Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

For too long, thousands of people have been on bail for months or even years, with no independent oversight of the police’s investigation. To put a stop to this, I announced to the House in December that I was consulting on the introduction of statutory time limits for pre-charge bail. That consultation closed on 8 February, and I am grateful to the 300 individuals and organisations that responded. I have today placed in the Library of the House and on the gov.uk website a summary of the consultation responses and the Government’s response.

On the key point of independent review, it is apparent from the consultation that the model where all extensions of bail past 28 days would be done in court would not be viable, as there is unlikely to be sufficient capacity in the magistrates courts. I have therefore decided to adopt the model endorsed by the consultation under which pre-charge bail is initially limited to 28 days. In complex cases, an extension of up to three months could be authorised by a senior police officer, and in exceptional circumstances, the police will have to apply to the courts for an extension beyond three months to be approved by a magistrate. This will introduce judicial oversight of the pre-charge bail process for the first time, increasing accountability and scrutiny in a way that is manageable for the courts.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now very fully informed.

[Maria Miller]

I recently visited Hampshire’s cybercrime unit and spoke to officers detecting online crime, particularly child abuse. I am sure the Home Secretary will want to join me in commending those officers for their dedication. Does she agree that we need to do everything we can to help police in this work and, in particular, to ensure that social media and other websites verify the identity of UK residents using their sites?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question relates purely to the likelihood of the next migration target being met, so this is not an occasion for a general dilation on the EU. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not hoping for any such thing.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend was attempting to tempt me, Mr Speaker, but I am grateful for your guidance in this matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Prime Minister is the only party leader who has set out an intention to deal with free movement in the European Union and to do it in a way that enables us to do what everybody wants and to have the degree of control over our borders that we wish to have.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, no. The Home Secretary is entitled to say—and she will say—what she thinks, and the House must hear that.

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear that there was no requirement under the Lisbon treaty or any legislative requirement to bring the package of 35 measures to this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are talking about the liberties of the subject, this is a very important matter. You have absolutely said in terms that the vote tonight is not about the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary seems to be intimating that we are indeed making an indicative vote tonight on the European arrest warrant. The House of Commons, in a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, needs to know what it is voting on, and we need advice from you and the Home Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point or order. What Members think is indicative is a matter for them. Indeed, if a Minister in Her Majesty’s Government chooses to argue that something is indicative, that is a matter for that Minister. As a matter of fact, I was simply trying to be clear with the House, as I think was the Home Secretary in her previous paragraph, to be fair, that tonight’s vote—I have been asked regularly what the vote is about—is on the regulations. The vote is not—I repeat, not—on the European arrest warrant.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In fact, I was attempting to be as clear as you have been that the vote on the next motion will be a vote on the regulations, which includes those measures in the package of 35 that we wish to opt back into which require to be transposed into UK legislation. But the Government are clear that we will be bound by that vote, and if this House chooses not to transpose those measures and votes against the regulations, it will be voting against the Government opting into all the measures, including the European arrest warrant.

My final point is this: we have the option now of a vote on the business motion. The decision for Members of the House is whether to vote against that business motion and have one and a half hours for debate on all these matters, or to vote in favour of the business motion and have four and a half hours for debate. I trust they will take the latter option.

[Yvette Cooper]

Mr Speaker, you pointed out how unusual it was for the Government also to reply to debates on a business motion, but is it not normal in a reply to respond to the points that have been made in the debate? In the debate it was clear that the Home Secretary promised a debate on the European arrest warrant and promised a vote on it, and she has not given it. Do you agree that that is not a reply to a business motion debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I think I have set out the position clearly and there is nothing at this stage for me to add, but Members will form their own view. That is the fairest thing I can say—Members will form their own view.

I think I am right in saying that the Home Secretary has concluded her speech.

[Mrs May]

Indeed, Mr Speaker.

Question put.

Criminal Law

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you made it clear that reference to the European arrest warrant was to be made only in passing. The Home Secretary has been speaking about the European arrest warrant for the past 10 minutes. Is that not in total contravention of what you ruled earlier?

[Mr Speaker]

I said in my statement that I intended to offer latitude, so that the matters of which the House wishes to treat may be properly aired. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in seeking clarity from the Chair, but nothing I have heard so far has conflicted with that. I intended—and I intend—pragmatically to handle matters from where we are, which, as I think we all agree, is sub-optimal.

[Mrs May]

Our reforms have also clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so nearly 40 times since our reforms came into force in July. Under the old arrest warrant, people were being detained for long periods overseas before being charged or standing trial. We have changed the law to require that a decision to charge, and a decision to try the person, has been made in the requesting country before they can be extradited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I put the Question, I want to hear from the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that your clarification meant that it was now possible for speeches to be made in relation to the question that has now been proposed, which is that the question should not now be put. In that case, I am very happy to speak, and other Members may wish to do so as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that that is perfectly orderly. I did say that the question was debatable. No Member appeared to be standing, and Members seemed to be expressing a will to reach a decision by making their voices heard. However, the Home Secretary is perfectly entitled to speak on the matter, and she will now do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is, of course, debatable, but what is debatable is whether or not the Question be not now put, rather than the merits of what we have previously been debating.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the context is germane to the question of whether the motion be approved, or not approved, as the case may be. I therefore think that an excessively narrow interpretation would be wrong. I think it only right for the Home Secretary, if she wants to speak to the Question that the Question be not now put, to have an opportunity, in an orderly way, to make her case. Let me now hear what I hope will be an orderly account.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling on what matters are relevant to the speech that can be made in relation to the question that has now been put.

The motion is about whether or not we should vote on the regulations that are before the House today. As I have made very clear, we put those regulations before the House today because of the timetable with which we are dealing in relation to ensuring that we are able to opt back in to the measures that we need to opt back in to by the requisite date—1 December—if we are to ensure that there is no operational gap.

[Sir William Cash]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although several Select Committees have said that there should be?

[Mr Speaker]

I would have called the hon. Gentleman to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, including the European arrest warrant. However, I have also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the legislative process that would be put in place. There is no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put in place for us to remain party to the European arrest warrant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can do so, but it is for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, no other debate is required, as has politely been suggested from a sedentary position. It is for the Chair to decide whether to accept what is effectively a closure motion, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that at this rather early stage in debating these particular matters—the previous question—I do not accept the closure motion. We are in the middle of a speech by the Home Secretary and there may be other contributions. A former senior Cabinet Minister wishes to contribute and possibly other Members, so I would take a view on that matter in due course, but not now.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the House to ask you to say how many hon. and right hon. Members have written to you asking whether they might catch your eye in this debate, so that if this motion is agreed the House will know how many hon. and right hon. Members will have been prevented from contributing to the substantive debate we were having before the shadow Home Secretary moved her motion?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that a considerable number of Members have applied to speak in this debate. If memory serves, approximately 20, possibly slightly more, wished to speak in the debate as a whole, not in the debate on the previous question—obviously I have had no written applications on that, because it has only just been introduced. On the overall debate today, I had approximately 20 requests to speak. If those Members do not have the opportunity to do so, they will be denied the opportunity today, but they would not, of course, be denied the opportunity subsequently.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I make the point to the shadow Home Secretary that if she says she supports—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about communications data. He sat on the cross-party Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Communications Data Bill and accepted that there was a need for legislation to improve our ability to access communications data. He mentioned the cases that I have cited recently, and among them are cases that are not just about IP addresses but about our inability to obtain communications data, because communications service providers based overseas do not retain the right data.

Of the NCA cases I mentioned, two were discontinued because of that problem, one of which was a case involving the distribution of indecent images of children. Of the Met cases that my hon. Friend mentioned, six were discontinued because of the lack of retained data, and of those one involved posting indecent images, one related to child protection in which there was a threat to life, and one was a kidnap where there was a threat to life. The Communications Data Bill would have addressed that problem. Therefore, while we are taking action to address the problem caused by IP addresses, it is not true that the cases I mentioned in my speech were related simply to IP addresses. Even for cases that were discontinued because of the lack of a unique IP address, had there been such a unique IP address it would not mean that the case could have been continued—the scale of the problem probably means that no communications data would have been available for that IP address anyway.

I say to Members across the House and to our coalition colleagues that if they are serious about giving the police the capabilities they need to keep us safe, protect children and save lives, they should reconsider their position on the Communications Data Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are all now better informed but at somewhat of a cost. I am keen to accommodate the interests of Back Benchers, and I know the Home Secretary will be profoundly sympathetic to that interest.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When the terms of reference are published, could they be as wide as possible? Also, the Home Secretary will know that I have pushed for some time to try to increase the tariffs for those who abuse children and are involved in paedophilia.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has shoehorned that matter into this urgent question. It is not relevant to the question, but it is of great interest to the House and we look forward to a pithy reply from the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

I hope the hon. Lady and others in the Chamber will be reassured to know that I understand that the CPS is indeed reviewing this issue as we speak. I am not able to give her an answer on what the CPS is doing, but it is doing it as we speak.

Police Reform

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I am wowed by the Home Secretary’s statement. The potential is huge for real police reform over the coming months and years. It is good news for honest police officers and for the public. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing complainants and defendants to record interviews or statements given in police stations so that they can take away their own record of their dialogue with the police, not just rely on the police record?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman has established a first. The Clerk Assistant tells me he has never seen the word “wowed” appear in Hansard in that context. It is good to know what the hon. Gentleman looks and sounds like when he is wowed.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the changes that we are introducing. I will take away the point that he has made about defendants and interviews. He will have noted that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench as well, and will have noted that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because of course, with direct entry, it will be possible for people who have very particular areas of expertise to come into policing. However, we are also doing some other things to tackle cybercrime. The new national cybercrime unit, which has been set up in the National Crime Agency, is an important part of this process, and the National Crime Agency is looking at some innovative thinking of what I might call professional specialists, in the sense of specials who have a very particular area of expertise, such as in forensic accounting or in cyber, who potentially could be attached to the NCA and could be an extra-valuable resource for them.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and to colleagues.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the timing of the raising of this point of order is accidental. Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I myself can provide him no salvation, but it may be that help is at hand. Home Secretary.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If my hon. Friend passes the details of that constituent to either myself or the immigration Minister, we will ensure that the issue is taken up. Of course, as I indicated to the House in June when I made a statement about the Passport Office, we have opened up the possibility of a free upgrade for individuals whose passport has been waiting more than three weeks and who have an urgent need to travel, so we will take that case up.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that is helpful.

[Mr Speaker]

The natural spirit of last-day generosity has been very fully exploited by the shadow Home Secretary. That is not a matter for the Chair. However, the point has been made with some force and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond if she wishes.

[Mrs May]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

But I think we will have to leave it there on that matter for now.

HM Passport Office

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Her Majesty’s Passport Office is receiving 350,000 more applications for passport applications and renewals than is normal at this time of year. This is the highest demand for 12 years. Since January, HMPO has been putting in place extra resources to try to make sure that people receive their new passports in good time, but as the House will know there are still delays in the system. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the number of straightforward passport applicants who are being dealt with outside the normal three-week waiting time is about 30,000.

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has 250 additional staff who have been transferred from back-office roles to front-line operations, and 650 additional staff to work on its customer helpline. HMPO is operating seven days a week and couriers are delivering passports within 24 hours of their being produced. From next week, HMPO is opening new office space in Liverpool to help the new staff to work on processing passport applications.

Despite those additional resources, it is clear that HMPO is still not able to process every application it receives within the normal three-week waiting time for straightforward cases. At the moment, the overwhelming majority of cases are dealt with within that time limit, but that is, of course, no consolation to applicants who are suffering delays and are worried about whether they will be able to go on their summer holidays. I understand their anxiety and the Government will do everything they can—while maintaining the security of the passport—to make sure people get their passports in time.

There is no big-bang single solution so we will take a series of measures to address the pinch points and resourcing problems that HMPO faces. First, on resources, I have agreed with the Foreign Secretary that people applying to renew passports overseas for travel to the UK will be given a 12-month extension to their existing passport. Since we are talking about extending existing passports—documents in which we can have a high degree of confidence—this relieves HMPO of having to deal with some of the most complex cases without compromising security.

Similarly, we will put in place a process so that people who are applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children can be issued with emergency travel documents for travel to the UK. Parents will still have to provide comprehensive proof that they are the parents before we will issue these documents, because we are not prepared to compromise on child protection, but again this should relieve an administrative burden on HMPO.

These changes will allow us to free up a significant number of trained HMPO officials to concentrate on other applications. In addition, HMPO will increase the number of examiners and call handlers by a further 200 staff.

Secondly, HMPO is addressing a series of process points to make sure that its systems are operating efficiently.

Thirdly, where people have an urgent need to travel, HMPO has agreed to upgrade them: that is, their application will be considered in full; it will be expedited in terms of its processing, printing and delivery; and HMPO has agreed to upgrade those people free of charge.

All these measures are designed to address the immediate problem. In the medium to long term, the answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Home Secretary’s statement must be heard, and preferably with courtesy. There will be plenty of opportunity for questioning, but let us hear what the Home Secretary has to say.

[Mrs May]

As I said, in the medium to long term the answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews: first, to ensure that HMPO works as efficiently as possible, with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes; and, secondly, to consider whether HMPO’s agency status should be removed, so that it can be brought into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers, in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of issues. The Passport Office started to receive increased numbers of applications not just in recent weeks, but from the beginning of the year, so it took action to increase the number of staff available to deal with them. From January to May, over 97% of applicants in straightforward cases received their passport within three weeks, and over 99% received them within four weeks, but of course that means there were applicants who did not receive their passport within the normal expected time. That is why the Passport Office has been increasing the number of staff throughout this period and will continue to do so, as I have indicated.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the difference between straightforward and more complex cases. A case is straightforward when all the information is there and the application form has been properly filled in, signed and so forth. In those cases it is possible to deal with a straightforward renewal very quickly. [Interruption.] The problem comes when the right information is not there or the correct forms have not been sent in—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Bryant, we cannot have a running commentary throughout the Home Secretary’s response. Colleagues will have plenty of opportunity to question the right hon. Lady, but her remarks must be heard with a modicum of courtesy.

[Mrs May]

A case ceases to be straightforward if it is necessary for the Passport Office to go back to the individual to request other documents, which of course delays the process. We are looking at part of the system to ensure that that is being done as efficiently as possible.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about taking over the process of passport applications from British nationals overseas. Before March this year that was done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at processing centres world wide. The change was made to provide better value for the fee-payer and greater consistency in how overseas passport applications are assessed, and to use our expertise to better detect and prevent fraud. The checks needed for applications from overseas can take longer than those for applications in the UK. Security is our priority and we will not issue a passport until the necessary checks have been completed. However, as I said in my statement, for those applying for a renewal from overseas, where we can have confidence in the documents that they have already had and the process they have been through, we will be offering an extension of 12 months.

Finally, the shadow Home Secretary raised the issue of staff numbers, as did other Members earlier this week. Here are the figures: in March 2012 the Passport Office had 3,104 members of staff—[Interruption.] Opposition Members talk about 2010, so I will make one simple point: when we took office there were staff in HM Passport Office who had been brought in to deal with the new identity card. This Government scrapped the identity card. Over the past two years the number of staff in the Passport Office has increased from 3,104 to 3,445. That is the answer. People might say that this is about reduced staff numbers, but actually staff numbers have been going up over the past two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that it was nothing short of idiotic to take on the responsibility for processing passport applications from overseas at the very time when her Department was expecting the pre-summer surge, which happens every year? There is a bit more of a surge this year, but it is more or less in line with the extra people that she has. That was plainly just an idiotic management decision.

More importantly, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why there was not a single Government Back Bencher at the Adjournment debate on this issue to represent people’s interests, despite her plug for the debate earlier that day? The Minister for Security and Immigration, who is responsible for the Passport Office, reassured the House on Tuesday that

“We have not compromised on our checks, and will not do so.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 526.]

How was it possible for him to give that reassurance when a letter had gone out the previous day doing precisely that? Why does she not—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say before the Home Secretary responds that there is a great deal of interest, which I am keen to accommodate, at least in part? It would help if contributions were brief. We have the business question to follow and the last day of the Queen’s Speech debate is exceptionally heavily subscribed. People will lose out, and they will lose out all the more if there is not economy.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will attempt to be brief in my response.

As has been made clear publicly, Ministers were not aware of the document to which the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) refers, and they asked for it to be withdrawn immediately.

Extremism

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas]

Who?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Lucas, I understand your frustration, but I have told you before that your apprenticeship to become a statesman still has some distance to travel. You must not holler from a sedentary position. Allow the Home Secretary to respond, and others will have their opportunity.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I said, the investigation was concluded; it went to the Prime Minister; he looked at its recommendations; and, as hon. Members will know, my special adviser resigned on Saturday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

What undermines—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Home Secretary’s response must and will be heard.

[Mrs May]

What potentially undermines the confidence of the public in attempts to deal with extremism is seeing the Opposition playing party politics with the issue rather than dealing with it seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that we do use the Dublin regulations; indeed, I defend those regulations regularly in the Justice and Home Affairs Council within the European environment. It is very important that people are returned to the first country by which they entered the European Union. Unfortunately, because of court judgments we are not currently able to return people to Greece, but we are working with the Greek authorities to improve their capability for dealing with asylum seekers so that we will be able to do so in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Lucas. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

But the Home Secretary’s action is not working. Fewer rape cases are going to court, as are fewer domestic violence cases, fewer child abuse cases and fewer sexual offence cases, even though the numbers of sexual offences and domestic violence and child abuse cases being reported to the police are all going up. According to analysis by the House of Commons Library, the resulting drop in convictions is the equivalent of 13,000 more violent offenders, 3,500 more sex offenders, 13,000 more domestic abusers and 700 more child abusers getting away with their crimes. This is happening on the right hon. Lady’s watch. Those are the facts. The number of cases going to court is going down in areas where the recorded crimes are going up. What is she doing about it? She is the Home Secretary. Why will she not act to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have an answer.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for pointing out that I am the Home Secretary. We have seen a higher number of cases of sexual violence being reported, and it is good that people are willing to come forward to report such cases. Some of these are historical cases, and there has been an upturn in the number of people coming forward, particularly as a result of the revelations relating to Jimmy Savile and other such cases. As I said earlier, the number of successful prosecutions by the CPS for rape and sexual violence has hit an all-time high, so I suggest that the right hon. Lady goes away and looks again at her figures.

Hillsborough

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Hillsborough stadium tragedy.

It is over a year now since Parliament last debated Hillsborough and the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I hope the House will join me again in expressing my thanks and gratitude to the panel’s chairman, Bishop James Jones, and all his colleagues for their remarkable work. The contents of the panel’s report were truly shocking, and on the day it was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families of the 96 for what he described as a “double injustice”. The first injustice, he said, was the appalling events; the second was the treatment of victims by the press.

I would like to pay tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and all those who have campaigned on their behalf. As Home Secretary, I have met a number of the bereaved families, and I have always been impressed by the dignified way they and their supporters have continued their search for truth and justice. I would also like to pay tribute to those in the House who have campaigned on behalf of the families, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).

So significant were the conclusions of the panel’s report that its publication on 12 September 2012 set in train a number of important events. By the end of that year, this had resulted in the High Court’s quashing of the original inquest verdicts and the ordering of fresh inquests, and the establishment of two major investigations. In a debate in the House following publication of the panel’s report, I said that

“after the truth must come justice; and after the apology, accountability.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 721.]

As lead Minister, it is my responsibility to ensure that the various processes of Government and the criminal justice system are working effectively and are properly resourced to ensure that justice can be done, not only for those who died, but, just as importantly, for their families and all those who have campaigned on their behalf ever since.

Today, I would like to update the House on the progress made in respect of the new inquests and the new investigations. First, I shall deal with the inquests. Last year, and within two months of the decision by the High Court, Lord Justice Goldring was appointed as coroner to conduct the fresh inquests. A number of pre-inquest hearings have already been held. The police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigations are working in support of the coroner to a timetable determined by him, and the Government welcome the fact that Lord Justice Goldring has made it clear that the fresh inquests will start on 31 March.

I have always made it clear that the Government will support the families in their quest for justice and, as part of that commitment, we are funding a comprehensive legal representation scheme. Work began on this immediately after the original inquest verdicts were quashed, and the scheme that is now in place will ensure that the families are properly represented and supported at the inquests.

In addition to the inquests, there is the investigative process, to which there are two elements. The first is led by the IPCC. This is its biggest-ever investigation, and its principal focus is on police involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough. It is worth reminding the House that this includes not just the role and actions of the South Yorkshire police, the force responsible for policing the match, but the West Midlands police, who played a significant role in the aftermath, providing support to Lord Taylor’s inquiry, producing the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and assisting the then South Yorkshire West coroner, Dr Stefan Popper. I can therefore confirm that the experience of survivors, again brought to public attention in the last week, is part of the ongoing IPCC investigation.

The second element is a criminal investigation—Operation Resolve—led by Jon Stoddart, the former chief constable of Durham. He was appointed by me in December 2012 and his key role is to investigate the deaths at Hillsborough. Working alongside both investigations is a discrete Crown Prosecution Service team, through which lawyers from the CPS provide ongoing advice.

When he was the Bishop of Liverpool and sitting in another place, Bishop James Jones said that justice was about process as well as outcomes. The unique, complex and wide-ranging circumstances of Hillsborough meant that two major and large-scale investigations had to be created from scratch, and both had to have firm foundations. Suitable premises had to be found, acquired and fitted out. This has been done. Suitably skilled and appropriate staff had to be identified and recruited. This has also been done. It was inevitable that this would take time but the investigations are now located together on one site in Warrington—close to the source of the investigation—and are making good progress.

Like a number of the bereaved families and a number of those in this House, I have been to Warrington to see both investigations for myself. I have met some of the staff from the IPCC and Operation Resolve investigations and I was struck by their dedication and professionalism. I welcome the fact that the IPCC and Operation Resolve want their investigations to be open and transparent and both investigations have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate to families the work they are doing.

I would like now to set out to the House some of the progress being made; first, in respect of the IPCC. Over 1,600 people have now responded to the IPCC’s witness appeal. This includes over 250 people who have never given accounts before. The IPCC is conducting detailed analysis of every response and is following up the evidence provided. Separately around 400 witnesses have made requests to the IPCC to see their original statements and the IPCC is helping people to access those statements.

In addition, the IPCC has recovered around 2,500 police pocket notebooks. These pocket books had not been made available to previous investigations and are now being analysed by IPCC investigators.

The IPCC has also conducted further analysis of the 242 police accounts now believed to have been amended. In this context, it has completed more than 160 interviews and these interviews continue. Alongside the IPCC investigation, the police investigation—Operation Resolve—has, first, worked to the coroner’s priorities and timetable, meeting all the deadlines set by him; secondly, has worked in parallel on other aspects of the criminal investigation that are complementary to the work being done for the coroner; thirdly, has obtained access to the best quality audio-visual material and carried out extensive analysis and, in doing so, has drawn on advances in digital imagery and forensic technology not available to previous investigative teams; and fourthly, has now completed more than 1,000 interviews of witnesses.

The work being done by Operation Resolve is aimed at providing the fullest possible picture of what happened at Hillsborough, both to ensure that the inquest is able to answer the questions that the bereaved families still have and in support of the criminal investigation.

As Jon Stoddart has said,

“If we find there were health and safety breaches or evidence of wilful neglect, we will seek to ensure the appropriate action is taken against those responsible. If we find that, with the benefit of hindsight, there are lessons to be learned, we will endeavour to ensure that they are addressed. And if we find evidence of criminal behaviour, including manslaughter through neglect, we will seek to lay charges and put people and organisations before the courts.”

As I have said, this new phase of work on Hillsborough began with the publication of the independent panel’s report. One particularly important aspect of the way in which the panel approached its work was its consultation with the bereaved families and I was keen to learn from and build on that dialogue. So I was pleased when Bishop James Jones agreed to act as my adviser on Hillsborough, bringing with him his knowledge and experience from his time as chair of the independent panel.

Operation Resolve and the IPCC have invested significant effort engaging with families, including by offering the opportunity for families to visit their offices in Warrington. “Family forums”, proposed by Bishop James Jones and building on work done by the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service and Operation Resolve, are now taking place regularly. The forums provide a regular and structured opportunity for bereaved families to have face-to-face discussions with those conducting and advising the investigations, and they provide an important opportunity for the families to probe and ask questions.

Bishop James Jones, in recent conversations with me, has described the families’ position as being “encouraged” but not “persuaded.” Mr Speaker, this is a sentiment I can understand. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the tragedy, it is the sentiment that underlies my continuing commitment to do everything I can to ensure that the process of disclosing the truth, started by the panel, is followed by the process of justice.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the shadow Home Secretary and then other colleagues, it might be helpful if I emphasised to the House that the special inquest has not yet formally opened. I think there have been pre-hearings, but the hearing itself has not opened. Therefore, the matter is not sub judice. However, colleagues might think it wise to exercise a degree of restraint and to weigh their words carefully if they seek to express opinions on matters that plainly fall to be determined by the inquest. That is not in any sense intended to chill; it is simply to make the point to colleagues, who will exercise their own judgment as to how to proceed in this matter.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the Home Secretary to respond to that point of order if she wishes to do so.

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

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will provide clarification. I apologise if my language was loosely used earlier, as it should not have been. It is the accepted policy that we do not deny or confirm whether somebody has been subject to interception, which I understood was potentially part of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), but I have noted the concern that has been raised in this House and I will take that matter away.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that is helpful.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 12—Power to charge fees for attendance services in particular cases.

Government new clause 18—Deprivation of citizenship: conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK—

‘(1) In section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—

(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory.”

(2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2) of section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 in a case which falls within subsection (4A) of that Act, the Secretary of State may take account of the manner in which a person conducted him or herself before this section came into force.’

Manuscript amendment (a) to Government new clause 18, after proposed new subsection (4A)(b) in subsection (1), insert

‘and

(c) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under subsection (4B).

(4B) (1) This sub-section applies if the Secretary of State:

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual in a case which falls within subsection (4A)

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to make an order.

(2) The application must set out how the deprivation is conducive to the public good and how the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, and of the islands, or any British overseas territory.

(3) The function of the court on the application is:

(a) to determine whether the relevant decision of the Secretary of State is

obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to deprive a person of citizenship in a case which falls within subsection (4A)

(4) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(5) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (4A)(b) is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

(6) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.’.



Manuscript amendment (b) to Government new clause 18, after subsection (2), insert—

‘(3) The court is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’.

New clause 13—Right of appeal: Impact assessment—

‘Before the Secretary of State makes an order under section 65 (commencement) to bring into force section 11 (Right of appeal to First-tier Tribunal) he must—

(a) undertake an impact assessment of—

(i) the number of appeals effected by the provisions of section 11; and

(ii) the costs attributable to appeals to First-tier Tribunals; and

(b) lay a copy of a report on that impact assessment before Parliament.’.

New clause 15—Exceptions to automatic deportation—

‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 33 (Exceptions), in subsection (2)(a), for “Convention rights”, substitute “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention”.

(3) In section 33, after subsection (6A), insert—

“(6B) Exception 7 is where the Secretary of State thinks, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including the seriousness of the offence, that removal of the foreign criminal from the United Kingdom in pursuance of a deportation order would cause such manifest and overwhelming harm to his children that it overrides the public interest in removal.”.

(4) In section 38 (Interpretation)—

(a) after subsection (3), insert—

“(3A) In section 32, “Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”;

(b) omit paragraph (4)(b);

(c) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) In section 33, “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention” means Articles 2 or 3 of “the Convention” as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”.’.

Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end add—

‘(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—

(a) ensure that children are not detained for immigration purposes, except in the following circumstances—

(i) where the Home Secretary reasonably believes they are a threat to national security;

(ii) in port or border cases where departure is the following day and no application for a visa or asylum has been made; or

(iii) to provide pre-departure accommodation under subsection (7)(b); and

(b) ensure that if a child requires accommodation prior to departure it is—

(i) dedicated pre-departure accommodation which is subject to inspection by HMIP;

(ii) for a maximum period of 72 hours;

(iii) following a recommendation made by the Independent Family Returns Panel, and

(iv) with their family.

(8) Where subsection (7)(a)(ii) and (iii) applies, the officer responsible must ensure that children are only separated from their parents and carers for the purposes of child protection.’.

Amendment 79, page 2, line 38 leave out clause 3.

Amendment 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—

‘(1A) In paragraph 16 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal) after paragraph (4) insert—

(5) A person detained under this paragraph must be released on bail in accordance with paragraph 22 after no later than the twenty-eighth day following that on which the person was detained.”.’.

Amendment 57, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) In paragraph 22 (bail) at end insert—

(4) The following provisions apply if a person is detained under any provision of this Act—

(a) The Secretary of State must arrange a reference to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine whether the detained person should be released on bail;

(b) The Secretary of State must secure that a first reference to the First-tier Tribunal is made no later than the eighth day following that on which the detained person was detained;

(c) If the detained person remains in detention, the Secretary of State must secure that a second reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Commission is made no later than the thirty-sixth day following that on which the detained person was detained;

(d) The First-tier Tribunal hearing a case referred to it under this section must proceed as if the detained person had made an application to it for bail; and

(e) The First-tier Tribunal must determine the matter—

(i) on a first reference, before the tenth day following that on which the person concerned was detained; and

(ii) on a second reference, before the thirty-eighth day following that on which he was detained.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, “First-tier Tribunal” means—

(a) if the detained person has brought an appeal under the Immigration Acts, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal dealing with his appeal; and

(b) in any other case, such chamber of the First-tier Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) In case of a detained person to whom section 3(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 applies (jurisdiction in relation to bail for persons detained on grounds of national security) a reference under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, shall be to the Commission and not to the First-tier Tribunal.

(7) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 may include provision made for the purposes of this paragraph.”.’.

Amendment 73, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 1, page 8, line 19, leave out clause 11.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 80, in clause 12, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 33.

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 81, page 11, line 32, leave out clause 13.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

‘(za) first, to the best interests of any child affected by a decision as specified in section 117A(1).’.

Amendment 3, page 13, line 11, leave out ‘qualifying’.

Amendment 4, page 13, line 12, leave out ‘reasonable to expect’ and insert

‘in the best interests of’.

Amendment 62, page 13, leave out lines 14 to 39 and insert—

117C Cases involving Foreign Criminals

(1) No decision of the Secretary of State under section 33(6B) (Exceptions) of the UK Borders Act 2007 may be questioned except on appeal to the High Court.

(2) For the purposes of determining whether to give permission to appeal and determining any such appeal under subsection (1) the High Court must apply the procedures and principles which would be applied by it on an application for judicial review.’.

Amendment 58, page 13, leave out lines 19 to 39 and insert—

‘(3) The promotion of the best interests of children is in the public interest.’.

Amendment 5, page 13, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 14.

Government amendments 23 to 26, 45 to 53 and 27.

Amendment 61, in clause 65, page 50, line 27, at end insert—

‘( ) Section 1 and Part II of this Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed, being no earlier than the day on which an order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 9(2)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 in respect of civil legal services in connection with removal under section 1 and appeals under Part II comes into effect.’.

Government new schedule 1—Sham marriage and civil partnership: administrative regulations.

Amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 54, line 13, leave out paragraph (5).

Government amendments 28 to 44, 8 to 16, and 54.

Government motion to transfer paragraph 44 of schedule 8.

[Mrs May]

It might be helpful, before I comment on new clause 11, to set the context in which the amendments and new clauses are being moved.

This is an important Bill. It has, I think, widespread support outside this House, and will ensure that the Government have greater ability to make it harder for people to live in the United Kingdom illegally. It will make it easier for us to be able to remove people who are here illegally and will streamline the process for appeals, reducing the number of appeals from 17 to four. It will also, crucially, enable us, in certain circumstances, to deport individuals before they have their appeals, so that their right of appeal is outside of this country. It also introduces a variety of measures, one of which I will be coming on to speak to, because it relates to some of the technical amendments ensuring that people who come to this country for a temporary period contribute to our public services, as I think every hard-working family would expect them to do. It is this Government who are putting that through in the Bill.

The Bill is important because it will enhance our ability to deal with a number of immigration matters, although that is against the background of our success in reducing net migration into this country and particularly in dealing with the abuse of certain immigration routes, notably student visas. That is the context of these amendments. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the number of amendments, but many of them are very technical and minor amendments.

Government new clause 11 is intended to ensure that the marriage and civil partnership provisions work as effectively as possible. Importantly, part 4 of the Bill will establish a new referral and investigation scheme to prevent sham marriages and civil partnerships from gaining an immigration advantage. Increasingly, sham marriages are being used as a back-door route around immigration rules. The ability to do that has been extended by the Metock case in the European Court, which has enabled people from outside the EU married to someone within the EU to gain free movement rights. There is concern about sham marriages not only in the UK, but in other parts of the EU, and the UK is leading work across Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that what might be called by a lawyer the gravamen of his point has been heard. I do not think that a judge in one of the courts in which the hon. Gentleman has served would have allowed him to bang on for the length of time I have allowed him.

[Mrs May]

To clarify, the Bill increases the marriage and civil partnership notice period from 15 to 28 days in England and Wales for all couples, and allows it to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham. But we will be retaining the ability in emergency cases such as those set out by my hon. Friend to require the notice period to be shorter than is being provided for.

Syrian Refugees

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can assure my hon. Friend that all the appropriate checks are made.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that others will have studied that textbook.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the Secretary of State for International Development for her regular updates to MPs. I ask the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to work together so that we get regular updates on what is happening, including the total number of refugees and the progress of the scheme so that hon. Members who are concerned about what is happening can be kept up to date regularly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Non-governmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, very much welcome the Government’s humanitarian contribution to these awful problems and will no doubt welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. However, they are puzzled, as I am, that the Government have not thus far associated themselves with the UNHCR’s programme, and therefore with 18 important countries. That lack of solidarity seems to be a wee bit intransigent and hardly fits in with the rest of the Government’s approach. Have I missed an obvious explanation?

[Mr Speaker]

I see that the right hon. Gentleman has put in to speak in the debate as well. We are grateful to him. He will have made two speeches by the end of it.

[Mrs May]

I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) to the quote I gave earlier from the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, who has welcomed our announcement. He said that it

“will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees”,

and that it reaffirms

“the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts”.

I think that what matters is whether we are providing help and support for vulnerable refugees in Syria. We are showing solidarity through the humanitarian aid effort that we are providing. As I have said, we are providing the second largest contribution in the humanitarian aid effort in the world, after the United States, which is a very big step in showing solidarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

We are taking a leading role in providing aid and support to refugees from Syria in a variety of ways. We just do not happen to be signing up to a particular programme of the UNHCR. We are not working in parallel with the UN, but are working hand in hand with the UNHCR on a parallel scheme.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the understanding of colleagues. The debate on this matter will follow relatively shortly and I am sure that there will be opportunities not only for speeches, but for interventions if Members still feel inclined to make them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am sure the whole House joins the Home Secretary in her condolences to those affected by the growing tragedy in Glasgow.

Recently in Fleetwood, a joint operation between Wyre borough council, Fleetwood police, and local pub landlords through Pubwatch targeted the illegal use of drugs. Interestingly, a drug sniffer dog was used among customers, which was totally welcomed by customers and landlords alike—except, perhaps, by the one person arrested. Does the Home Secretary welcome more of those joint and direct operations by police and local councils on the front line to bring back confidence in our communities?

[Mr Speaker]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was applying for an Adjournment debate, but then I realised he has already had it.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me the opportunity to welcome joint action at local level. I commend Wyre borough council, Lancashire police and publicans for their work. I am pleased to say that we will announce shortly a number of local alcohol action areas, which will seek to tackle alcohol-related crime and health harms, and diversify the night-time economy beyond businesses centred on selling alcohol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I note that we are seeing higher conviction rates for rape, and we should all welcome that. I tried to answer the right hon. Lady’s question in a way that was serious and sensible. This is a matter that we need to be concerned about and consider, but we cannot know what the answer is until we have identified why, for example, we have seen fewer referrals from the police. Until we—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is muttering from a sedentary position and making certain assumptions. I take a simple view: it is right and proper to consider the causes behind these figures. Only when we do that will we be able to ensure that the action we take will address the issue. I repeat that she must recognise, as I am sure she does, that the figures for higher reports of violence and abuse include a significant increase as a result of historical operations—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary. I remind the House that topical questions and answers are supposed to be brief. We can be led in that now by Mr Martin Vickers.

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hypocrisy of the Labour party is absolutely staggering. [Hon. Members: “Out of order!”] The party that despite all the evidence and expert advice—[Hon. Members: “Out of order!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The temperature is rising. I keep a close eye on these things, and I understood the reference to be a collective reference, not an accusation of individual impropriety. [Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance, although the sage nodding of the head by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is always a matter of great parliamentary interest. That is why I took the view I did. I urge Members to be moderate in their use of language, but the Home Secretary is in order.

[Mrs May]

Despite all the evidence and warnings, the Labour party in government refused to impose transitional controls in 2004, but now it seeks to lecture us about immigration. I do not know whether the shadow Home Secretary has seen a copy of today’s Daily Mail, but it contains a fascinating article written by Britain’s ambassador in Warsaw in 2004, who describes the “incredulity” of the Poles when he told them that Britain would not be imposing transitional controls. He writes that the Polish Government

“instinctively knew what Tony Blair’s Labour government consistently denied: the immediate abolition of all border restrictions would lead to a surge of”

their people coming to these shores.

The Labour Government told us that only 13,000 people would come; the truth was that more than 1 million came. It was the biggest single influx this country has ever experienced, and who suffered as a result? The right hon. Lady talks about doing something about wages and jobs. In the five years following Labour’s failure to impose transitional controls, more than 90% of the increase in employment in Britain was accounted for by foreign nationals. Under this Government, thanks to our measures to control immigration and reform welfare, two thirds of the increase in employment has been accounted for by British people.

But if the right hon. Lady does not want to listen to me or the former British ambassador to Poland, perhaps she should listen to the succession of former Labour Home Secretaries who have admitted what the British people already knew. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) describes the failure to impose transitional controls as a “spectacular mistake”. And let us remember: it was not just European immigration that Labour let get out of control, but all forms of immigration. Under Labour, net immigration reached 2.2 million, which is twice the population of the city of Birmingham.

I come again to the right hon. Lady’s point about what is being done on wages and jobs. The Labour Government knew just what they were doing. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), the Leader of the Opposition’s policy guru, has said that Labour were

“using migration to introduce a covert 21st century incomes policy.”

Labour, which claims to be the party of the working man and woman, admits that it used immigration deliberately to keep down wages.

In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question, I have gone through what the Government are doing to prepare for January: we have been making full use of transitional controls; we are tightening the immigration rules so that we do not gold-plate EU free-movement rules; we are limiting the pull factors that attract people to Britain; we are ensuring a strong operational response to the challenges brought by free movement; and we are working with other member states to cut out the abuse of free movement. She claims we have done nothing about the habitual residence test, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has tightened it, and that is already in operation. We want to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and ensure we address the problems caused by free movement as part of that renegotiation.

In its 13 years in government Labour did nothing about those issues. The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today show that she has not learned any lessons from 2004, has failed to come up with any solutions of her own and has failed to support our plan to fix the problems caused by free movement in the renegotiation. On this issue, as on others, she has no credibility whatsoever.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Despite my hon. Friend’s best efforts, my position on this issue has not changed in the last half-hour. I continue to believe in relation to the burqa and niqab that it is for an individual woman to decide how she chooses to dress. Women should be free to make that choice for themselves. There will be circumstances in which it is appropriate to require somebody to remove a face covering: that could be in court, as we have seen in a number of instances; it could be at the border, for security purposes; and individual institutions such as schools should make their own policy in relation to dress that they consider appropriate in their institution. I continue to hold the view that it is not for the Government to tell women how to dress.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. None of us wishes unduly to embarrass the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but following the Home Secretary’s most gracious tribute to him, may I say—on behalf, I think, of Members throughout the House—that the way in which, after 30 years of uninterrupted service on the Front Bench, the right hon. Gentleman has shown his continuing respect for Parliament and enjoyed something of a Back-Bench renaissance over the last three years is hugely respected in all parts of the Chamber?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Last week I wore pink, in common with 100 others in Lichfield—pink trousers, pink shirt, pink feather boa—to walk for the Pathway project in my constituency. It looks after those—not only women, but men too—who suffer from domestic violence. Will the Home Secretary or one of her team please come to Lichfield to see the good work the Pathway project is doing?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman must have looked even more exotic than usual.

[Mrs May]

I know that my hon. Friend has a fondness for taking photographs, and I wonder whether he has taken a photograph of himself that could perhaps be circulated to Members of the House for their edification. He makes an important point, however, and I commend the Pathway project in Lichfield. I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s invitation, as has the Minister for Crime Prevention, for one of us to come and visit. May I say what excellent work people in the Pathway project and similar schemes are doing on this important issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The last Girl Guides survey showed that 5% of girls thought it was okay to be threatened with violence for spending too much time with friends, and that 25% thought it was okay for a person’s partner to check up on them and read their texts. What are the Government doing to combat domestic violence by educating young people, particularly young women, about what is acceptable in relationships, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mrs May]

Although cut off in her prime, the hon. Lady makes an important point. It is shocking to see the number of girls and young women—and, indeed, the number of boys and young men—who think that violence in a relationship is okay and part of a relationship. She is absolutely right that we must do what we can to educate young people about what a proper relationship should be and what should not be part of it. That is why the Home Office has supported a very successful national teenage rape prevention campaign, which we were able to extend into a teenage relationship abuse campaign. The figures and responses show that those campaigns have had a real impact on young people’s understanding of the nature of relationships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows full well that not only the issue of the investigation of complaints against the police, but the whole question of the integrity of the police goes further than simply the IPCC. We have taken a number of steps: for example, the register of struck-off police officers, which will be introduced as a result of action taken by this Government. It is exactly the sort of thing that would have helped in respect of the police officer involved in the issue relating to the Ian Tomlinson death, to which she referred. This Government are taking action on the IPCC. We are going to increase the resources, we are increasing the powers for the IPCC and we will ensure that it will be investigating the serious and sensitive cases which currently are passed back to the police. I think it is right that these investigations are done by a body that is not the police themselves.

[Mr Speaker]

We need short questions and short answers. Let us be led by Mr Marcus Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which he has rightly raised on a number of occasions in the House. It is important, of course, that we protect press freedom, but we also need to ensure that we are able to protect our national security and that we do not see information being published which could give any succour to those who wish to do us harm through terrorism.

[Mr Speaker]

Extremely briefly now. I call Mr Nick Raynsford.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

People are free to suggest what they like. These are matters of debate. Of one thing I am sure, having known the hon. Lady for 16 years: she requires no protection from me or, for the most part, I think, from anyone.

[Mrs May]

I have to say that this morning’s reaction from the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), to the proposal to charge for use of the NHS shows that the Labour party is going to be on the wrong side of this argument, because people in this country want to see people being treated fairly in relation to the NHS.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr John Robertson, I do not know whether you consumed a high-energy breakfast or something, but you seem to be in hyperbolic mode. What we want is your statesmanlike pose. Calm yourself, man, and get a grip.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady referred to a motion tabled by the Opposition in an Opposition day debate, and identified seven measures that she said it was necessary to rejoin. What about measures such as the European supervision order or those to do with removing criminals’ assets? Are those powers not important as well? They are on our list, but they were not on that of the right hon. Lady.

Finally, I failed to hear in the right hon. Lady’s comments whether those on the Labour party Front Bench support the decision to opt out—a decision available only because her Government negotiated it in the first place. We believe it is absolutely right to exercise that opt-out, and to negotiate and rejoin those measures that are important for cross-border operations and co-operation between our police forces. Labour Members may come to the House and the right hon. Lady may stand up, foam at the mouth and rant at the Government about these measures, but it is high time she put her position on the line and made clear what her party will do in the debate next week.

Home Affairs

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. An hon. Member has just called across the House, saying, “Stop making that stupid face.” Is that parliamentary language?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I did not hear the expression concerned, but I think that it falls into the category of behaviour that is discourteous but not disorderly. We will leave it there for the time being, but I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to remember what I said yesterday. Speaking on behalf of the House and of the public, I believe that we should try to express ourselves with restraint, moderation and good humour, in the best traditions required by “Erskine May”.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Bill will also introduce a duty on private landlords to carry out immigration checks when letting property. It will penalise landlords who rent property to migrants who are not entitled to stay in Britain.

We shall also introduce an amendment to the immigration regulations covering EU nationals who come to the UK in search of work. They will cease to have a right to reside here and will have no access to benefits if, after six months, they do not have a job and do not have a realistic chance of getting one. There is a glaring unfairness in the way that immigrants’ claims to have the right to settle here are assessed. The system has become so complex that, as one senior judge said recently,

“immigration law has now become an impenetrable jungle of intertwined statutory provision and judicial decisions...There is an acute need for simplification”.

The immigration Bill will provide that simplification. It will also set out how the courts should interpret article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which sets out the right to respect for private and family life. Last July, we set out clearly before the House what the right to family life should mean. That interpretation was adopted by the House without a Division, because it was unopposed. Unfortunately, some judges have chosen to ignore that interpretation. The immigration Bill will provide them with rules on how article 8 should be interpreted that will have statutory force. It will place strict limits on the circumstances in which the right to family life can be invoked to block deportation. In particular, it will put an end to the unjust situation in which immigrants convicted of serious offences can escape deportation merely by claiming that it would interfere with their right to family life.

UK Border Agency

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

From time to time, high-tech employers in my constituency ask for help with getting visas or work permits for highly skilled workers whom they desperately need for their businesses. If, in future, such workers do not have access to NHS care, there will be an increased cost either on the employer or the employee. Will the Government be reducing national insurance contributions for employers and employees in respect of those workers?

[Mr Speaker]

It is very hard to see the link with UKBA —[Interruption.] Well, it is a slightly strained connection, but we shall see, if the Home Secretary wants to give a brief reply.

[Mrs May]

It is a very strained connection. I understand that a similar point was raised in the urgent question yesterday and was responded to.

Police Integrity

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I, too, welcome this statement, which implements not only the recent Home Affairs Committee report, but the Liberal Democrat policy motion on empowering the IPCC, which was passed last year. I especially welcome the commitment that the IPCC will cover private providers. As Nick Hardwick, the former chair of the IPCC, said,

“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”

Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has spoken to Dame Anne Owers and the IPCC about resources, and that it be well-resourced enough to deal with serious cases and also look at private contractors?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that in that very full question he has covered all elements of the relevant Liberal Democrat motion and brought it to the full attention of the House, just in case we had not previously noticed.

[Mrs May]

In other circumstances, I might say that I was now worried, Mr Speaker, but we are in coalition, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is important that private companies working for the police are included, but that will require changes to legislation for which parliamentary time would have to be made available. I am sorry, but with all the banter I have forgotten the second point.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The response the right hon. Gentleman received has clearly provoked his curiosity and, in a notably mild-mannered Member of the House, a degree of consternation. I will happily offer a statement on the matter, but as the Home Secretary has courteously remained in the Chamber during the point of order relating to her Department, she is very welcome to offer a remark, if she so wishes.

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

She does not wish to do so. In that case, I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that the content of ministerial answers, notwithstanding the practice in previous Parliaments, is not a matter for the Chair. If he is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, or what he regards as the lack of an answer, he may wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee.

I note in passing that, on the back of his nearly 26 consecutive years of service in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is as canny as most in the deployment of opportunities open to Members to eke out of Government information that is important to him. Moreover, as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, he may be aware of other means by which Ministers may be held to account, and is perhaps in a position himself to apply those means. We will leave it there for now.

Ibrahim Magag

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Perhaps I can answer the question in this way. There are certain facts in relation to an individual that are not publicly known because they are subject to an anonymity order, and there are various legal issues relating to that. If I may go away and check those issues, and if it is possible to make a public reference in the House in relation to the passport issue, I will place a letter in the Library of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Home Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is: first, timely answers are not just desirable, but essential; secondly, the Home Secretary is on the Bench and is almost thirsting to rise from her seat—she can if she wishes; thirdly, I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the House is in his place and I know he will want to chase an early reply. If the Home Secretary wishes to come to the Dispatch Box, she may do so.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for the delay in responding to his particular question. I will ensure that that matter is chased up and he receives a more timely reply.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and I hope that is regarded as helpful. I hope there will not be many more points of order, as I do not want other people to be unduly delayed. However, I will take a last point of order from Mr Jim Dowd.

Extradition

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I stand corrected. It was said that it was 2008, but I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman says 2009. As I said, I have given very careful consideration to the material, medical and otherwise, that has been available to me and I have come to the decision that extradition would not be appropriate in relation to Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3. That is the decision that I have taken on the material available to me.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr David Davis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend must of course look at such cases individually, but does she agree that the Anglo-American extradition treaty is sound, fair and balanced between our two countries, which are on a generally equal footing, as Sir Scott Baker found in his extensive report; that there is no imbalance in the evidence tests that currently apply; and that there is no need for a prima facie test, which after all we do not apply to other countries that have far less mature justice systems? Will she also take the opportunity to indicate that she has full confidence in the American justice system, which is infinitely preferable to those of many other countries with which we have extradition arrangements?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say to him that if he had been paid by the word when practising in the UK courts he would now be an immensely wealthy man.

[Mrs May]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend that the UK-US extradition treaty is broadly sound. It is important that we have good, well-working extradition arrangements between the UK and the US, and we have seen the benefit of that in relation to a number of cases in which people have been extradited to the US or back to the UK. He is right: Sir Scott Baker did say that there was no need for a prima facie test, which is why I do not propose to introduce such a test in the new arrangements we are proposing. I repeat that it is important that we have well-working extradition arrangements with the US that people can have confidence in. I believe that the limited changes I have announced today will give people that confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I recognise the eagerness with which my hon. Friend, and indeed others, wish the Government to bring forward these changes. I can assure him that we, too, are eager to bring them forward as soon as possible, but that will of course be as parliamentary time allows.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and to colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I must remind the House that the question concerns deportations and article 8.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The Government are committed to reviewing and reforming—I must interrupt myself to apologise, Mr Speaker, as I should first move the motion.

I beg to move,

That this House supports the Government in recognising that the right to respect for family or private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a qualified right and agrees that the conditions for migrants to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life should be those contained in the Immigration Rules.

It might have been unfortunate if I had forgotten to do that formal bit, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The Home Secretary can rest assured that I would have reminded her.

[Mrs May]

I know you are assiduous in your duties, Mr Speaker, and I recognise that you would, indeed, have reminded me—and with courtesy, I am sure.

The Government are committed to reviewing and reforming all the main routes of immigration to the UK. As a result, we anticipate net migration will fall from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. Last week I laid new immigration rules for family immigration. These new rules will ensure that those who come here can do so only on the basis of a genuine relationship, that once here they can pay their way, and that they can integrate properly into British society. So we will increase the minimum probationary period for new spouses and partners to five years; we will stop dependent relatives becoming an unnecessary burden on the national health service; and we will introduce new tests to ensure family migrants can speak English, understand our history and respect our values.

But central to making those new rules work effectively is for this House to set out its view on how the right to family and private life in article 8 of the European convention on human rights should interact with our immigration policy. The ECHR makes it absolutely clear that article 8 is not an absolute right. Article 8(1) of the convention provides for the right to respect for private and family life, but that is qualified by article 8(2), which allows the state to interfere in the exercise of that right.

In an immigration context, the convention allows interference in the right to respect for family or private life on grounds of public safety, such as the prevention of crime, or to protect the UK’s economic well-being, including by controlling the numbers of immigrants allowed to enter or remain in the country. That means the Government can interfere with the exercise of article 8 rights, in full compliance with the ECHR, and in full compliance with the law, where it is necessary and proportionate to protect the public from foreign criminals or to safeguard our economic well-being.

The problem is that Parliament has never before been given the opportunity to set out how it believes it should be possible to interfere with article 8 rights in practice. That meant the courts were left to decide the proportionality of interference with article 8 rights themselves, in each and every individual case, and without the benefit of the views of Parliament.

We are putting that situation right. We are letting Parliament do its job by making public policy, and we are letting the courts do their job by interpreting the law, with regard to the clear view of Parliament of where the public interest lies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the work of special constables in tackling antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol? A group of special constables from Brixton are in the Gallery today. Between them they have put in more than 680 hours of voluntary work, and they are quite clear that the bulk of antisocial behaviour is associated with alcohol and/or drugs.

[Mr Speaker]

The sentiment is greatly appreciated, but just for future reference, we do not in this place refer to the Gallery, no matter how distinguished or worthy the people in it are.

[Mrs May]

I value the work done by special constables. There are many examples, like the one my hon. Friend cited, of special constables actively working in the community to reduce antisocial behaviour. Special constables do a good job all the time, so I would encourage more people to become special constables, which is a valuable way of volunteering and giving a great deal back to local communities.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary tells us that she wants Abu Qatada deported, but I am beginning to wonder whether she really does. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us lower the temperature. I said that the shadow Home Secretary must be heard, and precisely the same principle applies to the Home Secretary. Let us hear what she has to say. [Interruption.] Order. Then I will allow a full opportunity, if necessary, for questions to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I think is fairly similar to previous questions that he has asked me on this issue. Let me assure him that I take this issue extremely seriously and I am absolutely clear that we want to deport Abu Qatada. However, I also made it absolutely clear in the House earlier this week that the Government must operate within the rule of law, and that a number of legal avenues would be available to Abu Qatada. It is no surprise that he is using delaying tactics to try to delay his deportation from this country. It is right to say that we need to reform the European Court of Human Rights, and that is exactly the work that is being undertaken by my right hon. and learned Friends the Justice Secretary—I think I inadvertently referred to him earlier as the shadow Justice Secretary; I beg his pardon—and the Attorney-General.

[Mr Speaker]

Speaking from personal experience, repeat questions are not an entirely novel phenomenon in the House of Commons.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I am beginning to think that the Home Secretary has form here. She has previously accused the European Court of Human Rights of rejecting a deportation because someone had a cat, and she is giving assurances today despite the cases of Otto and Praha, which make it quite clear that she has wrongly interpreted the deadline. My suspicion is that she is playing with this very serious case in order to whip up hostility to the European Court of Human Rights, which is an important protector of human rights in Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The role of the Court is obviously in upholding the European convention on human rights. It is important that we seek to ensure that the cases that the Court is taking are indeed appropriate to be heard by that Court, and of course that is part of the work that my right hon. and learned Friends are undertaking.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and to all 59 Members who were able to question her on this important matter.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I should just mention that I did not mention the Bill of Rights at all, but somebody did, and I think we are about to hear from her.

[Mrs May]

Yes, I did refer to the Bill of Rights, and as my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary has set up a commission to look into this whole question of a Bill of Rights. It will report in due course. As I have said, I am looking into how we can ensure that we can deport people who are a risk to our national security, and have a speedier and more secure process of doing so than we currently have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

It has been the clear view of this Government for some time that we need to bring about reform of the European Court in a number of areas. That work has been undertaken in recent months. As I said, the Brighton conference, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, will consider the action that can be taken to reform the European Court. As a Government, and in the Home Office, we will consider the systems we have in place to see whether we can learn anything from other countries to provide us with a swifter means of deporting those who are a threat to our national security.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but never forgotten, I call Mr David Evennett.

[Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

I am very grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on the leadership she has shown on this issue, which is to be commended. Is she aware that my constituents believe that this case has gone on for far too long, that it needs a speedy resolution and that until we can get rid of this Abu Qatada, he should stay behind bars? My constituents are also looking for radical reform so that this cannot happen again.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will rule on that, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order that relates directly to the Home Secretary and she is in her place, she has the opportunity to respond if she wishes to do so.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I assure the House that I gave no such briefing to the press in relation to this. In response to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission had not been properly informed, I made the point that the number of people who were aware that the arrest was about to take place was limited. I understand, however, that there were a number of journalists outside Abu Qatada’s house, as there have been at various stages in the past three months. Therefore, when action was taken it was only to be expected that that information would be available to the media.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am happy to respond to the point of order from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). First, I have had no opportunity to make any direct comparison between the text reported in the Evening Standard and the content of the Home Secretary’s statement. Secondly, as has already been said, it is commonplace for there to be heavy media speculation in circumstances of this kind.

Thirdly, I take this opportunity forcefully to underline the crucial importance of statements of this kind, and indeed all significant statements of Government policy, being made first to the House. The Home Secretary did me the courtesy of contacting me over the weekend and we discussed her desire to make a statement today. Of course, I pointed out that it was extremely important if the statement was not to be made until Tuesday that nothing of it emerged in advance into the public domain, to which proposition I know she readily agreed. I do not think I can say more than that now, but these things must first be revealed to the House and not outside. Although of course there are many actors on the stage, not least within Departments and other organisations, Ministers are responsible for everything that is said by those within their Department. I know that that is a responsibility of which the Home Secretary will be keenly conscious.

Alcohol Strategy

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, 1 billion units a year will be taken out. Sorry, I was getting ahead—[Interruption.] I wondered how long it would take the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to start—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Home Secretary. I am a little concerned about the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who I fear is suffering from compulsive chuntering disorder. I know that he will now calm himself, and we look forward to hearing from him eloquently and possibly at length on other occasions.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), we have already been working with the industry to ensure that changes can take place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has done a lot of work on that. It will lead to 1 billion units of alcohol being taken out by 2015, and 35 companies have signed up to that deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

This would never have been brought out in the Budget because this is a cross-Government strategy which deals with a variety of issues that are not matters for the Budget. The hon. Lady is right to say what an important issue this is. That is why the Government have been working across Departments to produce for the first time a comprehensive strategy which, I hope—it is the intention—will deal with the sort of problem that she has rightly raised and recognised.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the Home Secretary and colleagues. We return to the Budget debate.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the very great strength of feeling on this matter, but I have ruled on the point of order. I respect the seniority and service of the right hon. Gentleman.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If the Home Secretary wishes to oblige, that is exceptionally obliging of her.

[Mrs May]

I do not intend to respond to the point made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), but I think it would benefit the House if I made it clear that a leak inquiry has been initiated by the Cabinet Office. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) in his point of order about the impact that a leak of this sort will have on what is a very sensitive matter in the context of ensuring that the full information is put together by the Hillsborough panel, and I believe that the information in any documents should be shown to the families first and should not be leaked to the press in any form. I repeat that the Cabinet Office is undertaking a leak inquiry.

[Mr Speaker]

That was both helpful and courteous of the Home Secretary, and the House is immensely grateful to her.

UK Border Agency

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the impact on Scotland. We will discuss the impact of the report with Scottish Government Ministers and my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will write to them today about the implications. We will obviously take up more detailed discussions on the precise operations at official level—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) to calm himself. Perhaps he should take up yoga. It is only Monday, and I know that he will want to hang on every word of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I do not know what he is chuntering about with such good nature from a sedentary position, but it cannot be as interesting as what the Home Secretary has to say.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

Having heard the bluster from the shadow Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary confirm to the House one thing: that the Vine report entirely vindicates what she and the Immigration Minister said last November, and that all the suspended checks that she told the House about in November occurred without ministerial authorisation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

He’s a shadow Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just explain that the deal for an Opposition Front Bencher of the hon. Gentleman’s important but middling rank is one question a month—not one question and multiple heckles? I know he is trying to reinvent the deal but the deal is as I have just described it.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to say to the shadow Immigration Minister that he does, indeed, get excited very often about things that he need not get excited about. There is no simple and direct link between the number of officers and the level of crime. We see that in the UK and across the world. What Opposition Front Benchers need to focus on is the deployment of officers. They need to ask themselves why under the previous Labour Government so many officers were stuck in back-office posts in areas such as human resources instead of being out on the front line fighting crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that is being done by the Merseyside force in relation to the savings that it is making in its budgets. As Chief Constable Jon Murphy has said,

“It’s not salami slicing but re-engineering the whole organisation.”

As my hon. Friend has shown, that can be done effectively, saving money but providing a good service to the public. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The questions must be heard and Ministers must be heard.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is aware that women prisoners will only ever move between women’s prisons, and similarly young people will only move through young offenders institutions. What discussions has she had with her counterparts at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we look at prison education for women as a cluster and for young people as a cluster, instead of relying on local arrangements?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and behind it lies the important issue of the number of women who go to prison. For many women, an alternative arrangement might be more appropriate, which is something Baroness Corston raised in her report on women in prison. I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s point and ensure that it is put to the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Justice.

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving the hon. Gentleman up. I call Mr Peter Bone.

UK Border Force

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the UK border force, an operational division of the UK Border Agency. The border force is responsible for ensuring that only legitimate travellers and goods are allowed to enter and leave the UK, while reducing threats including illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorism.

Border force activities include verifying the immigration status of passengers arriving and departing the UK; checking baggage, vehicles and cargo for illicit goods; and searching for illegal immigrants. Border force officers confirm the identity of passengers arriving at the UK border; check passengers against a watch list known as the warnings index; and undertake a visual inspection of passengers’ passports. Where a biometric passport is held, the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, is opened and verified.

Non-EU passengers undergo additional checks. Officers establish whether a visa is required and whether a visa is held. If the passenger has a biometric visa, a fingerprint database check can be made, and officers decide whether the passenger should be granted entry to the UK.

In the past, under the previous Government, some of those checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border. In the summer of 2008, warnings index checks were suspended on European economic area nationals—children and adults—on Eurostar services. At Calais, warnings index checks were suspended on European economic area and UK car passengers—again, adults as well as children were not run against the index. Since 2008, at various ports and airports, that happened on more than 100 occasions.

Officials tell me that once, in 2004, local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made. To prevent that from happening again, and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that the UK Border Agency could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers.

Initial options had been put to the then security Minister and the immigration Minister in January, who agreed them as a basis for further work. That resulted in proposals for a risk-based strategy coming to me in April. After further work, I agreed an amended and limited pilot scheme in July, which meant that, under limited circumstances, EEA national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index—designed to detect terrorists and serious criminals—when assessed by a border force official to be a credible risk.

The pilot also allowed, under limited circumstances, border force officials the discretion to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, on the passports of EEA nationals. Those circumstances were that the measures would always be subject to a risk-based assessment, that they should not be routine and that the volume of passengers would be such that border security would be stronger with more risk-based checks and fewer mandatory checks than with more mandatory checks on low-risk passengers and fewer risk-based checks for high-risk passengers. The advice of security officials was sought and they confirmed that they were content with the measures.

I want everybody to understand what was supposed to happen under the terms of the pilot. In usual circumstances, all checks would be carried out on all passengers. Under the risk-based controls, everybody’s passports would be checked; nobody would be waved through; visa nationals’ fingerprints would be checked; all non-EEA nationals’ biometric chips would be checked; all adults would be run past the warnings index; all non-EEA nationals would be run past the warnings index; and border officials would be free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chips of EEA passengers and to check EEA children travelling with parents or a school group against the warnings index.

The pilot was extended on 19 September and was due to end last Friday. The results are not yet fully evaluated, but UKBA’s statistics show that, compared with the same period last year, the number of illegal immigrants detected increased by nearly 10%. Last week, John Vine, the independent chief inspector of UKBA, raised concerns with Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of UKBA, that security checks were not being implemented properly. On Wednesday, the head of the UK border force, Brodie Clark, confirmed to Mr Whiteman that border controls had been relaxed without ministerial approval.

First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warnings index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval. Biometric tests on non-EEA nationals are also thought to have been abandoned on occasions, again without ministerial approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warnings index at Calais, without ministerial approval. Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval. I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of these decisions. Indeed, I told officials explicitly that the pilot was to go no further than we had agreed.

As a result of these unauthorised actions, we will never know how many people entered the country who should have been prevented from doing so after being flagged by the warnings index. Following Mr Clark’s conversation with Mr Whiteman, the latter carried out further investigations and on Thursday morning he suspended Mr Clark from duty with immediate effect. The Home Office permanent secretary, the immigration Minister and I were notified of his decision that morning. The pilot scheme, which had been due to end the next day, was suspended immediately, and on Friday two other border force officials, Graeme Kyle, director of operations at Heathrow, and Carole Upshall, director of border force south and European operations, were also suspended from duty on a precautionary basis.

There is nothing more important than the security of our border, and because of the seriousness of these allegations I have ordered a number of investigations. Dave Wood, the head of the UKBA enforcement and crime group and a former Metropolitan police officer, will carry out an investigation into exactly how, when and where the suspension of checks might have taken place. Mike Anderson, the director general of immigration, is looking at the actions of the wider team working for Brodie Clark; and John Vine, the chief inspector, will conduct a thorough review to find out exactly what happened with the checks across the UKBA, how the chain of command in the border force operates and whether the system needs to be changed in future. For the sake of clarity, I am happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers. That investigation will begin immediately and will report by the end of January. I will place the terms of reference for the inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

Border security is fundamental to our national security and our policy of reducing and controlling immigration. The pilots run by the UK border force this summer were designed to improve border security by focusing resources on passengers and journeys that intelligence led officers to believe posed the greatest risk. The vast majority of those officers are hard-working, dedicated public servants. Just like all of us, they want to see tough immigration controls and strong enforcement, but they have been let down by senior officials at the head of the organisation who put at risk the security of our border. Our task now is to make sure—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting, but the Home Secretary must be heard. I know that these are matters about which Members rightly feel extremely strongly, although in fairness we might note in passing that on Friday Members of the Youth Parliament felt extremely strongly about the five motions on which they spoke, but they listened to each other with courtesy.

[Mrs May]

Our task now is to ensure that those responsible are punished and that border force officials can never take such risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do, and I commend this statement to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Has net migration increased or decreased over the last 12 months?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the Home Secretary that her answer should be pertinent in the context of tackling bogus colleges.

[Mrs May]

The most up-to-date figures do not cover the last 12 months. What we saw as a result of the last Labour Government’s policies was net migration going up. Dealing with bogus colleges and education providers is part of our way of bringing it down.

Public Disorder

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Public Disorder.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that in view of the enormous interest in the debate I have imposed a limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. There is no limit on Front-Bench speeches and I leave it to the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to tailor contributions in the light of the level of interest.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The last five days have been a dark time for everybody who cares about their community and their country. Violence, arson and looting in several of our towns and cities, often openly in front of television cameras, have destroyed homes, ruined livelihoods and taken lives. As long as we wish to call ourselves a civilised society, such disorder has no place in Britain.

I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery of the policemen and women who have worked to restore order on our streets. In particular, I know that hon. Members will want to lend their support to the police officers who have suffered injuries in the course of their duties, and the whole House will want to send condolences to the families of the three men so senselessly killed in Birmingham on Tuesday night.

The violence of the last five days raises many searching questions, and the answers may be painful to hear and difficult to put right. Why is it that so many people are prepared to behave in this way? Why does a violent gang culture exist in so many of our towns and cities? Why did the police find it so hard to prevent or contain the violence? It will take time to answer those questions fully and adequately, but I will take each of them in turn.

First are the reasons behind that behaviour. We must never forget that the only cause of a crime is a criminal. Everybody, no matter what their background or circumstances, has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Those who make the wrong decision, who engage in criminality, must be identified, arrested and punished, and we will make sure that happens.

Metropolitan Police Service

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I say to the shadow Home Secretary that from the response she has just given one could have been forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister had not been anywhere near the House of Commons in the past week, but he stood at this Dispatch Box last week, he answered questions in this House, he answered all the points that the shadow Home Secretary has made and he will be in this House again on Wednesday.

The right hon. Lady asked a long list of questions. She asked why I had not said anything about openness and transparency across the Met, as I had promised to. I made specific reference in my statement to the management board decisions taken by the Metropolitan police to publish details of meetings held by senior officers with members of the press, and they will be available on the internet.

The right hon. Lady asked about the difference between the Met and the Government. Of course there is a difference. The Metropolitan police were investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the News of the World, and it is absolutely right that there should be a line between the investigators and the investigated. The issue I raised with Sir Paul Stephenson—which she is aware of because it was made public last week—was the fact that I had concerns that he had not informed us about a conflict of interest. The police in this country should be able to act against crime and criminals without fear or favour, but when they think there is a conflict of interest that should be made transparent.

The right hon. Lady asked about the impact of elected police commissioners. I think everything that has happened shows not that we should be going slow on reform of the police but that we need to ensure that we reform the police.

We then have the extraordinary situation in that the shadow Home Secretary appears in one breath to be saying that I have been absent and doing absolutely nothing and in the other breath saying that I am doing everything she asked for. She cannot simultaneously claim that I am doing nothing and doing something—that is the have-your-cake-and-eat-it opportunism of Opposition politics to which I note that both she and the shadow Chancellor belong.

Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr John Robertson, calm yourself. It is very injurious to your health and I do not want to see the effects. That is very undesirable.

[Mrs May]

Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things. In 2002, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport reported that the press were making illegal payments to police officers and called on the then Home Secretary to take steps to review, and overhaul if necessary, the guidance and measures aimed at preventing such behaviour by the police and media. Labour took no action. In May 2006, the Information Commissioner reported that the trade in confidential personal information was

“a pervasive and widespread ‘industry’”.

Labour took no action. Just two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) revealed that he had thought about getting Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an independent investigation into the Met’s handling of phone hacking, but Labour took no action. And, if the shadow Home Secretary wants to keep talking about Andy Coulson, she will have to expect to answer a lot of questions about the Labour party’s communications director, Tom Baldwin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Prevent Strategy

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very impressed that the hon. Gentleman is still breathing.

[Mrs May]

I of course recognise the experience in Stoke-on-Trent, particularly over the past year, in relation to both terrorist plots of an Islamic nature and the influence and actions of the English Defence League. I would hope that everybody in the House believes in the values to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), namely democracy, the rule of law, equality and human rights. Those are the values that we wish to promote.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is not correct. It is precisely because we respect the Assembly’s decision that we are removing police and crime panels from local government structures in Wales. The Assembly had the opportunity to put in place a legislative consent motion that would have enabled that to take place. Such a motion was tabled by the Welsh Assembly Government, but they then chose not to support it, even though they had put it forward. As a result, the view of the Welsh Assembly was that police and crime panels should not form part of the local government structure in Wales. Instead, the PCPs will be freestanding bodies.

I want to make it clear that in taking a power to appoint those freestanding bodies I will not be telling, instructing or forcing any authority to do anything. I will invite local authorities to nominate a member to the PCP for each force area, and if an authority fails to nominate a member, I will invite members directly while having regard to the political balance within the force area. I think that the amendments will ensure that the appropriate checks and balances on police and crime commissioners can apply in all force areas in England and in Wales.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am listening carefully to the Home Secretary, who has given way generously, which is appreciated by the House, but I gently point out to both Front Benches that there are some Back Benchers who would like the chance of a snippet as well if the opportunity presents itself.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We have also taken the opportunity in the Bill, as Members can see, to make improvements to the police complaints system. There are of course other important aspects to the Bill, notably those relating to licensing. I think that Labour’s disastrous Licensing Act 2003 made the problem of binge drinking in this country worse, not better. Far from giving us the continental café culture that we were promised at the time, the Act did nothing to help police and local communities in their ongoing fight against alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. That is why the Bill will help to turn the tide by ensuring that all those affected by licensed premises have a chance to have a say in the licensing process, allowing early morning restriction orders and the late-night levy on licensed premises opening after midnight to help pay for late-night policing and other services, such as taxi marshals or street wardens.

We have brought forward an amendment to introduce locally set licensing fees so that the fees can achieve what they were intended to, which is to recover fully the costs of licensing authorities in discharging their duties. I think that local government will feel that this is long overdue. We have also repealed the previous Administration’s legislation on alcohol disorder zones, and there was overwhelming support in our consultation for doing that. Those measures, together with a number of others, show that we are committed to stopping the harm caused by alcohol abuse.

As well as measures to tackle alcohol abuse, we will be providing powers to crack down on the damage caused by so-called legal highs. The Bill introduces the power to make year-long temporary class drug orders, which will allow us to take swift action to ban temporarily substances that have been specifically developed to get around existing drugs legislation but that can still cause significant harm.

I hope that the whole House will agree that for too long Parliament square has been subjected to unacceptable disruption and damage from the long-term encampment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady may know, we have been looking into the whole question of employment tribunals and pay discrimination cases. We are considering the possibility of making things easier by enabling a single decision to apply to anyone in a company rather than requiring people to go to employment tribunals on an individual basis.

[Mr Speaker]

Robert Flello is not here. I call Esther McVey.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One question must be enough, because other people are waiting.

[Mrs May]

I refer the hon. Lady to the response given by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to an earlier question on this matter. The Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no simple link between levels of crime and the number of police officers. Indeed, that view has been supported by a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Sex Offenders Register

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but how confident is she that the increasingly robust Supreme Court, and the European Courts with their extraterritorial reach, will not overrule her very firm and welcome announcement today? Is it not time to introduce a Bill of Rights very early indeed, rather than having a commission which may report sometime in the future—

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but it is right to have a commission to look into the British Bill of Rights. The purpose of my statement was to set out a way forward that meets the requirement set by the Supreme Court, which should therefore not be subject to a further ruling by that Court.

Counter-terrorism Review

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the outcome of the review of counter-terrorism and security powers.

The review has taken place in the context of a threat from terrorism that is as serious as we have faced at any time. In dealing with that threat, it has been the consistent aim of this Government to protect not only the security of our citizens, but the freedoms of us all.

We reviewed counter-terrorism legislation because too much of it was excessive and unnecessary. At times, it gave the impression of criminalising entire communities. Some measures, such as the extraordinary attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 90 days, were rightly defeated in Parliament. Others, such as the most draconian aspects of control orders, were defeated in the courts. Those measures undermined public confidence, so I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will support me in preventing the excessive use of state power.

I make no apology for the time that this review has taken. It has rightly been deliberate and thorough to ensure that we safeguard both our security and our freedoms. The review has taken account of all sides of the argument. It has received evidence from academic experts and civil society groups, from communities across the country, and from the law enforcement and security agencies. I have, of course, consulted regularly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and my noble Friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven has provided independent oversight of the process. He has had access to all relevant papers and has played an invaluable role in ensuring that all the evidence was given proper consideration. I thank him for his contribution in ensuring that the recommendations of this review are not only fair but seen to be fair. I am laying the review, a summary of the public consultation, and Lord Macdonald’s report, in the House.

On pre-charge detention, the Government announced to the House last week that we would not renew the current legislation on extended pre-charge detention. This means that the sunset clause inserted by the last Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The review sets out the detailed considerations leading to this conclusion.

The police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days. However, we recognise that, in exceptional circumstances only, that might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. We will therefore draw up draft primary legislation to be introduced for parliamentary consideration only in such circumstances. We will publish a draft Bill and propose that it be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I should make it clear to the House that until it is repealed by the freedom Bill, section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will remain on the statute book allowing the Government to increase the maximum period to 28 days in an emergency, subject to Parliament’s agreement. There has therefore been no gap in our ability to seek Parliament’s consent to increase the period of pre-charge detention should the need arise.

On the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers, I have concluded that the current provisions, which were found unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, represented an unacceptable intrusion on an individual’s human rights and must be repealed. However the evidence, particularly in Northern Ireland, has demonstrated that where there is a credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack, the absence of such powers might create a gap in the ability of the police to protect the public. We therefore propose to repeal section 44 and to replace it with a tightly defined power that would allow a senior police officer to make an authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers to prevent a terrorist attack where there is a specific threat. This targeted measure will also prevent the misuse of these powers against photographers, which I know was a significant concern with the previous regime.

On the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, we will implement our commitment to prevent the use of these powers by local authorities unless for the purpose of preventing serious crime and unless authorised by a magistrate. In this context, surveillance—the most controversial power—will be authorised for offences that carry a custodial sentence of at least six months.

On the wider question of communications data—that is the who, when and where of a communication, but not the content—the Government intend to ensure that as far as possible, they are accessed only through the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. We will bring forward specific legislation to this effect in a future communications data Bill.

The Government are committed to tackling the promotion of division, hatred and violence in our society. We must expose and confront the bigoted ideology of the extremists and prosecute and punish those who step outside the law. The review considered whether counter-terrorism legislation should be amended to tackle groups who are not currently caught by the law, but who still aim to spread their divisive and abhorrent messages. After careful consideration, we have concluded that it would be disproportionate to widen counter-terrorism legislation to deal with these groups, however distasteful we find their views. To do so would have serious consequences for the basic principles of freedom of expression. We therefore propose to use existing legislation, as well as tackling such groups through our wider work to counter extremism and promote integration and participation in society.

On the deportation of foreign nationals suspected or known to have been involved in terrorist activity, the review found no evidence that this policy was inconsistent with the UK’s human rights obligations and found that it was legitimate and necessary to seek to extend the arrangements to more countries which would include independent verification. As Lord Macdonald says, the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues is likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.

Finally, on control orders the Government have concluded that, for the foreseeable future, there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported. I want to be clear that prosecution, conviction and imprisonment will always be our priority—the right place for a terrorist is a prison cell—but where successful prosecution or deportation is not immediately possible, no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.

We are also clear that the current control order regime is imperfect and has not been as effective as it should be. We therefore propose to repeal control orders. Instead, we will introduce a new package of measures that is better focused and has more targeted restrictions, supported by significantly increased resources for surveillance and other investigative tools. Restrictions that have an impact on an individual’s ability to lead a normal life should be the minimum necessary, should be proportionate and should be clearly justified. The legislation that we will bring forward will make clearer what restrictions can and cannot be imposed. These will be similar to some of the existing powers used in the civil justice system, for example to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence.

These “terrorism prevention and investigation measures” will have a two-year maximum time limit, which will clearly demonstrate that these are targeted, temporary measures and not to be used simply as a means of parking difficult cases indefinitely. The measures will have to meet the evidential test of “reasonable belief” that a person is or has been engaged in terrorism. This is higher than the test of “reasonable suspicion” under the current regime.

Curfews will be replaced by an overnight residence requirement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Whatever Members think, on either side of the argument, the statement by the Home Secretary on this matter must be heard with courtesy and in silence.

[Mrs May]

Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas, such as particular buildings or streets, but not entire boroughs. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate. They will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions necessary to protect the public. We will add the crucial power to prevent foreign travel. These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person’s conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and they will be required to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.

I have asked the incoming independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to pay particular attention to these issues in his first report on the new regime and to make recommendations that he considers appropriate to ensure the new regime is working as intended.

I am also today laying a written ministerial statement outlining the next steps in the work to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in court. We will repeal the current provisions which permit control orders with restrictions so severe that they would require the United Kingdom to derogate from the European convention on human rights. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Government would seek to introduce such draconian measures.

So the review I am announcing today will create a more focused and flexible regime. However, in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary. We want to prepare for this possibility while ensuring that such powers are used only when absolutely necessary. So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement. These measures will require an even higher standard of proof to be met and would be introduced if in exceptional circumstances they were required to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms. These powers would be enacted only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.

All of these measures will be accompanied by a significant increase in resources for the police and security and intelligence agencies to improve their surveillance and investigative capabilities. This will underpin the effectiveness of the regime and support the gathering of evidence admissible in court which could lead to a successful prosecution.

We will bring forward legislation to introduce the new regime in the coming weeks. We want to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise our proposals properly. I am sure the whole House would agree that in the past, too many laws in this area were rushed through without the opportunity for adequate debate and consideration. So while Parliament considers that legislation, we will renew the current regime to the end of the year. Many of the other measures I have outlined will be brought forward in the forthcoming protection of freedom Bill.

I wish to finish by thanking the police and the security services for the tremendous work they do to keep our country safe. The measures I have outlined today will help them continue to ensure our safety and security at the same time as we restore our civil liberties. They are in keeping with British values and our commitment to freedom, fairness and the rule of law. They will restore public confidence in counter-terrorism legislation and it is my hope that they will form the basis of an enduring political consensus. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

While, in cosy comfort and at times with chuckles, we in the House deal with the theory of terrorism, Belfast this morning unfortunately experienced the practice of terrorism when a massive explosive device was found. As a result, the whole of north Belfast was sealed off from commerce, schooling and everything else, which is the equivalent of sealing off the whole of the east end of London.

With that in mind, will the Home Secretary—whose statement I welcome—tell us whether the repeal of section 44 and its replacement with a more tightly defined power for police officers will be flexible enough to allow the police to deal with specific threats that have an impact on a border with a 200-mile radius? We do not want them to be confined to dealing with such tightly specific threats that they are prevented from policing Northern Ireland properly, and protecting it from a more generalised dissident republican threat.

With regard to the new money—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very much want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I think that one question is enough. On days such as this, a great many Members wish to contribute.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the latest attempted terrorist attack in Northern Ireland. As he says, it involved a significant explosive device, and the action that had to be taken disrupted a significant number of people in Belfast. I am sure that all of us, on both sides of the House, are absolutely determined that people who perpetrate such acts should not be allowed to succeed.

Once again, I pay tribute to the work of the PSNI. We have been engaged in close discussions with the Northern Ireland Office—which, as I have said, has itself been engaged in discussions with the PSNI and the Justice Minister—about the operation of the section 44 replacement, if I may so describe the new power that will be available. I am confident that that new power will give the PSNI the capabilities that it requires, and I understand that later this week the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI will discuss the protocols that will apply.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is important that we should not continue the debate subsequent to the statement. I have let the statement run relatively long because it is an extremely important matter and the Front-Bench contributions were, understandably, a bit longer than normal. On this occasion, all that I want to say is that information about the policy of the Government should without exception be communicated first to the House. If for some reason that is not the case—the right hon. Lady has registered her concern that that might be so—that concern will have been heard. That was a point of order and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond to it if she wants, but she is under no obligation to do so as she has made a full statement.

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

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Home Secretary does not wish to do so. So be it.

Bill Presented

Education Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michael Gove, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Sarah Teather, Mr Nick Gibb, Mr David Willetts and Mr John Hayes, presented a Bill to make provision about education, childcare, apprenticeships and training; to make provision about schools and the school workforce, institutions within the further education sector and Academies; to abolish the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Young People’s Learning Agency for England; to make provision about the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and the Chief Executive of Skills Funding; to make provision about student loans and fees; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 137) with explanatory notes (Bill 137-EN).

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Home Secretary is about to provide enlightenment.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. We will place draft emergency legislation in the Library of the House—[Hon. Members: “When?”] We did not say that it would be placed in the Library before the current legislation lapsed. Emergency legislation is available for the use of this House in the intervening period, if necessary, and that is section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006. The correct legal process for reducing the period from 28 days to 14 days is to allow the existing legislation to lapse because that was the sunset clause put in the legislation by the last Labour Government.

Public Order Policing

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have made the position absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and others. I do not think that any of us want to see water cannon being used on the streets of England and Wales. I have said that several times in response to questions on my statement, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my earlier answers.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Home Secretary and all colleagues for their co-operation. I now call the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make his statement.

Controlling Migration

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have been absolutely clear about our aim in regard to net migration, and we made it absolutely clear in the coalition agreement that we were committed to introducing an annual limit on non-EU economic migration. That is what we are doing today. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I call Paul Uppal. [Interruption.] Order. I am quite worried about Opposition Front Benchers. They are in a state of quite extraordinary excitement, but I want to hear Mr Uppal.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Immigration cases take up most of the case load at my weekly surgery, particularly during the summer months, when the wedding season and many other family occasions take place. Will the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), consider pinning down responsibility for sponsorship when people come here to visit their families on such occasions? That would tackle head-on the problem of absconding, fraud and overstaying. The last Labour Government examined the matter when immigration was an issue, but they ducked it and chose not to do anything about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I have said in some of my conversations with businesses that it is important that they look to ensure that they encourage and provide the training for skills growth and development here in the UK. That is important, as it is in the UK’s interests, the individual’s interests and the interests of those businesses.

[Mr Speaker]

I must thank the Home Secretary and colleagues for their co-operation, as a result of which in 40 minutes of Back-Bench time we managed to get through 44 Back-Bench questions and answers. It shows what can be done when we put our minds to it.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I sometimes wonder whether these generous initial remarks are a ruse by Members to get me on their side, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was not contacted by the Home Secretary about the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but he makes his point with force and clarity. I am always concerned that the House should hear key announcements first. However, I would say that when different numbers are being bandied around that is sometimes a sign of a matter for debate rather than a point of order. However, I shall keep my eyes and ears focused firmly on these matters because the House must hear first.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have more or less indicated, I think that the Home Secretary—

[Mrs May]

After 13 years in opposition, as the right hon. Gentleman will discover, one sometimes makes these mistakes. The information that the BBC had was wrong and I am happy to say to the House that any information on the BBC first thing this morning was nothing to do with the Home Office.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and I am glad that we are not going to suffer an identity crisis for any length of time. I would simply say to the House that I think we will leave it there. We have had an exchange, concerns have been expressed and the Home Secretary has made her position clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

In so far as I could fully hear the hon. Gentleman—I apologise if I failed to hear him, but there was quite a lot of noise in the Chamber—I would simply reiterate that there are certain requirements of courtesy on Ministers. Generally speaking, the requirements are complied with and I know that it is always the intention of Ministers to do so. Generally speaking, that happens and if it did not in this case, that was a mistake.

[Mrs May]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The Home Secretary nods assent to that proposition. I hope that such a mistake will not happen again.

Aviation Security Incident

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen]

In other words, what we need to do is avoid UK-only measures.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have got the drift of the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. May I join him in commending the work of all those at East Midlands airport, including the police and others working there, for the way that they dealt with the incident? It is one thing to stand here in the House of Commons and talk about such an incident; it is quite another to approach a device that one knows may be explosive and to deal with it on behalf of others. I certainly thank them for their work, and I commend them for it.

On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, I would simply say that it is not in our gift to mandate the response of others on such issues. However, the work that we will be doing—and that we have been doing as a country over the years—which involves talking to international partners, airlines and airport operators about security levels and the measures that need to be put in place, is part of the process of trying to ensure that, as far as possible, we see enhanced security in other places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the coalition Government as a whole are governing in the national interest, and that we are very conscious that the first task of government is to keep the public safe. As I have said, and as I also said earlier this afternoon in Home Office questions, no final decisions have been taken on the counter-terrorism legislation review, but at such time as they are taken they will, of course, be brought before the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving up the hon. Gentleman: I call Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does this event not undermine the British Government’s justification for continuing to demand that our brave British soldiers continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan—that that keeps Afghanistan free of terrorist camps—and ignore the fact that the terrorist threat is not the Taliban but al-Qaeda, which is free to operate in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

[Mrs May]

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a zero-sum game: it is simply not the case that if we are able to take action against a group of terrorists in one place they just move somewhere else and we then deal with them there. In recent months and years we have seen the sources of terrorist threats become more diverse. Our troops have been doing a remarkable job in Afghanistan with great courage—great bravery—in order to ensure that al-Qaeda is unable to regain a foothold in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is, however, starting to operate from other parts of the world; that is the diversity of the threat, rather than simply an alternative one. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right that we commend the important and vital work our troops have been doing in Afghanistan, but we must also be aware of the al-Qaeda threat growing in other parts of the world.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary and other colleagues for their co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I welcome the right hon. Lady to her position. She held the same position before the leadership elections within the Labour party, but I welcome her again now she has been reappointed. I am sure that we will have a number of interesting exchanges on this issue and I hope that we will work co-operatively on many areas of women’s issues and equality, as is right and appropriate.

The right hon. Lady asks about ring-fencing and the Supporting People funding, but the decision to remove that ring-fencing was first taken by the Labour Government because it has not been ring-fenced since 2009. On the question that the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) asked, a White Paper will be produced before the welfare reform Bill. It will be possible for people to make representations on specific issues such as the impact of housing benefit changes on refuges and for those representations to be taken into account.

[Mr Speaker]

The exchanges so far have been rather protracted. We need to do a bit better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is tempting me down a route that I do not think is appropriate—to agree the outcome of the review in respect of its assessment of the current extradition treaty. That is not appropriate as it would undermine the whole point of having a review—details of which will be announced shortly—which is to ensure a proper process for considering the issues—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the natural temptation to do otherwise, but if the Home Secretary would face the House when she replies, it would help all of us. I think that she has concluded her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am indeed very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Prime Minister and his wife Samantha on the safe delivery of their daughter, Florence, who as my hon. Friend said has a Cornish name as well. I am sure that the Prime Minister and his wife were very pleased to have been protected and kept safe while they were in Cornwall by the appropriate local constabulary.

Phone Tapping

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will take first the issue that the shadow Home Secretary raised about the number of people involved who may or may not have had telephone calls intercepted. Assistant Commissioner Yates made it clear in his interview on the “Today” programme this morning that there are—[Interruption.] Labour Members may tut, but Assistant Commissioner Yates was interviewed on the matter this morning and made it clear that there is often a misunderstanding between somebody’s name appearing on a list and that person assuming that they have therefore had their phone intercepted. He made it clear—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must exercise a degree of self-restraint. I am trying to help the House by facilitating an exchange on this important matter. The responses of the Home Secretary must be heard.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can quote from that interview, where Assistant Commissioner Yates said:

“There’s a misunderstanding here which suggests just because your name features in a private investigator’s files, you have been hacked.”

He went on to explain that that was not the case.

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) also raised the issue in relation to Mr Coulson. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) has made clear, when the Culture, Media and Sport Committee investigated the matter, it concluded:

“We have seen no evidence that”

the then editor

“Andy Coulson, knew.”

That was the decision taken by the Select Committee of the House.

As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, he looked at the issue last year. He looked at what had happened and the way it had been handled, and he said that he was reassured.

Policing in the 21st Century

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to a number of earlier questions, we will publish figures on cost and the business case for the national crime agency in due course—and I am sorry the hon. Lady had to wait such a long time to ask that question.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members, including the Home Secretary whose pithiness enabled more than 40 colleagues to ask questions on the statement; that was very welcome.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On Monday the shadow Home Secretary, in exchanges across the Floor of the House, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), in a subsequent point of order, complained that details of a Home Office statement on non-EU migration had been passed to the media before the statement itself was delivered to the House. I undertook to look into the matter and to report back to the House. Having made inquiries, I am now able to update the House.

I have established that at a Home Office press briefing on Monday morning, copies of a statement were made available to journalists—[Interruption.] Order. The content of that statement was very similar to that delivered orally in the House by the Home Secretary on Monday afternoon. As Members know, I am concerned that Ministers should make key statements to the House before they are made elsewhere. In this case the opposite happened, and this was a discourtesy to the House. The Home Secretary is present, and will wish to take this opportunity to say something.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I deeply regret the fact that on Monday, in my attempt to assist the House by changing from making a written ministerial statement to making an oral statement, the copy of the statement that would have been made in writing to the House was handed out to the press before I made my oral statement. I take full responsibility for that, and I have no hesitation in apologising to the House and in assuring the House that I will ensure that it will not happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has said, and I will take—[Interruption.] Order. I will take no points of order on that matter.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and John Bercow

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I have a sense that, dissatisfied with the responses that she heard earlier, she is, in a sense, seeking to continue the debate. To the best of my knowledge, responsibility for the issue of domestic violence remains where it has always been. If Ministers feel otherwise, they might wish to respond to the serious point of order that she has just raised. However, I see that the Home Secretary is in her place, so it might help the House if she would care to respond to that point of order.

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

I am happy to confirm that the Home Office does indeed continue to have responsibility in matters relating to domestic violence, although there will be aspects of dealing with domestic violence that require the intervention and consideration of the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Speaker]

Whether that response satisfies the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) I cannot be sure, but it will have to do for now.