that we should.

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

In such matters there are inevitably balances to be struck between sometimes conflicting interests. I think that the Home Secretary has broadly got this one right, and she will have the support of the Liberal Democrats. She will be aware that the briefing provided from Big Brother Watch today refers specifically to the European arrest warrant. What will be required for the use of a match coming from Prüm and relating to extradition under the EAW?

[Mrs May]

If, for example, the DNA profile is sent, the first response is about whether or not there is a hit on the database. There is then a separate process to determine whether the individual’s personal details will go forward. As I will come on to say, we intend for there to be scientific consideration of the match to ensure that it meets the requirements and thresholds that we set. We will be setting higher thresholds than other countries. It will be possible, if the other country wishes, to move to a European arrest warrant to arrest an individual if there is sufficient evidence. We have brought in extra safeguards in relation to the use of European arrest warrants. It will also be possible, through the EAW, for foreign criminals here to be extradited elsewhere and for criminals who have undertaken activity here in the UK but have then gone abroad to be brought back to the UK for justice.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

On that specific point, will the second check—the second set of scientific safeguards, as I believe the Home Secretary called them—be a manual check done by a human, or will the process be automated?

[Mrs May]

I think there will be an automated element to it. If my hon. Friend is concerned that the whole system will immediately undertake the check, there is a decision to make that check and we are setting a higher threshold. I am getting into scientific waters that I am perhaps not best qualified to refer to, but the issue is what are called the matches of loci on the DNA. Many countries will use six, or potentially eight, loci. We will actually use 10 loci, which is the threshold we normally set in the UK. If 10 loci are being matched, the chances of a false positive are less than one in a billion—an important safeguard that we have.

One reason I believe we should opt in to Prüm is the result of the small-scale pilot we conducted and to which I just referred. I was very clear that the exchange could only occur after we had put memorandums of understanding in place with the Netherlands, Spain, Germany and France, and that exchange would only take place under tight safeguards. Matching profiles found at crime scenes in the UK against the four overseas databases saw an impressive 118 hits. That is nearly double the number of profiles our police sent abroad for checking in the whole of 2014. We got hits from each of the four countries. We got hits to serious crimes. We got hits to people who were French, Dutch, Romanian and Albanian, and from various other countries. We did not get hits to Britons. Crucially for the police, this is leading to the arrests of foreign nationals that would not otherwise have taken place—foreign criminals whom we can then kick out of the country, making our streets safer.

A DNA crime scene profile recovered from an attempted rape was sent to all four Prüm pilot countries. The profile hit against a profile held in France, following an arrest there for a burglary. Following the verification of the hit, and after further co-operation with France, the National Crime Agency obtained demographic information on a Romanian national. This individual was stopped in London on 10 November 2015 on suspicion of a motoring offence, which would not have led to a DNA swab being taken or any search domestically of our DNA database. Owing to the Prüm hit, however, the warrant for his arrest was revealed. He was arrested and charged with the attempted rape and is currently on remand. In other cases of rape, we know the police have requested extradition papers. As the director general of the National Crime Agency, Keith Bristow, has said,

“these would not have been detected without the pilot”.

It is because of cases like this that Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has said that Prüm will:

“reduce the number of unsolved crimes, such as murder and rape, committed by foreign nationals, and provide an improved service to the public, victims and their families”.

If the House votes to re-join Prüm, we will be setting in place a process that will catch foreign nationals who have committed crimes here. We will be setting in place a process by which these criminals can be deported. We will be setting in place a process by which foreign nationals who have committed crimes in the UK can be linked to crimes abroad and sent to those countries to stand trial. In short, it will be a vote to keep foreign criminals off our streets and make our communities safer.

The numbers here are stark. If, and I hope when, the UK connects with all other Prüm countries, the evidence suggests there could be up to 8,000 verifiable hits following the initial connection. That is up to 8,000 foreign criminals our police can track down for crimes they have committed in the UK. There will then be an ongoing daily process that will produce more hits. Such exchanges will become part of business as usual, with the reach of our law enforcement extended across Europe at the touch of a button. This is the sort of progress we must grasp. Experience from those already operating the system in other countries shows just how important it really is.

To those who say we do not need to be in Prüm to do this and that we can do it already, I just say look at the figures. The existing processes are so cumbersome and convoluted that last year police sent just 69 DNA profiles abroad. The ease of the processes we used in the pilot means we have already sent 14,000% more this year. Furthermore, changing the Interpol process would require the agreement of all Interpol members, which would be a near impossibility. It simply is not true to suggest, therefore, that we can go on with the current processes or can easily improve them.

For fingerprints, there is an additional benefit. Countries signed up to Prüm can also check the EU database containing the fingerprints of asylum seekers and others detained illegally crossing the EU’s borders. It was this ability to make checks with that database that allowed the Austrian authorities to identify eight of the 71 people so tragically found dead in the back of a lorry on 27 August. It was that same ability that allowed the Austrians to identify one of the suspects in that case. We also know that one of the individuals involved in the Paris attacks entered the EU via Greece. With the unprecedented flows of migrants at the moment, it is clear that the police would benefit from having this capability. By that, I mean police from across the whole of the United Kingdom.

During this process, we have engaged closely with the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Northern Irish Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, whose views the Government have given great weight in formulating policy. That is why the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, the Northern Irish Department of Justice and the PSNI will have places on the oversight group. Their views will continue to be important to me personally and the Government more generally as we progress this matter, and we will of course consider the representations from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) about other bodies. We will ensure that every corner of the United Kingdom has its voice heard. I am sure that is why I have received letters of support for linking us up to this capability from Police Scotland, the Scottish Government and the PSNI.

I have also received support from Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who has said:

“The scale of the potential for individuals to commit crime across Europe is such that a solution such as Prüm, with all the necessary safeguards, is the only effective way to track down these highly mobile and potentially dangerous criminals.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am as keen as anybody to ensure that our streets are safe. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these powers could be exercised by our immigration authorities at the point of entry in relation to anybody seeking to enter this country, whether they be an EU or non-EU citizen?

[Mrs May]

There are separate arrangements of course. One reason we opted back into SIS II was to give our immigration officials the opportunity to deal with these issues as people crossed the border. As I said, it is possible to check the EU database for the fingerprints of asylum seekers and others detained crossing the EU’s borders illegally. I welcome my hon. Friend fully supporting our being able to take measures to tackle criminals and identify those who should be brought to justice, and I look forward to his joining me in the Lobby to support our entry into Prüm.

While it is incumbent on us to give the police the tools they need, it is also incumbent on us to balance that against any civil liberties worries that some may have. The Government have not made this decision without looking hard at how to protect British citizens. I was proud to be a member of the Government who abolished identity cards, stopped the indefinite retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints of those arrested and not convicted of offences and reformed stop and search. Where there have been genuine concerns, I have listened.

The first concern I have heard about this system is that innocent Britons could get caught up in overseas investigations. I believe this should be about catching criminals, so we will ensure that only the DNA profiles and fingerprints of those convicted of a crime can be searched against. We will write that into legislation. Innocent Britons will have nothing to fear. Secondly, I know there has been concern that some countries use lower scientific standards than the UK does when assessing DNA, as I mentioned earlier, and that this could lead to false positives in matches. That is why we will legislate to ensure that UK scientific standards apply before any personal data can be provided. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), this means there will be a less than one in a billion chance of the match not being a true one. We accept these standards domestically, and I will ensure that we apply them internationally. To suggest we go beyond that, however, would be to harm our ability to solve crimes.

[Mr Baker]

I wholeheartedly support the safeguards that my right hon. Friend has set out, but will she explain how she will be able to ensure they remain in place after she has brought the UK within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

[Mrs May]

Yes. How we deal with the data on the databases held here is a national matter. The European Court of Justice does have some jurisdiction—my hon. Friend is right about that in respect of some matters—but its jurisdiction is over the “hit/no hit process” or mechanism. Beyond that, how we hold the material on the database is a matter for national decision.

[Mr Baker]

I understand that this will bring the whole of our arrangements under the charter of fundamental rights, so the manner in which we retain DNA will be subject to European standards rather than the standards set by this House.

[Mrs May]

No. I have to explain to my hon. Friend that we are able to determine the database, and that how we hold that database and the information that is held on it are matters for national decision. Articles 2(1) and (3) of the principal Prüm decision say that we need to inform the general secretariat about which profiles will be made available for searching under Prüm, while article 5 makes it clear that the follow-up process to a hit is subject to national law, not EU law.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very persuasive case. I ask for a moment of clarity regarding the expansion of judicial engagement into areas that have formerly been for the court of Parliament, which has been a form of mission creep that can be seen in various areas. Will my right hon. Friend make very clear the precise remit of the UK courts on this matter, so that when it comes to a judicial review—as I am sure, sadly, it will—or a trial in front of the Supreme Court, it will be able to look back at the words my right hon. Friend has spoken from the Dispatch Box today. It would then be able to see the will of Parliament in the decision and not the interpretation that is chosen at that particular moment.

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm that I am willing to comment on the application of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and how it affects our position. As for the legislation that we are bringing forward, if my hon. Friend looks at the command paper, he will see that we are making clear those areas where national laws apply. As I tried to explain earlier, the Prüm decisions are all about the exchange of data, not the manner in which the data are held here in the UK. Article 72 of the treaties makes it clear that how we deal with DNA for our own security is a matter for member states, not for European jurisdiction. As a further safeguard, we will ensure that if a person was a minor when the DNA or fingerprints were taken, demographic details could be released only if a formal judicial request for assistance were made.

Finally, I referred earlier to an oversight board and I will establish an independent oversight board to ensure that Prüm operates in a just and effective manner. Both the biometrics and information commissioners will have seats on that board, and so will the Scottish Police Authority and the other bodies from Scotland and Northern Ireland that I have mentioned.

It was on account of all those clear and stringent safeguards that the National DNA Ethics board felt that it could write to me in support of our decision to recommend participating in this system. I therefore hope that those who I accept have principled civil liberties concerns will listen to its views.

Costs are associated with implementing this capability. When the Labour Government initially signed us up to Prüm, they estimated that it would cost about £31 million —about £49 million in today’s prices. That was without providing any safeguards and without ensuring that Scotland and Northern Ireland would benefit fully and be fully involved. I have looked at this very carefully and am pleased to tell the House that at the same time as ensuring that the operational benefits are nationwide and that UK citizens get the protections they deserve, the Government will need to spend only £13 million. The money spent implementing Prüm will be recouped many times over in savings that the police will make through using it.

Hon. Members will have read about Zdenko Turtak, who earlier this year attacked and raped a woman, leaving her for dead in Beeston. In investigating this crime, the West Yorkshire police had only the victim’s statement and the attacker’s DNA on which to proceed. Suspecting that the assailant might have not been British, they submitted forms to Interpol and had the DNA profile searched against profiles held in other European countries. It took over two and a half months for a match finally to be reported by Slovakia. During that time, the police pursued over 1,400 separate lines of inquiry at a cost of £250,000. If the United Kingdom and Slovakia had been connected through the Prüm system, that initial hit, instead of taking two and a half months, would have taken 15 minutes. Just think of the time and money that that would have saved the police, not to mention the benefit to the victim of knowing that her attacker would be brought to justice.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

If my hon. Friend will permit me, I need to make progress. I am nearing the end of my speech.

I agree with Russell Foster, the assistant chief constable in West Yorkshire, who has said:

“I can state without any doubt whatsoever that enabling the EU Prüm Decisions in this country will be of significant benefit to all UK law enforcement agencies.”

So, do we want to save the police time and money? Do we want to catch more foreign criminals and kick them out of the country? Do we want to speed up and improve our co-operation with some of our closest allies, such as France? Do we want to extend the reach of our police across Europe, and help to solve serious crimes like rape? Do we want to benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, and help to keep our citizens safe? The answer to all those questions must be yes, and, given the safeguards that I have set out today, I am confident that we can protect the British public while also protecting their civil liberties.

Prüm means more crimes solved and justice for victims, more foreign criminals caught and removed, money saved, the whole United Kingdom benefiting, and civil liberties protected. It is clear to me that signing up to Prüm is in the national interest, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Why should it not, if the co-operation is improved by those institutions? The hon. Gentleman is putting an in-built dislike and distrust of them ahead of the actual issue before us. That is what some Conservative Members are doing, but they should judge this on its merits. Surely the better we can facilitate that co-operation, the more benefits it will bring back to the police and security services. I would imagine that co-operation will be enhanced by working with established institutions, as opposed to making ad hoc arrangements, Government to Government. That is the benefit of the European Union, although I know he probably does not accept that.

The Government have come to the right decision, albeit in a roundabout way, but I wish to press the Home Secretary on a few points of detail, the first of which is on the cost. She said that in the original assessment the cost of opting into Prüm was put at £31 million, but she now says it is £13 million. We are prepared to accept that at face value, but can she say what is responsible for such a significant reduction in the cost? The business and implementation case says that the estimate is based on “high level requirements”, which implies that it is based not on a fully fledged implementation of Prüm but just on the “high level requirements”. Will she say more about that? What are the “downstream operational running costs” to which the business case refers? How much will it cost every year to run the system, set against the benefits that she said it would bring? My next point may be of interest to those who have signed the amendment. Will the Home Secretary say what the UK will be liable to pay back to the EU if the House does not back this decision this evening? I understand that it is a significant sum, and perhaps it would help the House to know what it is.

I now wish to deal with the safeguards. We welcome the appointment of the oversight board, although there is concern that extradition should not be possible under a European arrest warrant purely on the basis of a DNA or fingerprint match. I think this was the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was raising earlier. The point was that other corroborating evidence should always be required before extradition can be granted. I think the Home Secretary was confirming that was the case, but it would help the House if she or one of her Ministers could say a little more on that at some point.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful for the opportunity to do that, and I apologise to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) if I slightly misunderstood his question. It would be my expectation that an EAW would require more evidence. We have put a number of safeguards into the way in which EAWs are operated, to ensure that we do not see people erroneously being extradited from the UK, and I would expect there would be more evidence as the basis for issuing an EAW. And those normal EAW processes will apply even when there has been a Prüm hit.

[Andy Burnham]

I think the whole House will find that explanation helpful. I would share the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone and others if the match could then trigger a European arrest warrant immediately without any other evidence. I think everybody would find that worrying, but the right hon. Lady has reassured the House on that point.

It is also reassuring that only people convicted of recordable crime can be searched by another police force. That still does not take away the higher level of concern that there would be over the sharing of DNA profiles from named individuals. Does the Home Secretary feel that there should be a higher proportionality test in this area, linked to more serious crime and terrorism, and does she favour a stricter test before DNA information can be shared with another police force? That is an area in which a higher safeguard could be introduced. It might be effective in limiting blanket person-to-person searches, which bring potential for abuse.

Who will take the decision to share personal information if a match is made? Will it be a designated individual in a police force or will all decisions be taken at a national level by NCA officials? It is important to be clear about who will be making these decisions. Will it be an individual who makes only one or two such decisions in the course of a year, or an official who deals with many of them? I think people will have more confidence in someone who deals with a good number, because they will be able to weed out the more frivolous requests.

Will all participating nations collect DNA profiles and fingerprints from crime scenes using a shared quality assurance standard? There is concern about the lack of uniformity across Europe, and people will want some reassurance on that matter. Finally, will the Home Secretary expand on the role of the European Court of Justice when it comes to the Prüm decision, if we choose to opt into it? As I understand it, it is quite a minor extension of its jurisdiction and there is not the fear that has been expressed by some in the motion.

With those caveats—I insist that they are just caveats—I conclude by saying that we on the Labour Benches believe that the Government have reached the right decision, albeit they have done so in a roundabout way, and that they deserve our support this evening. I hope they agree that this whole issue and the way in which we have arrived at this point illustrate how our continued membership of the European Union enhances the security of our country in these difficult times. The Home Secretary has made a convincing and powerful case tonight to rejoin the Prüm decision, and she will have our support in taking an important step to catch more criminals and keep our country safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

It does not. The reasons why that terrible carnage took place have a great deal to do with insecurity and instability as a result of the failures of border controls and the manner in which people made their way to Paris. We do not have time to go into all those matters, and they are not the subject of this debate, but I question whether national security for United Kingdom citizens, which is our prime concern, will be advanced by surrendering these powers to the European Court of Justice.

The Government concede that accepting the Court’s jurisdiction is not risk-free. They should have explained what practical impact they expected the extension of the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the UK to have, and they have not done so.

Thirdly, the Government say that they intend to put into place extra safeguards to ensure that Prüm would operate in a way that

“respects fully the civil liberties of British citizens.”

Liberty gave evidence to the House of Lords on a number of matters in this respect.

In the report of the European Scrutiny Committee that was published the other day, we make it clear that there is an important balance to strike between law enforcement co-operation, especially when it involves the exchange of personal data, and the need to protect individuals against the risk of false incrimination and unwarranted interference with their right to privacy. The Government’s business and implementation case can provide only anecdotal evidence of cases in which Prüm has been instrumental in advancing an investigation or securing a conviction. The paucity of evidence that we have been given on the value and impact of Prüm in respect of law enforcement makes it difficult to measure its added value and to ensure that an appropriate balance is being struck. We find that lack of transparency and accountability troubling.

[Mrs May]

I can only assume that I slightly misheard what my hon. Friend said. He seemed to say that the only evidence that we had given about the benefits of Prüm was anecdotal. We have undertaken a pilot with four other EU member states. That pilot was based on the exchange of a certain number of DNA profiles. It led to hits. As in the case of the Romanian that I identified, it led to someone being charged, who is now on remand. That is not anecdotal; someone has been brought to justice as a result of Prüm.

[Sir William Cash]

I think that the Home Secretary used the expression “pilot scheme”. She surely concedes that it was a small scale pilot scheme. That is the basis on which I question the extent to which the evidence is sufficiently broad-based to justify this extremely grave extension of powers to the European Court of Justice. The main risks highlighted by the Government are the remaining possibility of false positives, leading to the false incrimination of innocent individuals, cost, conferral of jurisdiction to the Court, and a high volume of requests, bearing in mind the fact that the UK has the largest criminal fingerprint and DNA databases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was not much choice left on this side of the Chamber. You have a distinct advantage over many Members here, in that when you entered the Chamber about 10 minutes ago, you at least knew what the subject matter was. I have sat through the debate for almost two hours, and some of the contributions would lead people to think that this was a dangerous proposition that posed a fundamental threat to our country. I do not believe that that is the case.

I am incredibly grateful to the Home Secretary and, in particular, to the Minister for Immigration for our conversations over the past few weeks, for their thoughtfulness and their willingness to assuage our concerns, and for preparing and publishing the Command Paper. If Prüm was about the United Kingdom Government sending shedloads of data to 27 other EU member states, I would be voting against it. If it was about asking 27 other EU member states to come over to the United Kingdom and have full, unfettered access to our data, I would also vote against it. However, that is not what is being proposed. The indications from the Home Secretary and from the Command Paper that the cost has been significantly reduced, from £31 million to £13 million, are to be welcomed.

I would be grateful if the Minister or the Home Secretary could help me with a little confusion arising from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). He suggested that we needed to put certain information on a database. My understanding was that we had three databases—one for vehicle registration, one for DNA and one for fingerprints—and that it was through those existing databases that the information would be handled.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful for this opportunity to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just said. There is a DNA database—we will restrict the information that is available for the Prüm checks—a vehicle registration database and a fingerprint database. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), mentioned a whole variety of databases. There are some issues within the European Union about the connectivity of certain databases to help us to catch terrorists and so forth, but in regard to the Prüm decisions, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is absolutely right to say that it is those three databases that we are talking about.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful for that explanation. It satisfies my confusion, as opposed to there being any error on the part of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

[Mrs May]

Perish the thought!

[Keith Vaz]

He’s a nice man!

Policing: Review of Local Targets

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Written Statements

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

In May 2015, I announced at the Police Federation conference a comprehensive review of targets in policing, to be led by Chief Superintendent Irene Curtis. I said that the review would examine the use of targets in each force to understand where, how and why targets are being used, and analyse the impact of targets on police officers’ ability to fight crime.

I am pleased to tell the House that the review has now concluded. I am grateful to Irene Curtis for her thorough investigation and analysis of the use of targets in policing.

The review sheds light on current practice among forces and confirms the problems I have long noted with numerical targets: skewing priorities; causing dysfunctional behaviours; and reducing officer discretion. It shows that the police need to go further in order to tackle the culture of narrow target-chasing and bureaucracy that has hampered and limited officers, preventing them from exercising their professional judgment. Quite rightly the public expect to see forces serving their communities, not chasing arbitrary targets. The police need performance management systems that help effective decision-making to improve performance, while also enabling individuals to be appropriately held to account.

The review makes recommendations for the leading organisations and individuals in policing: chief constables, who are tasked with improving their performance measurement, monitoring and reporting processes; Police and Crime Commissioners, who will need to develop a more sophisticated dialogue with the public on police and crime “success” factors; the College of Policing in developing a set of principles for performance management; and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to improve the presentation of performance data and communication of monitoring processes. It will be for each organisation to consider its own response but I welcome the evidence the review provides. Its implementation will help improve performance measurement and management practices across policing.

Irene Curtis’s review has highlighted the importance of understanding the demands upon the police. A key step to achieving this is a robust and consistent framework for recording those demands—both crime and non-crime incidents. We will engage with our partners to consider options for greater alignment of National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR) with the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS).

The review also recommended that the Home Office review the annual data requirement for victim satisfaction data. A police-led review of user satisfaction surveys, to ensure that changes proposed to the data requirement are of assistance to police forces, will be undertaken by April 2016. The Home Office will consider its findings as part of the 2017-18 annual data requirement process. In the meantime, the current annual data requirement for user satisfaction surveys will continue for 2016-17.

A copy of Chief Superintendent Irene Curtis’s report will be placed in the Library of the House. It can also be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=home-office.

[HCWS367]

Stalking Protection Order: Consultation

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Written Statements

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

On Saturday 5 December, I launched a public consultation on introducing a new stalking protection order. Stalking is an insidious crime which traumatises its victims and, at its most extreme, can lead to the loss of innocent lives. We are addressing stalking as part of our wider work to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG) and the work we are driving in this area will be captured in our refreshed VAWG strategy to be published in due course.

We introduced new legislation in 2012 to fill a gap in the law to tackle stalking and have driven a programme of training for police and prosecutors to ensure that stalking is recognised and dealt with effectively. Prosecutions are rising which is encouraging. However, I want to be absolutely sure that we are doing all we can to protect victims from this frightening act, which can cause considerable distress and alarm.

The nature of stalking can be delusional and obsessive and while the actions of a stalker can seem innocuous on the surface, there is a risk that the developing fixation may be missed. Early identification of stalking behaviour is crucial and I am determined that this Government will do everything possible to protect victims and deter perpetrators, even before the stage is reached to commence prosecution.

We know that stalking can take place in the context of an ongoing pattern of domestic violence and abuse and we have introduced a range of measures to protect victims in these circumstances, including the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and the domestic violence protection order. Our stalking legislation, along with the new offence of coercive or controlling behaviour, is already helping to protect victims from this abuse.

However, in around half of cases, stalking occurs where only a very casual acquaintanceship exists between the perpetrator and their victim. While existing injunctions or orders may place restrictions on a stalker, this alone will often not deter them from their behaviour. Stalking needs to be recognised for what it is to ensure interventions are effective and meaningful.

A new stalking protection order could ensure that pre-charge options are available to the police to protect these victims of ‘stranger stalking’ to the same level that victims of domestic violence and abuse can be protected. The consultation will explore whether ‘positive requirements’ can be placed on perpetrators at this early stage to help stop their behaviour in its tracks.

I launched the consultation on 5 December during the 16 days of actions following the international day for the elimination of violence against women on 25 November. The consultation can be accessed at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-a-stalking-protection-order.

A copy will also be placed in the House Library.

[HCWS361]

Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to share with the House the Government’s progress in galvanising a co-ordinated global response against online child sexual exploitation.

On 16 and 17 November the UK and United Arab Emirates brought together Governments, companies and civil society organisations in Abu Dhabi for the second WePROTECT summit, to protect children from online sexual exploitation. This built on the first summit hosted by the Prime Minister in London last year.

While I could not attend due to the Paris attacks, Baroness Shields and His Highness Sheikh Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan opened the summit. I am pleased Baroness Shields was able to attend in my place, and welcome that she has been appointed as joint Minister for Internet Safety and Security for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office. This appointment serves to further underpin the importance this Government place on tackling online child sexual exploitation. The event secured a wider global reach for WePROTECT, with new countries from the middle east and Latin America and, for the first time, China. This brought to 62 the total number of countries and international organisations signed up to the WePROTECT commitments.

The summit commitments included an agreement on taking co-ordinated national action against online child sexual exploitation, guided by the WePROTECT model national response. To drive national action, Governments will publish an analysis of their own response and use this to identify further capabilities needed.

I am pleased to say that the UK has already made significant progress in tackling this crime. All UK police forces and the National Crime Agency are now connected to the new child abuse image database (CAID) that was launched last year. A new operational victim identification strategy has been established around CAID by the National Crime Agency and is helping to identify even more victims of online child abuse. In the first six months of this year alone, UK authorities identified over 185 victims—already more than for the whole of any previous year.

In addition, the Internet Watch Foundation shared almost 19,000 digital fingerprints of child sexual abuse material—all of which originated from CAID—with five major global technology firms, to enable the removal and prevent the sharing of potentially thousands of images from their platforms and services. Companies have committed to build on this by co-ordinating the sharing of these digital fingerprints globally. The Prime Minister will hold international discussions next year to take this forward.

We are also fulfilling our commitment to support others to build their capabilities. At the London summit, the Prime Minister pledged £50 million over five years to tackle violence against children globally. The first £10 million of this funding is financing a global programme by UNICEF to tackle online child sexual exploitation in 17 countries.

To drive further progress, all WePROTECT signatories at the Abu Dhabi summit agreed to put the WePROTECT advisory board on a firm long-term footing, as a body responsible to all those signed up to this initiative and charged with supporting countries and other stakeholders to implement their commitments. The board will also take forward a joint proposal by the UK, US and EU Commission to merge WePROTECT with the global alliance against child sexual abuse online to bring together global efforts to combat online child sexual exploitation.

[HCWS356]

Justice and Home Affairs: Pre-Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd 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 will be held on 3 and 4 December: 3 December will be 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, will attend; 4 December will be interior day, and I will attend on behalf of the UK.

The justice day will begin with the Luxembourg presidency seeking political agreement to the proposed regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. This proposal covers the abolition of apostilles for eligible documents, production of multilingual translation aids for certain categories, rationalisation of certified copies and translations and administrative co-operation between member states through an online system. The proposal is generally supported by the UK as a means of reducing bureaucracy for citizens.

This will be followed by a state of play update by the presidency on the directive for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, reporting back to Ministers following October Council and subsequent working party meetings. The presidency proposes that the VAT issue needs to be explored further in order to take the file forward. An agreement in principle has been reached at official level to discuss VAT fraud at a joint justice/finance meeting.

There will then be a discussion on the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) where the presidency will likely seek to agree a partial general approach to the EPPO’s competence. The UK will not participate in any EPPO.

The presidency will also be seeking conclusion to the negotiation of the proposals on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. The UK has not opted in to either proposal. Negotiations recently resumed following a period of reflection initiated by the Italian presidency at the end of last year. It is as yet unclear whether the differences between some member states, in particular regarding the status of same-sex relationships, will be capable of resolution. Given that these proposals must be agreed by unanimity it is possible that one or more member states might veto one or both of them.

There will then be a short update on the role of judicial co-operation, and particularly Eurojust, in addressing the current migration crisis. This issue was discussed at the October Council, and we do not expect a significant debate at this meeting.

There will then be a general discussion on the fight against online hate speech, which has been the focus of attention in the wake of recent terrorist attacks and the current refugee movements. We expect the discussion to focus on the value of EU-wide, cross-border collaboration; this includes the need for effective counter-narratives and for internet industry partners to take more responsibility for content hosted on their platforms.

This will be followed by a discussion on the challenges encountered by member states in obtaining and sharing electronic evidence in criminal investigations and proceedings. We will stress the importance of member states using the full range of investigative tools to investigate and use of this type of evidence.

Finally, there will be a discussion on data retention. The presidency wishes to have a detailed discussion following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12) which invalidated the data retention directive. We will continue to argue that, given the importance of this issue, the consequences of any new legislation in this area must be thought through very carefully before any new proposal is considered.

The interior day will begin with a discussion on the passenger name records (PNR) directive. The Government support the call made by the 20 November extraordinary JHA Council for the directive to be agreed by the end of the year, and for it to include intra-European economic area flights within its scope. The presidency is likely to give a progress report and, if necessary, we will call for a greater focus on meeting the Council’s target.

The Council is then expected to confirm political agreement on the new draft regulation governing Europol, proposed by the Commission in 2013. The UK has not opted in to this proposal, so does not have a vote. The Government will consider whether to apply to opt in post-adoption.

The Council is also expected to confirm political agreement on the draft directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing—the “Students and Researchers Directive”. The UK has not opted in to this directive so again does not have a vote.

The Council will discuss the proposal for a regulation establishing a crisis relocation mechanism and the accompanying amendment to the Dublin regulation. The Government’s position on relocation measures is clear: we think they are the wrong response and we will not opt in. The Government are also of the view that amending the Dublin regulation is unnecessary and risks undermining a vital tool in managing asylum claims within the EU. The fundamental principles underpinning the Dublin regulation remain sound and the upcoming review should be used as an opportunity to improve the operation of the regulation.

The presidency will look to progress negotiations on the draft directive establishing an EU list of safe third countries. Discussions will focus on which countries should be included in the list and next steps. The Government acknowledge the value of such lists and the UK has successfully operated its own national list for many years. We see no added value to the UK in being part of an EU-wide list.

The CT agenda item will commence with a presentation, based on a paper, by the counter-terrorism co-ordinator. The presentation reviews progress made against a European Council statement of 12 February 2015, on ensuring the security of citizens, preventing radicalisation and safeguarding values, and co-operating with our international partners. The presentation will be followed by a discussion. The UK will welcome agreement of the implementing regulation on firearms deactivation and push for a robust revised firearms directive including a prohibition on high-powered semi-automatic weapons. We will also seek to agree in principle burden-sharing commitments to improve aviation security standards in priority third countries and assert that a common approach for the second generation Schengen information system (SISII) should be prioritised in order to strengthen the external border of the EU. The UK will welcome support for Europol through the Europol regulation while reiterating that information-sharing should not encroach on member state competence in matters of national security. Post Paris there has been increased appetite for meaningful change to the security framework in Europe, as evidenced by ambitious Council conclusions agreed on 20 November. Against this backdrop we believe our asks will be well received.

The presidency will present their report on the implementation of the renewed internal security strategy (2015-19). The report sets out the progress made on the strategy under their presidency, which is being led and monitored by the Committee on Internal Security (COSI). This work will continue under the forthcoming Dutch presidency.

We then expect the discussion to move to the migration situation, where the presidency wishes to monitor the implementation of existing measures and discuss future action.

We expect this discussion to include an update on the development of hotspots and on the assistance that member states are providing to Frontex and European Asylum Support Office. It is also likely to build on the conclusions of the 20 November Council that there should be systematic checks at external Schengen borders on all persons including EU citizens. I will reiterate a key message from my interventions at the JHA Councils on 9 November and 20 November in relation to the strengthening of the EU external border, where I noted that the EU is seeing an unprecedented interaction between organised crime and migration. I also intend to call again for reciprocal access to key data between Schengen and non-Schengen countries, join others in pressing for the immediate implementation of effective hotspots, and reiterate my support for the long-established principle that asylum seekers should seek protection in the first safe country they reach—the keystone of the Dublin system.

Finally, there will be a discussion on the situation in the Schengen area, based on the latest information from the presidency. The UK does not participate in the border controls elements of Schengen. However, we will follow these discussions closely as there is, in our view, an intrinsic connection between the strength of the external border of the EU and security within the EU, as well as the need to improve the management of the external border given continuing migratory pressures. It is therefore imperative that the EU takes further urgent steps to strengthen the external border.

[HCWS350]

Immigration Bill

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

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

We have heard considerable debate and lively discussion as the Immigration Bill has been discussed today and at the various other stages. A range of views and concerns have been expressed and considered amendments have been voted on. As we come to Third Reading, it is important that we remember why the Bill is so necessary, so I want to reflect on what we believe the Bill will do.

As I said on Second Reading, we must continue to build an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and people who come here legitimately to play by the rules and contribute to our society. That means ensuring that immigration is balanced and sustainable and that net migration can be managed.

I am sure that the whole House will agree that, without immigration, this country would not be the thriving multiracial, multifaith democracy that it is today. Immigration has brought tremendous benefits—to our economy, our culture and our society—but, as I have said before, when net migration is too high, and the pace of change too fast, it puts pressure on schools, hospitals, accommodation, transport and social services, and it can drive down wages for people on low incomes. That is not fair on the British public and it is not fair on those who come here legitimately and play by the rules. So since 2010 the Government have reformed the chaotic and uncontrolled immigration system that we inherited, and instead we are building one that works in the national interest.

This Bill will ensure that we can go further in bringing clarity, fairness and integrity to the immigration system. I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive contributions in shaping this Bill during its parliamentary stages, and all those who have been involved in working on it: the members of the Committee, the House authorities, the organisations who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, and those who responded to all the consultations and provided briefing on the Bill. I thank and commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for the thoughtful way in which he has steered the Bill through the House. It has been important and substantial work. I want to highlight briefly some of the measures in the Bill.

The exploitation of vulnerable people by unscrupulous employers is an issue that has been raised by victims’ campaign groups, charitable organisations and Members in this House many times before. We know that labour market exploitation can be committed by organised criminal gangs, and it is clear that workers’ rights need to be enforced more effectively, and that the current regulatory framework needs improvement. This Bill will create a new statutory director of labour market enforcement to oversee and co-ordinate the drive for more effective enforcement across the spectrum of non-compliance.

The House will appreciate that illegal working remains one of the principal pull factors for people coming to live in the UK illegally, so we are taking the necessary step of making illegal working a criminal offence. This addresses a genuine gap in our ability to use proceeds of crime powers to seize and confiscate the profits made by those who choose to break our immigration laws. But we should be clear that this measure is not intended to—nor will it—punish the vulnerable, such as those who are trafficked here and forced to work illegally. The safeguards provided in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 will continue to protect people in those circumstances. Instead, we want to deal with those illegal migrants who choose to work here illegally when they should, and could, leave the UK. But we must also target the employers who facilitate illegal working. The Bill will allow us to strengthen sanctions for employers who knowingly turn a blind eye to the fact that they are employing illegal workers.

We also know that a great deal of illegal working happens in licensed sectors. The Bill will ensure that those working illegally or employing illegal workers cannot obtain licences to sell alcohol or run late night take-away premises. Similarly, we will be requiring licensing authorities to check the immigration status of taxi or private hire vehicle drivers. The message is simple—illegal working is wrong, and it will not be tolerated.

Too often, illegal migrants ignore the law, remain illegally in this country and take advantage of our very generous public services. That cannot be allowed to continue, so we will further restrict access to services. We will make it easier for landlords to evict illegal migrants while also introducing new offences for rogue landlords who repeatedly rent to illegal migrants. We will crack down on those driving while in the UK illegally by ensuring that, if they hold UK driving licences, their licences can be seized and taken out of circulation. We will also strengthen the consequences for those continuing to drive without lawful immigration status, including powers to detain their vehicle.

We will create a duty on banks and building societies periodically to check the immigration status of existing current account holders so that accounts held by illegal migrants can be closed or frozen following a court order.

It is right that we address the appeals issue so that we can remove people with no right to be in the UK. In 2014 we introduced our deport now, appeal later scheme, which has helped us to deport over 230 foreign national offenders. In our manifesto, we committed to extending that to all human rights cases, provided it does not breach human rights. The Bill allows us to do just that, to ensure that illegal migrants who have not been offered leave to remain cannot frustrate the removal process.

We will also ensure as a result of the Bill that when foreign criminals are released on bail we can place a satellite tag on them so that we know their whereabouts and can improve public protection.

The Government are clear that we have a duty to offer support to those who come to the UK and seek our protection while their claim is being assessed. But it cannot be right for that support to continue once it has been established and confirmed by the courts that an individual has no need of our protection and could, and should, leave the UK. Such individuals are illegal migrants, and to support them further would be unfair on those who do need our protection and our support to establish a new life here. The Bill redresses that balance and removes incentives to remain here illegally.

Two other aspects are important. Controlling our borders is vital in protecting national security. It is imperative that we know who is seeking to enter the UK and that we are able to stop them if they seek to do us harm. The Bill gives Border Force officers more powers to intercept vessels at sea, increase penalties for airline and port operators who fail to present passengers to immigration control, and automatically apply UN or EU travel bans to stop dangerous individuals coming to the UK.

Secondly, in line with our manifesto, we will ensure that customer-facing public sector workers are able to speak English. Where communicating with the British public is a vital part of the job, fluent English should be a prerequisite, and through this Bill we will legislate to ensure that this becomes a reality.

When the Government first came to power in 2010, the immigration system that we inherited was chaotic and uncontrolled. Over the past five years we have taken great strides forward in reforming it. We have tightened immigration routes where abuse was rife, shut down more than 920 bogus colleges, capped the number of non-EEA migrant workers admitted to the UK, reformed family visas, and protected our public services from abuse. These reforms are working, but we must go further. This Bill will build on our achievements and ensure that we have an immigration system that is firm and effective, fair on the British public and on those who come here legitimately, and, most importantly, serves the national interest. I commend this Bill to the House.

Director General of the National Crime Agency

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Written Statements

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

I have selected Chief Constable Lynne Owens to be the new director general of the National Crime Agency (NCA). She has more than 25 years’ experience in a variety of policing roles including key front-line experience and working on the most complex national investigations and operations. She has a strong track record of engaging teams and working in collaboration with partners, and most importantly she has demonstrated exceptional leadership skills. I am confident she is the right candidate to lead the NCA through the next phase of its development, leading and coordinating the national law enforcement response to serious and organised crime.

The director general leads and co-ordinates the whole of the UK law enforcement effort against serious and organised crime, a major national security threat. That threat costs the UK more than £24 billion a year and is varied, complex and changing rapidly. The NCA has a stronger mandate than any previous organisation, including the power to task UK police and other law enforcement agencies in order to align the UK’s response against the highest priority threats, vulnerabilities and organised crime groups.

The NCA is now at a vital stage of its development and the next director general must set the future direction of the NCA, building on the strong foundation of the work of the outgoing Director General Keith Bristow, who retires shortly. The NCA must continue to develop the capabilities and relationships necessary to combat the threat from serious and organised crime, working in partnership with local and international law enforcement bodies to maximise the NCA’s national and international reach.

Keith Bristow has been a dynamic first director general of the National Crime Agency and I am grateful for his hard work and commitment to making the UK a more hostile environment for serious and organised criminals to operate. He has not shied away from exposing the nature and scale of the threat we face, and he has materially changed how we collectively tackle the threat from serious and organised crime.

Lynne Owens will ensure that the NCA continues to be at the forefront of work to tackle the full range of serious and organised crime threats, including cybercrime; child sexual abuse; firearms; modern slavery; organised immigration crime; drugs trafficking; money laundering; fraud; and bribery and corruption.

Lynne Owens is currently chief constable of Surrey Police and I expect her to take up post early next year. If there is a short gap, in the interim, I intend to appoint David Armond, the current deputy director general, as acting director general.

[HCWS335]

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Written Statements

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

On 20 November, I attended the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels. The meeting was convened by the Luxembourg presidency in response to the appalling terrorist attacks which took place in Paris on 13 November 2015. Interior and Justice Ministers adopted strong Council conclusions on counter-terrorism which urge immediate action on passenger name records, firearms, strengthening controls of external borders, information sharing, terrorist financing, and the criminal justice response. Ministers also approved conclusions on the criminal justice response to radicalisation.

During the meeting I welcomed the agreement on the implementing regulation on deactivation standards and the Commission’s proposal for a directive amending Council directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. I highlighted that the UK has strong legislation on firearms, which has contributed to a significant reduction in crimes involving firearms. I reiterated the importance of progress on the passenger name records directive, and that it remained of vital importance to gain rapid agreement and ensure intra-EU flights were covered. I supported actions to strengthen the external border and stated that proactive sharing of criminal records data could improve member states’ intelligence picture. Finally, I underlined that member states needed to have effective frameworks to tackle terrorist financing, and highlighted that new initiatives should not compromise existing regimes.

[HCWS337]

Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2015 Written Statements

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

An extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council will be held on 20 November in Brussels. The meeting has been convened by the Luxembourg presidency of the Council of the European Union, in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris. I will attend on behalf of the UK.

I will of course reiterate our deepest condolences to France, and make clear that the UK stands ready to provide any additional support and assistance. In terms of the EU’s response, I will press the need for greater information sharing and action on information, including alerts via the second generation Schengen information system (SISII) which will allow appropriate action to be taken at external border crossing points. I will also highlight the need to reinforce border management. I will underline the urgency of adopting, with the European Parliament, a strong and effective passenger name records (PNR) directive, including intra-EU PNR. I will highlight the range of actions needed to tackle the threat posed by firearms, as well as sharing information on our approach. And I will encourage other member states to develop an early identification system for those at risk of radicalisation, offering to share our own training expertise in this area.

[HCWS314]