Anderson Report

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and join her in paying tribute to the agencies and police and the vital work that they do to keep us safe. Because their work is so important, they need a robust and up-to-date legal framework for that work, and that is what they want as well. Their job is to protect our liberty as well as our security in a democracy.

I strongly welcome the publication of David Anderson’s report, which we all need to consider in detail. We called for the report in our amendment to the emergency legislation last summer, and we did so because we believed that the existing framework was no longer fit for purpose. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also called for a new framework. Technology has moved on, but neither the law nor the oversight has done so. The law is, in David Anderson’s words,

“incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates...and—in the long run—intolerable.”

Reforms are needed. First, as the report confirms, it is clear that proportionate surveillance and interception are vital to saving lives and to averting and disrupting dreadful attacks. The Home Secretary is right to highlight the changing threats, and communications data have been used to tackle some awful crimes. The report refers to a case in which the US authorities found a movie file of a woman sexually abusing a four-month-old girl. Communications data were used to track the source of an email to a man in Northampton and, as a result, he and his girlfriend were convicted of serious sexual abuse of three children, all less than four years old. There is no doubt therefore that powers are needed and that they need to keep up with new technology. We cannot allow the sunset clause to let existing powers lapse without new legislation in their place.

Secondly, we have argued that, alongside strong powers, we need strong checks and balances and significantly stronger oversight of how the system works. I welcome the report’s proposals to strengthen oversight by introducing a new, stronger independent surveillance and intelligence commission, merging the existing system of commissioners, which I have long argued is not strong or transparent enough, and by introducing judicial authorisation of warrants. Both would be important steps, but their detail needs to be right, so that they do not add delays to urgent processes or detract from the Home Secretary’s wider responsibility to assess risks to national security and be answerable to Parliament. I believe that those reforms would strengthen the legitimacy of a long-term framework, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider and agree to them.

Thirdly, the report confirms some of the problems with the original draft Communications Data Bill, which the Joint Committee that scrutinised it at the time stated was too widely drawn—we agreed. David Anderson says:

“There should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out (as it has not been to date)”.

I agree with David Anderson and, again, I urge the Home Secretary to accept that recommendation.

I welcome the points that the Home Secretary made about a future investigatory powers Bill based in large part on David Anderson’s report being subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and about how we will have the opportunity for cross-party debate. I also urge her to ask the business managers to schedule a day’s debate on the Anderson report, so that Members of all parties may discuss it fully and to foster a wider public debate to get the widest possible consent and legitimacy for the new framework. There has been a wider public debate in other countries, including the US, than there has so far been here.

Finally, David Anderson’s report calls for greater public avowal and transparency of capabilities and legal powers. Everyone understands that many national security operations need to be secret to be effective, but I urge the Home Secretary to consider that recommendation closely, too, as there needs to be sufficient transparency for us in Parliament to take responsible decisions on getting the legislation right.

We need freedom and security in our democracy, the powers to keep people safe and the checks and balances to protect people’s privacy and to ensure that the powers are not abused. The digital age is a wonderful source of freedom and opportunity, but it also brings new challenges from new crimes and new threats to our security. David Anderson’s report helps us to face both. We in this House now need to ensure that the report helps us to navigate both the opportunities and the challenges to sustain and to strengthen our democracy in a digital age.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the tone and approach she has adopted on these matters, which—as we all accept across the House—are incredibly serious. It is important that we have full debates about them, as we will be able to do. In the timetable I have set out, people will have an opportunity to reflect fully on the David Anderson report, and other reports that have already been published or will be published, so that when they come to look at the Government’s proposals, they will be able to do so against that firm background.

It is important to draw to the House’s attention the fact that David Anderson looked into all investigatory powers and techniques. He recognised the necessity of the powers and techniques. The issue he was looking at was whether the legislative framework we have is the right one. He has made the point that the current legislative framework is found in a number of different Acts of Parliament, so it is sometimes difficult for people to see the complete picture. Obviously, one of his purposes in his recommendations is to bring that picture together, and to look at the questions of authorisation and oversight.

The right hon. Lady mentioned two particular issues, one of which was access to third party data. David Anderson does not say that this should not be permissible or possible; he says that he would like to see a better case made for it than has been made in the past, but he does not reject the use of access to third party data. On judicial authorisations, he has come down with a particular point of view in that area, and it happens that the ISC took a different view. In looking at this carefully, the point that we will want to reach is ensuring that any decision taken in this area does not adversely affect the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary in relation to other aspects of Government powers and what they need to do, and where any arrangements made are seen to have clear legitimacy and also reflect the issue that the shadow Home Secretary referred to—that the individual who bears the risk, regardless of who takes the authorisation, is of course the Home Secretary. So we have to look at those proposals in the context of that complex mix of areas that we need to consider.

Home Affairs and Justice

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have done a significant amount in relation to both gang-related crime and firearms. On firearms, we have introduced a new offence applying to middlemen, because the firearms used in attacks are often hired out by those who possess them. We are also doing some work across Europe in relation to the availability of firearms, and the way in which they are brought into the United Kingdom.

We have attacked the problem of gangs on two levels. Our work in connection with “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” has focused on the street gangs that have often been such a problem in many areas, and some of the work done by Greater Manchester police in bringing agencies together to deal with gang-related crimes has served as a model for others. We have also set up the National Crime Agency, which has enhanced the ability of the police to deal with the organised crime groups that often lie behind such crimes. Incidents such as those to which the hon. Lady has referred are, of course, tragic, and, as she has said, the police will be properly investigating them. We have enhanced their ability to deal with incidents of that kind.

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

The Home Secretary talked about the cuts that are to come. What would she say to Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, who leads on counter-terror for the Met, and who has warned that further cuts in neighbourhood and mainstream policing would put at risk the fight against terror?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly one of the issues that we will be looking at. It may require legislation but it obviously requires discussions with internet companies and others, and I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has appointed Baroness Shields, who, as my hon. Friend may know, is well versed in these matters of technology, to look at exactly this issue of extremist material online and how we can deal with it.

As part of our wider work on extremism, we will introduce an extremism Bill, which will provide three important new powers. Those will allow us to: restrict extremists, to stop them engaging in harmful activity, through new extremism disruption orders; ban extremist groups that promote hatred but which fall short of proscription through banning orders; and close premises that persistently host extremist speakers and events with new closure orders. As I have said, the Bill will form one part of our wider strategy, which contains a range of non-legislative measures, including a major new programme to help people in our most isolated communities play a full and successful role in British life. That will include training; help to find work; and intensive English language training. It is imperative that we work together to tackle extremism and that, as we do so, we challenge it from every possible angle.

It is clear that we must not only work hard to defeat damaging and divisive extremism, but ensure that, in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime, the security and law enforcement agencies have the powers and capabilities they need to keep us safe from those who have been twisted by extremism and seek to do us harm.

Last summer, we legislated to deal with two urgent problems relating to communications data and—separately—the interception of communications. That put beyond doubt both the legal basis on which we require communication service providers to retain data and the application of our laws on investigatory powers to providers overseas. But the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 contained a sunset clause, which means that new legislation is required before the end of next year. The Act contains measures to deal with only limited and specific problems, and there are still significant gaps in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ capabilities.

That Act also places a statutory obligation on the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to carry out a review of investigatory powers. That review is now complete and will be published shortly. It is a comprehensive and thorough document and I wish to take this opportunity to thank David Anderson for his work.

The Government are considering the content of the report very carefully as we frame the investigatory powers Bill, which will be brought forward in the coming months. The legislation will cover the full range of investigatory powers that David Anderson has reviewed. Although I cannot provide full details on the Bill while we are still considering the report, I can assure the House that, in considering these sensitive powers, we will look to balance the important needs of privacy and security.

It is also right that any legislation should be given full and proper consideration and I can assure the House that hon. Members will be given the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation thoroughly.

In the previous Parliament, we took robust action to reform the chaotic and uncontrolled immigration system that we inherited from the Labour Government. We transformed the immigration routes for migrant workers, reduced red tape and increased flexibility for businesses, and introduced a new route for the exceptionally talented. We took action to ensure that students who want to come to Britain really are coming here to study.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the Home Secretary confirm that net migration is now at 318,000, which is more than 70,000 higher than when she took office? Will she tell us, given that she has reaffirmed that she wants to keep her net migration target, in what year does she plan to meet it?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has correctly quoted the last figure that was produced by the Office for National Statistics. When I said that we brought control into the system of immigration, we did just that. Earlier, I mentioned that we shut 870 bogus colleges that the Labour Government had allowed to exist to bring in people who wanted a back-door route to work rather than people who wanted to study here in the United Kingdom. Yes, there is more work for us to do. We introduced measures in the Immigration Act 2014—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Lady lets me finish this sentence, I will allow her to intervene again.

We introduced measures in the Immigration Act 2014 to make it easier and faster to remove those who have no right to be here and to restrict access to our national health service, bank accounts and rented property for those who are here illegally.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary promised—“no ifs, no buts”—that she would meet her target and get the figure down to the tens of thousands. Instead it is three times that much. Will she answer the question? If she is going to keep that target for the future, in what year will she meet her net migration target?

[Mrs May]

We fully accept, as the figures show, that we did not meet the net migration target, but it is absolutely right that we retain that ambition. The question for Labour is: does it think that immigration into this country is too high, and if it does, what would it do about it? Interestingly, during the election campaign, immigration was a subject on which Labour was surprisingly silent, but I was not at all surprised given its record in Government.

--- Later in debate ---

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

This is the second day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech, when we are debating some of the gravest challenges that our country faces: public safety, national security, citizenship and the wellbeing of our communities; how we counter the extremism that poisons minds and terrorises communities; how we ensure high standards in policing and make sure that we still have police on our streets; how we control and manage migration, tackle exploitation and remain an outward-looking country; and how we protect our security, our liberty and our democracy. However, before I turn to the substance, let me congratulate the Home Secretary on her reappointment to this great office of state. It is no secret that I wish today that it had been me standing in her shoes—and not just because she usually wears such particularly cool shoes. She and I perhaps have more in common than either of us normally likes to admit. After all, we are both running for the leadership of our parties, even if I am the only one who will publicly admit it. However, I wish her the best of luck. [Interruption.] And, as I see from the expression on the Justice Secretary’s face, I fear she is going to need it.

We wanted to be on the other side of the House because we wanted a very different Queen’s Speech. Yes, there are things in it that are from our manifesto, and yes, there is some common ground, yet overall it is a Queen’s Speech that claims to be about one nation but does more to divide us than ever—a Queen’s Speech that claims to help working people, yet takes away working people’s rights.

There were things we really wanted on home affairs and justice: a new offence to outlaw exploitation of immigration undercutting pay and jobs—it is modern slavery and it should be a crime—a new law to tackle violence against women, stronger laws against child abuse, stronger protection for victims, and plans to save money by abolishing police and crime commissioners. Seriously, after turnout last time of about 13%, I cannot believe even the right hon. Lady is looking forward to another round of police and crime commissioner elections next year.

Let us look at what is in the Queen’s Speech—or at least what was almost in the Queen’s Speech. Two weeks ago, the Government promised the Queen’s Speech would announce the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Two weeks on, the repeal has been repealed. We have been here before, because two years ago, the Home Secretary promised Tory party conference that she would abolish the Human Rights Act; she promised us a document and a draft Bill, and said that she was prepared to pull out of the convention altogether. But what happened? No document, no plans, no Bill. Last time, it took her two years to ditch her promise; this time, it has taken her two weeks. The British Bill of Rights has disappeared again, and we still have no idea what the Government want to do—which rights they want to repeal, whether they want to be in the European convention or out, or whether there will even be a Bill.

This time, the Home Secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats for the chaos. This time she and the Justice Secretary have to take responsibility and this time they are going to have to work together to sort it out. I bet that will be fun for them. Look at them—they cannot even bear to sit next to each other on the Front Bench. I bet the Home Secretary was really pleased at the right hon. Gentleman’s appointment. He is probably the only person in the Government who could make her relationship with the former Deputy Prime Minister look like a good one. Last summer, the Justice Secretary told friends that the Home Secretary was “dull and uninspiring”. Then she said he was a “wild-eyed neo-con”. He said she

“lacks the intellectual firepower and quick wits”.

No wonder they want to abolish the right to free speech.

One can understand the poor old Prime Minister trying to find the Justice Secretary a job that he could actually do. He clearly could not stay at the Department for Education—he upset the entire teaching profession and lost so many teachers’ votes. He clearly could not stay as the Chief Whip—he upset all his Back Benchers and lost an awful lot of parliamentary votes. So the one job the Prime Minister thought the right hon. Gentleman could do was go and be in charge of justice and prisoners—because at least they do not have the vote.

The only real reason the Government are back-pedalling on the abolition of the Human Rights Act is that they know that their plans will unravel in Parliament. Still they have not told us which rights they want to ditch. The right to be free from torture, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to protest and freedom of association—these are inalienable rights. They are protection for individuals against the abuse of power by the state. The Human Rights Act has helped victims of crime let down by the justice system to hold the police to account. Think of the young woman in Winchester who was raped, but when she went to the police for help, they failed to investigate for six months, threatened her with prosecution instead, and told her she was a liar. They arrested her. That rapist is now behind bars and that young woman has had justice, an apology and compensation from Hampshire police, thanks to the Human Rights Act.

The power of our Human Rights Act is that it recognises that rights come with responsibilities. It has qualified rights as well as absolute rights—victims’ right to justice means that convicted criminals lose their right to freedom—and it puts the power of remedy back in the hands of Parliament, respecting our sovereignty. It protects individuals against abuse of state power. It protects the rule of law.

Do this Government really want to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, from which the Human Rights Act was drawn? Do they really want to rip up the Good Friday agreement? Do they really want to join Belarus as the only country on the continent that is not prepared to accept international standards on human rights? Do they really expect Belarus, Russia, China or anywhere else in the world to take us seriously when we call on them to meet international standards on human rights, if we are running away from them ourselves?

That would be a shameful abandonment of Britain’s historic respect for the rule of law and a wilful destruction of the post-war legacy that Britain gave the world. It was a British Tory, David Maxwell Fyfe, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, who drafted the convention. It was Winston Churchill who argued for the Council of Europe with the convention at its heart as the strongest bulwark against the hideous disregard for humanity that scarred Europe.

Labour, Conservatives and Liberals alike upheld the council, the Court and the convention as a means of bringing the British concept of respect for the rights of individuals—respect for our common humanity—to the wider world, so how did it come to this? This year is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and this month is the 70th anniversary of VE day, the ending of the holocaust, the deepest and most immoral betrayal of our common humanity in history, and we should be proud that our country, our Britain, was so determined to build a legacy and a convention so that it could never happen in Europe again. It puts us to shame, it shrinks and diminishes us, for a British Government to be trying now, on the 70th anniversary, to destroy that humanitarian legacy. We in the Labour party will do everything in our power to stop the Tory party destroying Churchill’s legacy. We will stand up for our human rights, responsibility and respect for our common humanity, and I hope that this whole Parliament will do so, too.

There are other Bills before us, including a new Bill on legal highs, which we welcome. We called for action and we will look at the detail. There is a new Bill on policing. I hope the Home Secretary now accepts the kind of reforms to police standards recommended by the Stevens commission that we set up in 2013—stronger action on disciplinary issues and better training and professional development. She also needs to deal with the Independent Police Complaints Commission because it still is not doing the job. She needs to come clean about how many police officers are going to be left once her next budget cuts have finished. Over 10,000 police officers are set to go in the next few years, yet 999 calls waits are up, rape and sexual offence prosecutions are down, neighbourhood police officers are disappearing from our streets, and more child abuse is being reported but less is being prosecuted. There are year-long delays in investigating online child abuse—year-long delays. That is not crying wolf. It is crying out for something urgently to be done.

Nowhere are those cuts more serious than when it comes to the terror threat. As Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, the most senior counter-terrorism officer in the country, has warned, the loss of neighbourhood policing, mainstream policing teams, undermines the work on counter-terrorism, too. More needs to be done to tackle the threat of extremism, especially Islamist extremism linked to the rise of ISIL, to tackle hate crime, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and to tackle those who want to divide us. Therefore, we have called for new legislation. New powers will be needed, including proper checks and balances to make sure that powers are properly used and not abused. We will scrutinise the Home Secretary’s new plans carefully, as well as her new investigative powers laws. I hope she will confirm that there will be an opportunity for detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of those proposals.

The police need reforms so that they can keep up with new technology to keep us safe in a digital age, but the safeguards need to keep up with technology, too. The last draft communications data Bill was too widely drawn and put too much power specifically in the hands of the Home Secretary. We will scrutinise this one in detail and take heed of the report from David Anderson when it is published. I still urge the right hon. Lady to do much, much more on prevention of extremism in the first place, involving communities, local organisations and faith groups—something that, sadly, in the previous Parliament, the Government cut back repeatedly and that needs to be restored.

The Home Secretary made much of her new plans on immigration. The trouble is that we have heard much of it before. Four years ago she put forward new immigration rules and said that as a result the Government anticipated that net migration would fall

“from the hundreds of thousands…to the tens of thousands.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 169.]

That is what she promised—no ifs, no buts. Instead, all we heard from her today was an awful lot of ifs and an awful lot of buts. [Interruption.] She says that she never said, “No ifs, no buts.” Perhaps it was the Prime Minister who said it—how quick she is to disown him now. In fact, far from falling to the tens of thousands, net migration has gone up by over 70,000. She cannot blame the previous Labour Government for the big increase over the past five years. It is higher now that it was in 12 of the 13 years that we were in office, as well as higher than when she took office. She made this her target. She made this her big promise. She has failed repeatedly. The target is in tatters.

The Home Secretary also put forward rules that she said would allow the deportation of far more foreign criminals, yet she is deporting 500 fewer foreign criminals a year than she was five years ago. Two years ago she also brought in an Immigration Bill that she said would stop people working here illegally, yet the number of employers fined for employing illegal workers has gone down, not up. She is right to talk about enforcement, because the rules should be enforced, but who is going to do the job when she is about to cut far more enforcement officers in her next round of budget cuts?

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Given the right hon. Lady’s criticism of the Government’s position on immigration, if the Government bring forward proposals to toughen up the regime, presumably the Labour party will support them.

[Yvette Cooper]

We have already supported many of the measures that the Government introduced in the previous Parliament on a number of different areas, and we have called for measures in areas where the Government have refused to toughen up the rules, for example, student visitor visas, which the independent inspectorate has warned have been abused. The Home Secretary has repeatedly refused my calls to tighten up the rules in that area. We also think that we need more enforcement staff in order to do the job, which again is something that she has repeatedly refused to do. Time and again she says one thing and does another, or promises one thing and then does the opposite. Immigration is important to Britain, but it needs to be controlled and managed so that the system is fair, so that people can have confidence in the immigration system and so that we can enjoy the historical benefits of people coming to this country, setting up businesses and contributing. We need a system that is controlled and managed for the future.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is making an excellent speech. Does she also recognise that while the rhetoric about immigration is ever-present and ever-ongoing in the UK body politic, there are fishing boats tied up in the north-west of Scotland because of this type of debate? We need to get migrant workers in to work on the fishing boats, but that is not happening because of the migrant-phobic debate we are constantly having in the UK. We must realise that migrants sometimes help our economy and help jobs on land when they work at sea.

[Yvette Cooper]

The point I just made was that in a global economy, and also given Britain’s history, we have long seen benefits from people coming here from all over the world, making this country their home and contributing to our economy, and setting up some of our biggest businesses, including Marks & Spencer. But we also need a system that is fair and that is controlled and managed. That is why we have highlighted areas where we think stronger controls are needed in order to make the system fair; for example, better enforcement is needed. We want to see lower migration as well, but the system has to recognise the different kinds of migration, which I think is the point the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is making.

The problem with the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality is that in the end it undermines confidence in the whole system and faith in any immigration promise the Government might make. It also allows some people to exploit the issue in order to divide us. The Government are taking the British public for fools.

[Richard Fuller]

I commend the right hon. Lady for her passionate and effective speech. She talks about fair immigration policies. Does the Labour party support a reduction in the income limit for a spousal visa?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We said in the run-up to the election that that issue should be reviewed because there were anomalies around, for example, women British citizens who are likely to be earning less than men. They may therefore be treated differently by the immigration system; they may have a spouse who is earning far more than them. We said that the system ought to be reviewed to ensure that it does not have perverse consequences. People need to be able to support their family. If they want to bring a family member into Britain, it is important that there is that proof in the system, but it also needs to recognise people’s different circumstances.

[Mrs May]

What is the right level of net migration into the United Kingdom, according the right hon. Lady?

[Yvette Cooper]

Our problem with the net migration target is that it treats all migration as being the same. We would like, for example, fewer people coming in under the student visitor system, but more coming in as university graduates. We think there is a serious problem with trying to treat all migration as being the same. The approach that the Government have taken has repeatedly failed. The Home Secretary’s net migration target has failed. It is in tatters; it is just a mockery that takes the British people for fools.

[Mrs May]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the Home Secretary if she can tell me when she expects to meet her fantasy net migration target.

[Mrs May]

I asked the right hon. Lady what she thought was the right level of net migration into the United Kingdom, and she has not answered that question. I give her another opportunity to do so. She says that she wants to affect net migration into the UK by changing the student visitor visa route. Student visitor visas are not included in the net migration figures.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is exactly the point, because the Home Secretary’s net migration target includes some kinds of immigration and not others. She has ignored student visitor visas because they are not included in her net migration target, but she includes refugees in her net migration target and wants to push it down.

[Keith Vaz]

The problem with having a net migration figure is that we cannot control the number of people who want to go out of the country.

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right—that is a problem.

The Home Secretary’s net migration target includes students, visa overstayers, workers and refugees, but it does not include illegal immigration. That is why she failed so badly in the previous Parliament to deal properly with illegal immigration. It also does not include people who enter the country on short-term visas, even if they may then overstay and break the rules and abuse the system.

The problem for the Home Secretary is that by treating everything as part of her net migration target, she is failing. The area where her approach is failing most, and is most immoral, is the inclusion of refugees in the net migration target. That has created an incentive for the Home Office to resist giving people sanctuary, undermining our long tradition of humanitarian help. Ministers shake their heads, but let us look at the evidence about what they have done as a result of their direct incentive to cut the number of refugees that Britain accepts.

Eighteen months ago, I called on the Home Secretary to make sure that Britain was doing its bit to give sanctuary to some of those in greatest need in the refugee camps outside Syria. She resisted until she was forced to give in, and even then she accepted only 140 people. Last summer, she led the arguments in Europe to stop search and rescue in the Mediterranean, leaving people to drown in the waves in order to deter others from coming here. Now she is again refusing to help when the UN asks for help. Ministers are right to target people-smugglers’ assets and their empty boats before they can set sail, and right to try to build stability in the region, but that is not enough. Frontex has said that the main cause of the increase in boats is the situation in Syria, which has caused the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. Yet the Home Secretary is still resisting the UN’s appeal to give sanctuary to more Syrian refugees, and refusing to help the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide refuge to more of those fleeing Syria and so manage the boat crisis.

I do not expect the Home Secretary to sign up to an arbitrary quota system that is beyond our control, but I do expect her to offer to help. She should work with local councils to see how many more places we can offer and do far more to give desperate people sanctuary, because they are now fleeing not just from the civil war with Assad but from ISIL—a barbaric organisation that oppresses, persecutes and beheads people for their faith and for who they are. Throughout our history, from the Huguenots to the Kindertransport, this country has refused to turn its back on those fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary. Just as she should not rip up the legacy of international standards on human rights, she should not rip up that legacy of international compassion either.

[Mr MacNeil]

I would add, by way of context, that although the debate in the UK makes it seem unique in leading on migration—that we are almost being “swamped”, which is the word we see in the tabloid press—the reality, according to Eurostat, is that the UK is No. 11 for the share of foreigners as a total of the population, behind countries such as Germany, Spain, Belgium, Ireland and many others. I do not think other countries have the same level of phobic debate that we now have here. It would be good to detoxify that debate and to recognise the contributions made by migrants, as the right hon. Lady did earlier.

[Yvette Cooper]

Every country in Europe is facing issues of immigration and of people moving across borders, but we should be clear in this House about separating the debate on immigration from that on asylum and refugees. They are two separate issues. Yes, we should have strong controls on immigration and we should have a sensible debate, but we should also make sure that we do not turn our back on our historical tradition of providing sanctuary for those in greatest need.

In the end, that is what most disturbs me about this Queen’s Speech and this Home Secretary’s approach. We can point to many failures—failing to keep police on the streets, failing to help victims of child abuse and of the most serious crimes, failing on border enforcement, failing to restore confidence in the immigration system—but, worst of all, she is turning our country inwards, making it a smaller, narrower, darker place. We need to be proud of who we are, of the values for which we stand internationally and of our confidence, determination and international vision. We want the rest of the world to follow the standards that we have championed, the compassion that we showed when other human beings were persecuted or abused and the outward-looking, positive nature of the country we have always been. That is the vision that this Parliament and this Labour party should be championing now.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Many of us will have read in the newspapers recently about the way in which the use of nitrous oxide, so-called “hippy crack”, has led to some very unhappy consequences. The legislation we are going to introduce will look at the specific effects that chemicals have on individuals, so there will be an opportunity to deal with the menace that he identifies.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) lamented the fact that there was no legislation specifically to deal with prisons or the problems that we face in our courts system. I will be honest: although I would not use the word “crisis”, there are difficult issues to be addressed in our prison estate and in our courts. That is why I am so very grateful that Sir Brian Leveson has produced an outstanding report on what we may be able to do to improve the operation of our courts system. I look forward to working with the judiciary and Members across this House to ensure that justice is fairer and faster.

We do need to address a number of problems in our prisons to ensure that they become places of rehabilitation as well as incarceration. Some steps that were taken by my predecessor to help transform rehabilitation are a very promising way forward, but we should also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the prison governors, the prison officers and, above all, the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Michael Spurr. Those dedicated public servants do an outstanding job, not just in making us all safe, but in trying to ensure that individuals have a chance at redemption and a second chance in their lives.

Of course, in the shadow Home Secretary’s speech, and in some of the comments from other Opposition Members, we heard rhetoric on human rights that, if they will forgive me for saying so, was ever so slightly overblown. In Dickens’ “The Pickwick Papers” there is a character called “the Fat Boy” who

“wants to make your flesh creep.”

I did think that there was an element of the lurid in the description of what would happen if we were to tamper in any way with the Human Rights Act. To listen to Labour Members at some points one would have thought that prior to 1998 this country was a lawless wasteland in which the innocent were put to the sword and no one had any recourse to justice, and that after 1998 we entered a land where the rule of law was at last respected, after decades, if not centuries, of arbitrary rule. Although that depiction might go down well at a Labour constituency fund-raising function or indeed on the leadership hustings of that party, it is not appropriate to indulge in that sort of rhetoric when discussing important issues such as the balance between liberty and parliamentary sovereignty.

[Yvette Cooper]

A couple of years ago, the Home Secretary said that she was prepared to pull out of the European convention. Will the Justice Secretary rule that out, or does he still believe that that is something that this country should do?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Lady is getting ever so slightly ahead of herself. We propose to consult on the measures that we bring forward. We will not repeat the mistake that the Labour party made when it introduced the Human Rights Act. It did so without adequate consultation or preparation, and at a pace and in a way that gave rise to a variety of concerns. Those concerns have been articulated not just by members of the public and the right wing press—the bogies that the Labour party likes to invoke—

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

No, let me continue. It has been the case that distinguished Supreme Court justices have expressed concern about the way in which the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights have an interaction. It is also the case that, as a result of comments made by Lord Hoffmann, Jonathan Sumption and, just this week, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, we need to look at the matter again. But it is important that we do so in a spirit that is open-minded and that does not seek to prejudge things. The difference between those on the Opposition Benches and the Government is that the Opposition seem to think that the legislation that was passed in 1998 is perfect and they cannot admit of any change whereas we believe that our constitution is a living instrument that is capable of and susceptible to reform. The right hon. Lady needs to say whether there is any case for reform or whether the 1998 settlement is perfect.

[Yvette Cooper]

We look forward to the Justice Secretary telling us what he actually wants to change in his Bill of Rights. In the meantime, there is a very simple question: the European convention on human rights—in or out? We on the Labour Benches think that we should stay in the European convention that Churchill argued for. Does he: yes or no?

[Michael Gove]

I note that the right hon. Lady is firm and definitive on this question, but she was evasive when she was asked about immigration numbers by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We want to preserve and enhance the traditions of human rights. There will be no diminution in that area; indeed there will be an enhancement of convention rights as a result of the changes that we propose to make. But the difference between those on the Opposition Benches and Government is that we are prepared to look at the way in which those convention rights are enshrined in our law. We want to ensure that they are consistent with common law traditions and that our Supreme Court is genuinely supreme. None of those changes is contemplated by the Opposition, and for that reason I am afraid that they, like the SNP, have already ruled themselves out of the debate on reform that we need to have.

[Yvette Cooper]

One simple question: European convention—in or out?

[Michael Gove]

We are in the European convention at the moment. The right hon. Lady said, at the beginning of this debate—indeed it was also the position of the SNP in the course of this debate—that she would admit of no change whatever. We are prepared to consider change. We want to ensure that that change works in the interests of the majority of people in this country and that it is in our human rights traditions as well. It is important to recognise that our human rights have been best safeguarded by Parliament throughout its existence, that judges have a role to play in safeguarding the rule of law, and that it is the High Court of Parliament itself, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, that has been the most effective safeguard of our freedoms throughout our history. We can look back not just to Magna Carta but to the struggle between Parliament and the Crown in the 17th century and the way in which the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Bill of Rights safeguarded our liberties. We can also look at what happened in the 19th century when there was an argument over the extension of the franchise and when John Stuart Mill and others argued for basic fundamental liberties to be respected. All of those acts of progress occurred before the European Convention was written; before indeed we entered the Council of Europe. All of those steps forward depended on respect for and recognition of parliamentary sovereignty and the special place that this House has in reconciling different interpretations of human rights.

One of the things that we all have to recognise is that in that convention, within that charter, there are rights to privacy and family life, and rights also to free speech. The courts have at certain times erred on one side or the other of that balance. The voice of the people needs to be heard in the debate, and Parliament is the place where the voice of the people will be heard.

We will have an opportunity in the weeks and months ahead to consider the criminal justice measures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduces. I hope that they will command support across the House. We will also have an opportunity to put on a firmer basis our commitment to safeguarding the rights that all of us are proud of in this place and that our predecessors in this House have fought so hard to secure. I hope that that debate will see people clamber out of the ideological trenches that some have dug today so that we in this Parliament can pass on to our successors an enhanced tradition of respect for liberty, for life and for the fundamental freedoms that make these islands such a precious place.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Guy Opperman.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 1 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, may I take up the point that my right hon. Friend made about the work of police officers in police forces, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the National Crime Agency more widely in dealing with child abuse cases? These are not easy issues, and they do a very valuable job. Over the period of this Government, we have invested £86 million in dealing with cybercrime, and the creation of the national cyber crime unit at the NCA is, I believe, an important element in dealing with cybercrime. We expect social media companies to make it easy for users to choose not to receive anonymous posts, to have simple mechanisms for reporting abuse and to take action promptly when abuse is reported.

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

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the Chancellor is planning cuts that are much more severe than anything we have seen over the last five years. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the cuts will be twice the size of any year’s cuts over this Parliament. That means a real-terms cut for the Home Office under the right hon. Lady’s plans over the next few years alone of 23% and the loss of 20,000 more police officers on top of those who have already gone. When the terror threat is growing, when more child abuse cases are coming forward, when recorded violent crime is up and when chief constables say that neighbourhood policing cannot be sustained, is she really saying to communities across the country that she and the Tories are prepared to cut 20,000 more police officers?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady knows full well that the funding for counter-terrorism policing has been protected and that this Government are putting more money into dealing with child sexual exploitation. When she comes to deal with this issue, perhaps she could remind people why it is that this Government have had to deal with budget cuts across the public sector: it is because the last Labour Government left us with the worst budget deficit in our peacetime history.

[Yvette Cooper]

But the right hon. Lady has not managed even to meet her deficit plan, and we have already seen the police cut across the country. Her plans mean going further in the scale of police cuts, with 20,000 further police officers going across the country at a time when recorded rapes are up 30%, but fewer rapists are being arrested; when recorded violent crime is up 16%, but fewer violent criminals are being convicted; when online fraud is through the roof, yet fewer fraud proceedings are going ahead; and when recorded child abuse is up 33%, yet 13% fewer paedophiles are being prosecuted. On her watch, 999 waits are up, the police cannot keep up with extremists on the streets and more criminals are walking free. Is she really saying she is going to go around the country, campaigning with all her Back Benchers, saying she is content for 20,000 more police officers to go—because we’re not, and we won’t?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady mentioned that reports of child sexual abuse have increased, and yes they have. In a sense, that is to be welcomed, because more people feel that they can now come forward and report their abuse, which means that those issues can be investigated and the cases looked into. She talked about the figures for rape and domestic abuse, but I have to say that the volume of domestic abuse referrals from the police rose in 2013-14 to the highest level ever: 70% of those referrals were charged, which was the highest volume and proportion ever; there has been a rise in charged defendants from 2012-13; and conviction rates have risen since 2010-11. The figures on which she bases her rant show once again, I am afraid, that she is not paying attention to what is actually happening. What is happening is the exact opposite of what she and her colleagues said five years ago. She said crime would go up, but crime has gone down under this Government.

Yarl’s Wood

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and ceaselessly on this issue, and I pay tribute to her and her committee for the report. I have a copy of it, and I have to say that it is quite lengthy. I have not had a chance to get through all its points, but I assure her that I will look at it, and I will make sure that we respond to it.

My hon. Friend talks about the fact that more people are detained. It is important to make it clear that we have taken measures so that when people arrive clandestinely in the UK, we can be certain who they are—their nationality and identity—and ensure that they pose no risk to the British public. I do not apologise for putting the safety and security of the British public first and foremost when someone arrives clandestinely by making sure that they are who they say they are, while treating them appropriately.

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

Women in Yarl’s Wood are detained on the instruction of the Home Office, and the Home Secretary is therefore responsible for ensuring that they are treated humanely. There is a history of problems at Yarl’s Wood going back many years, but we were told that it had been dealt with.

Yet in September 2013 it was reported that women at Yarl’s Wood had been sexually assaulted by guards from Serco, which the Home Secretary had contracted to manage the centre. I called on her to set up an independent inquiry, but she did not. In March 2014, a woman died in Yarl’s Wood. I asked an urgent question in the House, and again called on the Home Secretary to set up an independent inquiry. She would not come to the House, and she did not set up an inquiry. In May, more allegations came out, including that another vulnerable woman was sexually assaulted, and that a woman who poured boiling water over herself was left for hours in a state of shock. I called on the Home Secretary to set up a proper independent inquiry, and I again called on her to do so at the end of last year.

The Home Secretary has repeatedly refused to establish an independent inquiry, refused to investigate allegations of rape and sexual abuse, refused to let even the UN rapporteur visit and refused to come to this House to answer for it.

Instead, in November, the Home Secretary renewed Serco’s contract. She gave the company whose guards stand accused of abuse a contract for another eight years. We called on her to have an inquiry before she renewed the contract and she refused. Last month, she said that she would review the policies and procedures in detention centres. Again, that should have been done before the contract was renewed.

Here we are again with even more serious allegations. A pregnant woman was left to have a miscarriage without getting all the medical support she needed. Guards are calling women “animals”, with one saying,

“Take a stick with you and beat them up.”

Those are the Serco guards to whom the Home Secretary gave the contract just a few months ago. There is no point in Ministers pretending to be shocked at the news of abuse—it is not news. Even now, Ministers have not set up an independent inquiry; Serco has. We are leaving it to the company to set up the independent inquiry that should have been set up by the Home Office.

The Home Secretary should have come to the House today to answer this question. What has been happening is an utter disgrace, as is the continued failure to look into it. The Minister has been sent out to defend the indefensible. She should go back and tell the Home Secretary to take some responsibility for a change, to stop pregnant women and victims of sexual violence being held in Yarl’s Wood, and to hold a proper independent inquiry, because this is state-sanctioned abuse of women on the Home Secretary’s watch, and it needs to end now.

[Karen Bradley]

It is very disappointing that the right hon. Lady comes to this House, not having called for the urgent question, and makes comments about the Home Secretary not being here. She knows that the Home Secretary is at No. 10 at the moment dealing with child abuse—something that we all agree is an incredibly important, urgent matter that needs to be dealt with.

It is also disappointing that the right hon. Lady talks about abuses at Yarl’s Wood. Let us remember what the report on the announced inspection of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre in 2008 said. Let us remember who was in government at that time. The report stated:

“we were dismayed to find cases of disabled children being detained and some children spending large amounts of time incarcerated.”

It said:

“Escort vehicles with caged compartments were inappropriately used to transport children.”

It is this Government who have legislated to end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

In 2008, just 68% of detainees said that most staff treated them with respect. The figure is now 84%. The report said:

“Not enough was done to communicate with detainees who spoke little English”.

It said:

“Women complained about the food. Healthcare needed further improvement, particularly to address mental health and child health needs.”

That was the report in 2008 under the right hon. Lady’s Government. It is this Government who have looked to ensure that those things are dealt with.

We have set up the review. We have set up the review into the whole immigration detention estate that is being led by Stephen Shaw. I am confident that he will uncover the abuse.

The right hon. Lady asked about the renewal of Serco’s contract. Let us remember what the policy is. The rules that determine the renewal of contracts were drawn up by Parliament in 2001. That is a rigorous and robust process, and it was set up by her Government. We will take no lessons on this matter from the Labour party. We have a proud record and we will root out the abuse.

Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s counter-terrorism policy and implications for individuals travelling to the Iraq/Syria conflict zones.

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

As the Government have made clear repeatedly, the threat we face from terrorism is grave and is growing. The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on operational matters and individual cases, but the threat level in the United Kingdom, which is set by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, is at severe. This means that a terrorist attack is highly likely and could occur without warning.

The Government have consistently and emphatically advised against all travel to Syria and parts of Iraq. Anyone who travels to these areas is putting themselves in considerable danger, and the impact that such a decision can have on families and communities can be devastating.

The serious nature of the threat we face is exactly why the Government have been determined to act. We have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget up to and including 2015-16, and increased the budget for the security and intelligence agencies. In addition, we have provided an additional £130 million to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities and help address the threat from ISIL, and we have taken significant steps to ensure that the police and the security services have the powers and capabilities they need.

Last year, we acted swiftly to protect vital capabilities that allow the police and the security services to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to clarify the law in respect of interception for communications-service providers. This year we have introduced the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. This has provided the police with a power to seize a passport at the border temporarily, during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned—and I can confirm that this power has already been used. It has created a temporary exclusion order that allows for the managed return to the UK of a British citizen suspected of involvement in terrorist activity abroad. It has strengthened the existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures regime so that, among other measures, subjects can be made to relocate to another part of the country, and it has enhanced our border security for aviation, maritime and rail travel, with provisions relating to passenger data, no-fly lists, and security and screening measures.

Since its national roll-out in April 2012, more than 2,000 people have been referred to Channel, the Government’s programme for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, many of whom might have gone on to be radicalised or to fight in Syria. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 has now placed Channel on a statutory basis. It has also placed our Prevent work on a statutory basis, which will mean that schools, colleges, universities, prisons, local government and the police will have to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Already since 2012, local Prevent projects have reached more than 55,000 people and have helped young people and community groups to understand and challenge extremist narratives, including those of ISIL.

In addition to this work, alongside the checks we already conduct on a significant number of passengers who leave the UK, we have committed to reintroducing exit checks, and arrangements to do so will be in place by April 2015. These will extend our ability to identify persons of interest from a security, criminal, immigration or customs perspective. And as the Prime Minister stated last week, the Transport Secretary and I will be working with airlines to put proportionate arrangements in place to ensure that children who are at risk are properly identified and questioned.

The Government are taking robust action, but we have been clear that tackling the extremist threat that we face is not just a job for the Government, the police and the security services; it needs everyone to play their part. It requires educational institutions, social media companies, communities, religious leaders and families to help to protect people vulnerable to radicalisation and to confront this poisonous ideology. If we are to defeat this appalling threat and ideology, we must all work together.

[Yvette Cooper]

An estimated 600 British citizens have now travelled to join the conflict in Syria, from extremists with a terrorist history to 15-year-old schoolgirls. The whole House will share a revulsion at the barbarism of ISIL, a determination to tackle extremism and strong support for the vital and unsung work of the security services and the police to tackle the threat here and abroad. Members on both sides of the House have also recently supported further legislation to tackle the terrorist threat. However, there are specific areas in which we need answers about Government policies and decisions.

First, we need answers on the handling of a west London network of terror suspects. In 2011, court papers described a network including three individuals relocated on control orders, 10 other named individuals and further unnamed individuals based in west London who were

“involved in the provision of funds and equipment”

to terrorism and the

“facilitation of individuals’ travel from the UK”

to join terrorist-related activity.

The Home Secretary’s decision, against advice, to abolish control orders and cancel relocations was implemented in 2012, meaning that no one could then be relocated, despite the continued police view that relocation was one of the best ways to disrupt terrorist networks. One of those who had been relocated absconded in a London black cab; another associate absconded wearing a burqa. Other men from that west London network have been reported in the media as subsequently leaving for Syria and becoming involved in brutal violence. The Home Secretary has finally restored the relocation powers within the past few weeks. Does she believe that her decision to remove those relocation powers made it easier for that west London network to operate, recruit and send people to Syria? Will she now ask the independent terrorism reviewer or the Intelligence and Security Committee to consider the details of that west London network and to assess whether Government policy made it easier for it to operate and harder for the police and the Security Service to disrupt it?

Secondly, we need to know about the Government’s policy to prevent young people and children from travelling to Syria, in the light of the distressing story of three schoolgirls from east London travelling there. I have not had a reply to my letter to the Home Secretary of last Wednesday, so will she tell us now whether the Government had an agreement in place with the airlines to raise alerts over unaccompanied minors travelling on known Syrian routes? If not, why not? And will she put such an agreement in place now? The girls flew out on Tuesday, but they did not leave Istanbul bus station until late Wednesday. It is reported that the police contacted the London embassy on Wednesday, but when were the Istanbul authorities alerted, and when were checks made at the main airports and train and bus stations in that city?

One pupil from Bethnal Green academy is reported to have left for Syria before Christmas, and it is widely known that recruitment is taking place through friendship groups and social media. What training and support was given to the teachers and parents of other children at Bethnal Green academy to prevent further recruitment, grooming and radicalisation? What community-led Prevent programmes is the Home Office currently supporting in Bethnal Green?

When the Home Secretary came to office and changed policy to end relocation orders and to remove community work from Prevent, she claimed that previous policies had failed to tackle extremism and she promised:

“We will not make the same mistakes”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 52.]

We need answers from her now about the mistakes that have been made under this Government, so that we can all work together to strengthen counter-terrorism policy in the face of these serious threats.

[Mrs May]

The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of serious issues. She asked about Prevent and on that I have to say to her that she needs to stop using the numbers she likes to quote. She tries to compare Prevent before the election with Prevent after the election, but in 2011 we took the very important decision to split work on integration, which is now the sole responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and Prevent. That was done for very good reasons, and if the right hon. Lady wants to securitise integration work again, I suggest to her that she has not learned from the mistakes made by her Government. I would like her to say, at some stage: whether she supports the changes we have made to Prevent; whether she supports the fact that Prevent now looks at non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism; and whether she supports the changes we have made to make sure that no public money finds its way to extremists, as it did under her Government.

The right hon. Lady made various comments about TPIMs, and has done so outside this Chamber, asking why I did not put certain individuals on TPIMs. I cannot comment on individual cases, but I think she should understand how TPIMs work and how control orders worked. I do not decide to put somebody on a TPIM; the Security Service makes an application to me for permission to put somebody on a TPIM and if it has made a strong enough case, I approve the application. If she thinks that the Home Secretary should be taking operational decisions, I suggest that she should study the history of our constitution.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of control orders, but, as I have said at this Dispatch Box many times, control orders were being whittled away by the courts—they were not a sustainable system. TPIMs have, in contrast, consistently been upheld by the courts. She mentioned relocation, and, of course, the House has just passed the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which adds relocation to the TPIM regime. I understand that she told the BBC on Sunday:

“I think effectively—

that TPIMs and control orders are—

“the same thing if you bring the relocation powers back”.

That is precisely what we have done.

The right hon. Lady says the power to relocate has not always been there, but what she fails to say is that the cases that have been raised in the media date from the time when control orders and the power of relocation were in place. At no point has anybody from the police or Security Service said to me that if we had the power of relocation we would be able to prevent people from travelling to Syria. Indeed, at the weekend, Helen Ball, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said—and they have said consistently—

“short of locking someone up for 24 hours a day, you can’t eliminate the risk they pose.”

The shadow Home Secretary herself said yesterday about control orders:

“We can’t pretend it’s going to solve all of the problems.”

I agree with her, which is why we consistently look at the powers available to the police and the security services in dealing with this issue. But, as I made absolutely clear in the answer to her question, this is not just a question of government and the powers we give to the police and to the security services; this is about families and communities as well, and we all need to work together to ensure that we can defeat this poisonous ideology.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Serious Crime Bill, which contains a number of important measures to tackle those Messrs Bigs about whom he talks, including the ability to seize their assets. If we can deprive criminals of their assets, they are much less likely to be able to carry on with their criminal lives.

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

The Home Secretary should have called an independent inquiry into allegations of abuse by Serco staff at Yarl’s Wood 18 months ago, before, and not after, renewing Serco’s contract. Yesterday, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, national lead on counter-terrorism, said that the police face serious increases in pressure as a result of Syria and that

“We certainly need more money”.

Peter Clarke, former national lead on counter-terror, has warned that fighting terrorism depends on a “golden thread” through national, regional and neighbourhood police, yet the scale of cuts means that the thread is being broken. The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned that the Home Secretary’s plans mean that 34,000 police jobs and more than 16,000 further police officers will go over the next five years. Does she agree that the police need more resources to tackle terrorism, and if so, why does she want to cut 16,000 more police officers?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Lady that throughout our time in government we have protected CT police funding. She might have missed it, but late last year the Prime Minister announced that £130 million of extra money was being made available to the agencies and police to deal with terrorism.

[Yvette Cooper]

But Peter Clarke is warning about the impact on neighbourhood policing. The Home Secretary will know that online crime is going through the roof and 999 delays have gone up. The terrorist threat has increased, neighbourhood policing is being decimated, and there are fewer traffic police enforcing the rules and more deaths on the roads. On child abuse, in particular, there has been a 33% increase in the number of cases reported to the police, an 11% reduction in the number of cases passed for prosecution and year-long delays in dealing with online cases because the police and NCA do not have the resources and capacity to do the job. Let me ask her again: is this the right time to cut 16,000 police officers? Yes or no?

[Mrs May]

First, on neighbourhood policing, it is absolutely clear from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that forces can successfully manage to balance their books while protecting the front line and delivering reductions in crime. I remind the right hon. Lady once again that there has been a fall in crime of more than a fifth under this Government. The Labour party needs to get its story straight. On the one hand, the right hon. Lady stands up in this House and claims that more resources should be going into the police while, on the other, the shadow Chancellor, whom I think she might know, makes it very clear that under a Labour Government there would continue to be cuts.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Savile, the BBC and the national health service, the north Wales care homes, Rochdale, the Elm guest house and too many others: too many institutions that failed to listen to children, failed to protect them, turned a blind eye while they were abused and, in some cases, even covered up awful crimes. Those who endured abuse need justice. They want the truth, they want answers about what will change for the future and they need support. We all want to know that abusers and criminals are being prosecuted and stopped, that children are being heard and kept safe and that the same mistakes are not being made over and over again. That is why the inquiry is so important, why it must work to get the truth and also why it must set out the reforms we need for the future. It is why we will support it and why we wish Justice Lowell Goddard well in getting it swiftly under way.

It has now been 213 days since the Home Secretary first announced an inquiry and more than two years since we first called for it. It has now had three false starts under the first two chosen chairs, as well as the process of panel hearings that the Home Secretary launched in November and that she has now had to abandon.

We cannot afford for the Home Secretary to fail on this again, so we need to be clear that the previous problems have been resolved. First, the two previous chairs went because the Home Office did not apply due diligence and the Home Secretary did not consult survivors. I welcome the fact that she has now met many groups of survivors. Will she assure us that there has been due diligence? I strongly welcome, too, the additional support for survivors and I hope that she will keep the level of support under review and talk to the Department of Health about the support that it will need to provide. How will she ensure that survivors have an ongoing voice in shaping the inquiry, perhaps learning the lessons from Northern Ireland and other countries?

Secondly, the inquiry was repeatedly not put on a sustainable footing and concern was raised about its independence from the Home Office. Making the inquiry statutory is welcome and is something that we called for. Have the counsel to and staff of the inquiry been appointed by the Home Office or by the chair, and what will their relationship be with the Home Office?

Thirdly, there has been considerable confusion over the role of the panel. Can she assure us that it will continue to include survivors and explain what its role will be? Is this a panel inquiry chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard or a judicial inquiry by Justice Goddard, advised by the panel?

Fourthly, the scope and purpose of the inquiry has not previously been clear. I agree that it must consider the institutional failure and make recommendations for the future. I also agree that individual crimes must be investigated by the police, rather than the panel, and I strongly welcome the greater clarity she has announced today about how criminal investigations will be handled and co-ordinated by the police and prosecution. What about the continued question of whether there was a cover-up in Whitehall or Westminster of very serious crimes over many decades? Extremely serious allegations have been made, but they have not been investigated.

Today, the Home Secretary has had to tell the House that more files were missing from the Wanless review, including files on briefings to the Prime Minister of the day, which came to light only when something was discovered by accident in the National Archives. Have the Foreign Office, MI6, Downing street and other Departments now been asked to look at their files, and why was that not done before, when the Wanless review started?

The Home Secretary will know, too, that no one has looked more widely at allegations that have been made about cover-ups or decisions not to investigate or prosecute in that period. Will she clarify whether she expects the Goddard inquiry to look in detail at those allegations and whether it will have the investigative capacity to do so? For example, will it be able to look at top-secret information held by the security agencies? If that is not its purpose, who will pursue that investigation? It is clear that people will expect us to get the truth of what happened within Government.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police and social services have the resources to deal with these serious cases right now? The current police investigations are immensely important and she will know that there are grave allegations in the papers only today that must be pursued. The police must have the ability to pursue serious investigations wherever they lead, but forces have said that they are struggling to cope with the cases that are now rightly coming forward, both current and past cases, particularly given the scale of officer cuts that they have experienced. We know that there are long and dangerous delays, too, in the National Crime Agency in dealing with online abuse. The Home Secretary rightly talked about her renewed determination to tackle the problem, and this is the area in which we need to act urgently. What is she doing to respond to the extremely serious concerns that police forces and social services still lack both the capacity and the policies to investigate and keep children safe today?

For too long, this appalling crime has been ignored. Children who called for help were not heard and too many of them are still not being listened to. I know that the whole House will want the inquiry to work, to be thorough and effective and to support the announcements that the Home Secretary made today.

The Home Secretary concluded by asking for patience, but she will know better than anyone that the inquiry has gone wrong too many times already and that we still need assurance that the measures will be in place to protect children today. She will know that patience is running out and that we need action to support child protection now and to get this inquiry finally and properly under way so that it can get to the truth and provide the justice and reforms we need to keep all our children safe. The whole House will unite behind ensuring that that can happen.

[Mrs May]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her commitment to the inquiry. One of the issues raised with me by survivors is that they want to be certain there is cross-party support for the inquiry so they can be confident that it will continue. From what she has said, I think we can give a very clear message that the whole House is of one accord in saying that the inquiry should be able to do what we all want—to get to the truth.

The right hon. Lady asked about the panel hearings. She said that I had set up the listening events. Of course, I did not set them up; they were set up by the independent inquiry panel. The panel decided to stop them in the middle of January, partly in expectation that a decision would be made about how the inquiry was being taken forward. I have been very clear that I have asked the panel to report on the work it has done so far. That will ensure that nothing undertaken by the original inquiry is lost in the process, and that its work can be taken forward, as appropriate, to the new panel inquiry.

I assure the right hon. Lady that greater due diligence has taken place in the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, including lengthy interviews with the individual concerned. On the role and ongoing voice of survivors, I have been very clear that it is important for the panel inquiry to be informed by survivors. They have the experience, understanding and expertise, and their voice will therefore be an important part of the panel inquiry.

The right hon. Lady asked about advisers to the panel. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the possibility of individuals being advisers—or assessors, as they are called—to a panel. I will explore with Justice Goddard how we can get the greatest breadth of input from survivors to ensure that their voice is truly heard in the inquiry’s work.

The inquiry will be an inquiry panel, with Justice Goddard as its chairman. Appointments of staff to the inquiry will be undertaken in consultation with Justice Goddard. The staff—the secretariat—are and will be independent of the Home Office.

The right hon. Lady referred to the issues around the cover-up in Whitehall and Westminster. I have been clear about the files, and we will renew our efforts to ensure that proper searches are undertaken across Government. When I last made a statement to the House, I was very clear that I could not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there has been no cover-up. One of the things that the inquiry will look at, and which I expect it to be able to unearth, is whether there was a cover-up in the past. That is important for us all, but particularly for survivors and those involved in the acts that might have been subject to such a cover-up.

Another of the issues relates to investigative capacity. The formal process is that I will discuss the make-up of the panel with Justice Goddard. We have already had some discussions about the investigative experience of panel members to make sure that they can do what is necessary in their work. As I said in my statement, we have clearly told the Security Service and the police that information they have relevant to the inquiry should be brought forward to it.

At one stage the right hon. Lady said that the police do not have the policies to investigate. I have to say to her that the police do have the policies and powers to investigate. One of the issues in the recent Rotherham case, sadly, was that the police had the ability to investigate, but—I am afraid because of what I have already described as dereliction of duty—they did not investigate. We must deal with that attitude as much as anything else. That is why we are working with the national policing lead to put in extra support for investigations across the country to make sure that such investigations can go where they need to go and can identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the child abuse inquiry.

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

In July last year, I announced the establishment of the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse. The inquiry will consider whether public bodies and other, non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. As I said when I established the inquiry, it must expose the failures of the past and must make recommendations to prevent them from ever happening in the future.

The House is aware that the first two nominees for chairman of the inquiry resigned after it became apparent to them that they did not command the full confidence of survivors. I am clear that the new chairman must be someone who commands that confidence, and who has the necessary skills and experience to carry out this vital work. In my work to find that person, as I told the House I would do, I have undertaken a number of meetings with the survivors of child abuse and their representative bodies. I have been deeply moved by the courage and the candour they have shown in telling me their harrowing stories and the experiences they have been through. I am absolutely committed to finding the right chairman to ensure they get the answers they deserve.

Not only does the inquiry need the right chairman, but it needs the right powers. That means the ability to compel witnesses and full access to all the necessary evidence. In December, I wrote to panel members to set out the three options that could give the inquiry those powers. I confirmed the options in my evidence that month to the Home Affairs Committee. I also confirmed to panel members that I would make my decision on the right model for the inquiry and the chairman by the end of January. It remains my intention to make a statement to the House shortly after I have made that decision, and after the necessary interviews and careful due diligence work have taken place.

It is important that the inquiry can get on with its work, but it is also vital that it has the right chairman, the right structures and the full confidence of the people for whom it has been established. We face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expose the truth, to deliver justice to those who have suffered and to prevent such appalling abuse from ever happening again. That is what survivors of child abuse deserve and that is what I remain determined to deliver.

[Yvette Cooper]

It is now 200 days since the Home Secretary agreed to set up the inquiry into historic child abuse. On 14 July, the first chair stood down and on 2 November the second chair stood down, both times because the Home Secretary had not done proper checks or consulted survivors. She promised then that the best way forward was for the panel to get started without the chair, and said that it would hold meetings with survivors and start gathering evidence. Yesterday the inquiry website announced that all further listening sessions were cancelled. She said in November she had confidence in the panel, yet over Christmas there were reports that she was writing to panel members asking them to re-apply for their own jobs, and there have been troubling accounts of disagreements and tensions within the panel. She said in November she would consult the Opposition and others on a new chair, but we have heard nothing. She said she would make sure that the inquiry had the powers it needs, yet we are six months from the initial start of the inquiry, and we still have no chair, no clarity on the powers and no clarity on the timetable for something that is so important.

The Home Secretary will know how serious the inquiry is and how much it means to those who endured awful abuse in childhood and were not listened to then but deserve to be listened to and to have the chance of justice now—yet they are being let down.

In November, the Home Secretary made much of apologising to the survivors and she promised personally to sort things out. She said she had a direct message to them:

“I know…you have questioned the legitimacy of this process…I understand that. I am listening.”

Despite the fact that she had already messed up twice, we and many others supported her in November because we were very keen to see an effective inquiry up and running, and we took her commitment in good faith. She is now at risk, however, of making a fool of everyone because the inquiry has stalled again—yet it has become more important than ever.

Since November, the allegations have become more serious. The police are now investigating allegations of child murder, involving senior figures linked to Dolphin square. A Government file has emerged, containing further potential allegations of abuse, clearly not seen by the Wanless review. These need to be investigated by the police—not just by the inquiry—but this makes it even more vital that a serious and credible inquiry is under way with the confidence of the public and survivors.

Given the seriousness of this matter, I say there is now no choice but to start this inquiry again properly, with a new chair and statutory powers and proper consideration given to the scope and purpose, involving the survivors themselves. This should not be beyond the wit of a Home Secretary. Other people have set up effective inquiries—Hillsborough, the Northern Ireland inquiry into child abuse and the Soham inquiry—and we are now six months on, with still no chair, still no powers, still no clarity. It is deeply unfair on survivors of abuse, who need to be listened to and who need justice. When will she sort this out?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is trying to make an argument between us about this inquiry where I think none exists—or certainly none should exist. She has indicated in her response that she believes an inquiry should be set up with a new chairman and with statutory powers. That is exactly what I said I would be doing when I last made a statement to this House.

I said in my response to her urgent question today that I set out the timetable to panel inquiry members in the letter I sent them in December and that I would make the decision on the right model for the inquiry and the chairman by the end of January. Three options are available in order to get statutory powers for the inquiry. One is to set up a royal commission, and the others are two variations on setting it up as a statutory inquiry: one to start again and reset it as a statutory inquiry, the other to await the appointment of the chairman and continue the current panel, but with statutory inquiry powers. I made that clear in the letter I sent to panel members, and I set out those three options when I gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The right hon. Lady mentions the very serious issues that have come to light, which are being investigated by the police. It is absolutely right that the police investigate allegations. That is not going to be a job for the panel inquiry: investigation of allegations rests with the police, and will always rest with the police, and it is important that that is what happens.

The right hon. Lady made reference to the file that has come to light. We are checking that today, but I understand that it may be a duplicate of a file that was at the Home Office and was seen by Wanless and Whittam during their review. Of course, we are checking that. Any allegations relating to that file will be passed to the police and those concerned to ensure that they are looked at properly.

The right hon. Lady talked about the role of the panel inquiry. It has been meeting survivors and has had a number of listening meetings with them. It was decided yesterday that from now on their work will focus on issues such as methodology that will assist the new chairman in making decisions. The panel wrote to say that it will not have any more listening meetings with survivors until the new chairman has been announced and the model for the inquiry has been announced. I respect that decision. I understand that it must have been difficult, but it was a decision for the independent inquiry panel members to take.

I am sure that everybody recognises that we want to get this right and that we want to ensure that we have the right chairman and the right powers.We received more than 150 nominations for the post of chairman following the resignation of Fiona Woolf. It is right for us to take our time in considering those nominations, and to apply due diligence to them, so that when I announce the name of the new chairman, everyone—I hope—will feel fully confident that that individual has the capability that is needed to ensure that the inquiry can do the job we all want it to do, which is to get at the truth.

Terrorist Attacks (Paris)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

The attacks last week in Paris demonstrated the savagery with which terrorists seek to divide us. The murderous intolerance and the bigotry that they pursue aim to spread fear and also to sow division, which they believe exists—us against them. Paris has not let the terrorists win and we must not do so either.

The French police have been praised for the actions that they took. Charlie Hebdo is being published today. Faiths have united, abhorring the anti-Semitism and grieving for the victims of the attack on the kosher supermarket. Muslims across the world have condemned an attack which is not Islamic and is not in the name of their religion, and the brother of the French Muslim police officer, Ahmed Merabet, said, “My brother was killed by people who pretend to be Muslims. They are terrorists. That’s it.” The Leader of the Opposition rightly attended the unity rally in Paris along with the Prime Minister, and on Saturday I joined people in Trafalgar square raising pens in solidarity with the “Je suis Charlie” cause.

In the attack, the terrorists targeted other peaceful religions, they targeted writers, and they targeted those whose job it is to keep us safe. In other words, they targeted both liberty and security, and the response of democratic Governments everywhere to these sorts of attacks must be to defend both. Governments need to keep our people safe so that we can enjoy the very freedoms that our democracy depends on.

Let me turn to the specific issues in the Home Secretary’s statement. I am concerned about the rushed way that she has made this statement today; I did not see it before coming into the House. I hope that she can set out what the reasons were and what has changed in the Home Office’s position this morning that meant that the statement was changed at late notice.

I welcome the action taken by the intelligence agencies and police to support their counterparts in Paris. I think the whole House will want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services and the counter-terror police, who do so much to keep us safe. It is important that they have the resources they need, and I welcome the resources that the Home Secretary mentioned.

As the Home Secretary said, the Government have going through Parliament right now the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which we have supported and continue to support, and which includes restoring the relocation powers for serious terror suspects that she abolished four years ago and for whose reinstatement we have called. She will know that the agencies have pointed to the ongoing threat in this country posed by the estimated 300 people returning from the conflict in Syria. Have any of those estimated 300 been prosecuted? Can she confirm that none of them is currently subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, even though these powers are supposed to be for dangerous suspects whose activity needs to be restricted to keep us safe? Are the Security Service and the police now reviewing all those cases to see whether TPIMs could help, especially with relocation powers restored, or whether there needs to be any further change to the TPIMs powers, which are different from the previous control orders? How many of the estimated 300 have engaged with the Channel programme? Does she agree that we should now make that compulsory for those returning, for which the Bill does not yet provide?

On access to dangerous weapons, the Home Secretary will know that there has been concern about reduced customs and border checks. What action is she taking to increase border checks for dangerous weapons?

The Home Secretary raised the issue of communications data. Technology is changing all the time, and that means that the law needs to keep up, in the capabilities of the agencies to get the vital intelligence we need and in the oversight that we need. In July, Parliament supported emergency legislation to ensure that the agencies and police could maintain vital capabilities. This month, the Commons supported extending those powers to ensure that IP addresses are covered in the same way as telephone numbers. In July, all parties agreed to support a review by David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism, of the powers and the oversight needed to keep up with changing technology.

The Home Secretary referred to the draft Communications Data Bill. That was rejected three years ago by the Joint Committee that the Government established to scrutinise it because, the Committee said, it was too vague, too widely drawn, and put too much power directly in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Committee recommended that the new legislation needed should be drawn up in a far more limited way, and that the Government should provide more evidence and clarity about what they wanted to achieve. Since then, the Home Secretary has not come forward with any revised proposals. She has not come to me to discuss such proposals or put them to Parliament, even though we have said that we were happy to discuss details with her. Given the urgency she says there now is, why did she not come forward with revised proposals after the conclusions of the Joint Committee three years ago?

In July, the Home Secretary was happy to agree to the statutory review by David Anderson, which is due to report before the election. Today she has not mentioned that review. Has she now discarded it, or will she be waiting for its conclusions?

This is an extremely important issue, and the detail—about the powers and capabilities that our intelligence agencies need, as well as about the safeguards and oversight that are also needed—matters. We agree that the police and the agencies need to get the intelligence to keep us safe and that they need updated legislation, and we also need safeguards and stronger oversight to make sure that powers are effectively and appropriately used.

I strongly caution the Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrats against setting up a caricatured argument between them about security on the one hand and liberty on the other, because we need to protect both in our democracy and we need a responsible debate on getting the detail right. The terrorists targeted both writers and police officers on that first day. The editor of Charlie Hebdo had police protection to protect his freedom of speech. That shows the strong link between our security and our liberty in any democracy.

We know that the most important thing to keep us safe in any democracy is making sure that we have the cohesive communities that can prevent hatred from spreading. We have supported extending Prevent by putting it on a statutory footing. I hope that the Home Secretary will now listen to the concerns we have expressed over some years about more needing to be done to have community-led programmes to tackle the hatred and to challenge the spread of extremism, including through social media, as well as in local communities and organisations. I hope that she will work with local government to that effect. Is she working with the Community Security Trust on tackling anti-Semitism, because we need to tackle all forms of extremism?

Terrorists try to silence us, to cow us and to divide us. Paris has shown, as millions marched and as we stood in solidarity with them, that we will not be silenced, and that we will not give into fear and into division as we defend our democracy. Although some were targeted in Paris, we know that this is about all of us: “Je suis juif”, “Je suis flic”, “Je suis Ahmed” and “Je suis Charlie”.

[Mrs May]

First, I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary for her late receipt of the statement. I apologised to her privately when we came into the Chamber, but I am happy to reiterate that apology on the Floor of the House.

I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to our counter-terrorist police—and, indeed, all our police—and our security and intelligence agencies. We cannot say often enough that these people are working day and night to keep us safe and to protect us. For obvious reasons, as members of our security and intelligence agencies, many of them are unseen and unknown. We are grateful to them for the work they do, and we should publicly recognise their important role.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions covering a number of issues. On reviews, there is no suggestion, simply because a review was not mentioned in my statement, that we have in any way side-tracked it. David Anderson is doing his work. As far as I am aware, he is undertaking discussions with relevant parties about the issues that he is looking at. Alongside that, our own Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting its work on questions of privacy, civil liberties and security. I think that those key reviews will be brought before the House in time to enable it to take account of them when it does the necessary job of looking at least at the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which is under a sunset clause to 2016. The House will obviously want to take account of all aspects of those two reviews.

The Government publish the number of people under TPIMs every quarter. On the question of whether somebody should be put on a TPIM, it is for the Security Service to initiate a request to me as Home Secretary. I of course look at the request, and if I agree to it, a court process is then gone through to ensure that such a decision is reasonable. As I say, it is for the Security Service to come forward with any such proposals.

The right hon. Lady asked about making Channel compulsory, and the Leader of the Opposition raised that during Prime Minister’s questions. We believe that Channel does important work, as does Prevent, which works with community groups. Decisions about whether individuals are put on a Channel programme should be taken case by case. We are very clear, as we have been in discussions on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill in relation to temporary exclusion orders—they will ensure that people return from Syria on our terms, where that is appropriate—that we may seek to take action of various sorts in relation to individuals in the UK, but that what is appropriate for the individual concerned has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

On the question of firearms, it is for us to work with others in the European Union to consider the spread of firearms across European Union. As I said, the United Kingdom has some of the toughest gun laws, but major exercises have already been undertaken, primarily led by the National Crime Agency, to look at the availability of firearms in the UK. That process started before the terrible attacks took place in Paris.

On the draft Communications Data Bill, there is a difference of opinion among parties in the House about what powers should be taken by Government. We did in fact respond to the proposals from the Joint Committee, and we did in fact provide revised proposals in relation to the measures. I am clear, as is the Prime Minister, that we need to return to that issue. I believe that it is important to have the right powers available to deal with such matters.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked whether we speak to those at the CST. Of course we do so regularly. I have had a number of meetings with them, and the police of course have meetings with them to discuss the whole question of what protective security is available. Protective security was stepped up when the threat level was raised, but it has now been stepped up further.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I join the Home Secretary in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill and in condemning the disgusting attack in Paris today. The details will continue to emerge over the next hours and days, but we know that 12 people have been killed and others injured, and I am sure the whole House will agree with the words of the French President, Francois Hollande, who said it was

“an exceptional act of barbarism committed against a newspaper”.

He said that France would be firm and strong in facing down these threats and punishing the attackers.

The whole House, the Government and every party stand in solidarity with the people of Paris and France, and our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost their lives, their families, their friends, their colleagues and those across the city and the country who will feel this terrible loss. We have experienced terrorist attacks here, and we have stood firm with other countries that have endured such attacks—the Home Secretary rightly referred to the heartbreaking attacks in Pakistan, as well as those in Australia and Canada—and we will stand with other countries again against the hatred of the killers. We will stand up for our democratic values and never let terrorists win.

We have seen, too, the strength of the response from the French people: the “Je suis Charlie” response; the determination not to be cowed or afraid; the determination to stand together. We will stand with them. Those who died or were injured include journalists, writers, cartoonists and police officers, and the editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo has said:

“I don't understand how people can attack a newspaper with heavy weapons. A newspaper is not a weapon of war.”

As we know, the free press we defend here in Britain, and which is defended across Europe, is vital to the freedom of speech that democracy depends on.

Our thoughts and tributes should also be with the police and security services in France and here in Britain who run towards danger when terrorist attacks take place and who put their own lives at risk as they do so. As we discuss the Bill, we should also pay tribute to our security services and police, who will be working even now with the French authorities to provide any international intelligence that could help France catch these vile killers and bring them to justice. While we know not yet the details of those responsible, we know that the killers do not represent Islam or reflect the faith of millions of French and British Muslims. Muslim leaders in Paris and Muslim community groups and organisations in Britain have been among the first to condemn this appalling attack.

We debate the Bill in the knowledge of the threats that can affect any country and at a time when the terror threat has grown. We have said for some time that more action is needed against terrorism to ensure that the police, security agencies and other organisations have up-to-date powers to act and that we have up-to-date safeguards to protect the liberty and security that terrorists and extremists seek to undermine. That is why we have supported the Bill and called for stronger action to deal with terrorism, alongside stronger safeguards so that we defend those democratic values too. That requires both strong and proportionate powers to act, and oversight—the checks and balances—to defend the very freedom of speech that terrorists have attacked today, as well as the liberty and democracy that extremists want to undermine.

The Home Secretary has talked about the additional challenge from the Syrian conflict. More than 500 people are suspected of having travelled to Syria, and half of them have returned to the UK, which changes the challenges we face here in Britain. Over the past few days and weeks, many of the measures in the Bill have been subject to detailed debate in the context of the Syrian conflict.

As the House reaches the conclusion of its consideration, I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for their efforts, as well as all those who have been involved in scrutinising the Bill. More needs to be done to prevent young people from being radicalised or drawn into extremism in the first place. We hope that putting Prevent on a statutory footing will help to strengthen it. We will continue to probe in the other place how that will work in practice, including through a role for Parliament in debating future strategy.

On TPIMs, the Home Secretary knows that we have called for some time for the Government to bring back the relocation powers that were abolished a few years ago. We are glad that she has finally done so. It is clear that the police and the agencies had concluded that TPIMs were no longer useful in their previous form. I hope that this Bill will change that and make them useful again in the extreme cases where prosecution has proved too difficult but the threat remains.

The police also need to be able to take swift action to stop someone believed to be trying to leave the country to join ISIS. If troubled parents ring the police because they are worried that a son or daughter has gone, they do not have time to invoke the royal prerogative to remove someone’s passport. However, we still believe that more checks and balances are needed to ensure that these important powers cannot be abused. We hope that that will be debated further in the other place. We agree, too, that action is needed to enable the police and security agencies to manage the return of those who may have been drawn into the conflict and ensure that they do not pose a risk to the British public if they return. Where possible, people should be arrested and prosecuted for crimes committed. TPIMs may be required in extreme cases where no prosecution is possible, and everyone returning should be expected to engage with the Channel de-radicalisation programme.

The Home Secretary has changed the policy very substantially from the original pledge by the Prime Minister to exclude people from Britain—we believe she has been put in a difficult position by those announcements. However, we remain concerned that the policy has been designed to fit an announcement, rather than to fit the needs of security, and that it is still unclear how it will work. We believe it will benefit from serious further scrutiny in the other place to ensure that it does not become too complex and bureaucratic, and instead can achieve the aims that she has set for it. We also argued from the start that more judicial oversight and safeguards were needed. I welcome the acceptance by the Home Secretary after the debate on our amendments yesterday that judicial oversight is needed for temporary exclusion orders. We look forward to seeing the Government’s proposals, as well as the debates on them in the other place, to ensure that the appropriate method of judicial oversight is used and that it is tried and tested.

Finally, we have supported, though sought to clarify, the important power to retain IP addresses—which had the support of the Joint Committee that considered the previous draft Communications Data Bill—and in particular the contribution that that can make to tackling online child abuse, as well as international terrorism.

Today’s vile attack just across the water brings home to us the threats that we have to address, the need for vigilance and the need for us in Parliament to ensure that we defend and protect our democratic values. That means that we need to scrutinise any counter-terrorism legislation in great detail. We need to take seriously our responsibilities in this House to protect both the liberty and the security of which Britain has always been proud from extremists of any kind. On that basis, we support this Bill and its Third Reading and look forward to the further debates that will take place in the other place.