Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

The Home Secretary will recognise that Parliament has been put in a difficult position by this week’s emergency legislation. It has been left until the final full week of Parliament before the recess and must be published and debated in both Houses in a week, and it relates to laws and technologies that are complex and controversial. They reflect the serious challenge of how to sustain both liberty and security, and privacy and safety in a democracy. This is therefore not the way in which such legislation should be done. Let me be clear that its last-minute nature undermines trust not only in the Government’s intentions, but also in the vital work of the police and agencies.

I have no doubt that the legislation is needed, however, and that we cannot delay it until the autumn. After the European Court of Justice judgment in April, legislation is needed to ensure that the police and intelligence agencies do not suddenly lose vital capabilities over the course of the next few months and that our legislation is compliant with EU law. So Parliament does need to act this week so that existing investigations and capabilities are not jeopardised over the next few months, but this is a short-term sticking plaster. As we support the legislation today, we must also be clear that we cannot just go on with business as usual, when the powers and safeguards that keep us free and safe are rarely discussed and only debated behind closed doors. I want to set out today why this parliamentary debate needs to be the start of a much wider debate about liberty and security in an internet age, why we can only pursue this short-term legislation if it is the beginning and not the end of the debate, and therefore why this legislation is needed in the short term, but also why safeguards are needed, too.

[Sir William Cash]

Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that the legislation will be within the scope of EU law and the charter of fundamental rights, in which the previous Government got themselves into a pretty average muddle—if I may put it that way—and that the general principle of EU law will prevail? Does she therefore also accept that it is possible that the European Court of Justice could come back to this legislation, as it did with the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and strike it down if in fact it takes the view that it is incompatible with EU law? Would she accept the idea in principle—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is an intervention. A large number of people want to speak. Interventions are getting a little too long and I would be grateful if they could be shortened.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is always possible for there to be court challenges and legal challenges to our legislation and to individual decisions. The Government have gone to some lengths to ensure that the legislation before us is compliant with the European Court judgment, with European law and with our own legal framework.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Home Secretary said that this will be the start of a debate about privacy and security, and those of us who have been campaigning on this issue for many years welcome her conversion. Does she accept that the debate has already started and that many of us have been pushing the issue for some time, much as we welcome her addition to it?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to pop up in these debates. I have heard that his support for the legislation has made some in this House question whether it is strong enough. Surely it cannot be, if he is supporting it.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I made a speech 12 months ago in which I talked about the need to strengthen the system for commissioners and for oversight in this area, and that I made a further speech at the beginning of March in which I raised specific issues about online security and liberty. The Deputy Prime Minister also made a speech that week which raised some of these issues. I am concerned because I think that, overall, the Government have not responded to some of the challenges. They still have not recognised the wider need for public debate and reform.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the right hon. Lady think that in striking down a directive that Labour agreed to, the European Court of Justice went too far, or does she think on reflection that the directive went too far?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the directive went considerably further than the regulations we passed in this country. As I recall, the European directive was drawn up in the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London and the terrorist attacks that took place at that time and was designed to provide a framework to ensure that different European countries could legally take the necessary action to investigate terrorism. However, the decision we took in the UK was to implement it much more narrowly, to ensure that safeguards were in place and to ensure that there were safeguards in the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I think that those safeguards now need to go further in the light of changing technology, and it is important that we do that.

I recognise that the Home Secretary wants only to maintain the status quo and to ensure that powers are not suddenly lost over the summer, but the problem for us is that the status quo is being challenged by the pace of new technology, by the struggle of police and agencies to keep up, by the limitations of a legal framework that dates back to 2000, by the weakness of oversight that does not meet modern expectations, by the Snowden leaks, by the global nature of the internet and by private companies that, in the case of most of us, hold, access and use far more of our private data than any police force or intelligence agency might do.

[Chris Bryant]

Although the Government keep on saying that the status quo is remaining as the status quo, 10 years ago it was the status quo that all electronic communications of MPs were covered by the Wilson doctrine. Earlier this year the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said quite the reverse when he stated that metadata about MPs’ communications was now being kept by the Government.

[Yvette Cooper]

My understanding is that the Government do not keep metadata on UK citizens and that the data retention directive is about the information that companies hold, but I would certainly be very surprised if companies were able to separate out the billing data for MPs, for example, from that of any other British citizen. It would be startling if they were able to do so. My hon. Friend is right that one would expect things such as the data retention directive to cover not just MPs but all UK citizens in that way, but my point is that the Government cannot take for granted the need to restore the status quo. We need to debate it and we need reform.

My real concern about how the Government handled the issue is not only about the delay in introducing the legislation after the Court judgment in April and the limited time we have to debate it. It is bigger than that. It is about the Government’s failure to rise to the bigger challenge and debate of the past 12 months. They have said almost nothing in response to the Snowden leaks, to provide either reassurance or reform. They tried to limit the debate over the draft Communications Data Bill, drawing it too widely, and have never been clear about what they really wanted and needed to achieve. They have not faced the new challenges of the digital age and recognised the importance of changing technologies and expectations. They have not started a serious review of the legal framework or the powers and oversight needed. The Home Secretary made a speech a few weeks ago that set out some of the safeguards needed, but it has taken time for Ministers to do that.

[Mr David Davis]

The right hon. Lady is making an interesting point. Is not the implication of her last six sentences that the Labour party should support the sunset clause being brought forward to Christmas of this year, which would force the debate that she is asking for?

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to come on to that point in detail, because it is an important one. The wider considerations, the detailed review of the legislation and the public consultation that we need will take longer than just five months, and it is important that this is not simply about repeated sticking-plaster legislation. We need to have a sustainable debate about how to get the right kinds of reforms to sustain the framework for the longer term and, crucially, about how we get public consent in this.

In the US, they have had a public debate. President Obama led a debate on liberty and security after the Snowden leaks, setting up an independent review group last summer. His response robustly defended much of the work that the US agencies do as vital to national security, but he also recognises the need for stronger safeguards. Our system has many more legal safeguards than the US system. For example, our warrant system is much narrower than theirs, and rightly so. We also have strong public support for the work of our intelligence services and the police, but that is no reason to avoid the debate and hope that it will go away. That is what I believe that the Government have done since last summer.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I want briefly to reinforce the right hon. Lady’s point. I have just come back from talking to St Albans Women’s Institute and the ladies made exactly that point. They asked what the difference would be, what it was all about and what it will mean to the public. There will be a problem in getting the message across through the media and the public will not understand why there has been this sudden rush to legislation

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right. Although we know that there are issues about the Court judgment and its implications over the summer, there will be considerable concern about the pace at which this Bill has been introduced and has been debated in Parliament. The short-term debate would be easier if there had been a wider longer-term debate about the question of a sensible framework in which the public could feel involved and have their say. If emergency issues came up, as they will from time to time—for any Government in any circumstances there will be court judgments that suddenly mean that an emergency response is needed—it would be so much easier to have the emergency debate against a backdrop in which the broader issues of security and liberty, and how we balance them in an internet age, are being properly debated and discussed, with public involvement.

Those of us who believe in the vital work the police and agencies need to be able to do should be the most ready to debate both the powers and the safeguards that are needed, because they must have public consent. We cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy. Of course, that debate must be handled with care so that we do not expose important intelligence capabilities that need to be kept secret to be effective, but we can have a debate about the legal framework, about the principles and about the powers and safeguards we need.

We know the vital work that we want the police and agencies to be able to do: building the intelligence that foils terrorist attacks; providing the fast response needed to find the last location of a missing child or murder victim; and stopping online fraud and cyber-attacks, which are escalating with every month. We also know that people will only continue to support those vital powers if they also know that there are proper safeguards: protection for innocent people’s privacy; public reassurance about what that protection really is; safeguards so that powers cannot be abused; safeguards, checks and balances on what the police and intelligence agencies can do; and a Government and Parliament that recognise that this is difficult and do not try just to sweep it all under the carpet and deny the public a say.

The lack of a wider debate is making it harder to have a short-term debate today. This is not the right way to have this debate. However, I also believe that we cannot reject this legislation now; it would be wrong to do so. We need to support it today, but we must also use it to get the wider debate that we need.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The Court judgment means that the regulations on data retention need to be replaced; otherwise, they will fall altogether. This is about the requirement for companies to hold their billing data and other communications data for 12 months. This does not refer to the content of the calls and messages; it just covers the communications data. If the police are investigating a crime or pursuing an emergency that involves risk to life or limb, they can get a warrant and ask the companies to hand over the data relating to the suspect. As the Home Secretary has said, these data are used to identify conspiracies, prove alibis, locate missing children and find out who is committing online crimes or sending online child abuse. The police need warrants to do this, and the data do not tell us what people are saying. They cannot tell us the content of an e-mail—that is private—but they can help us to solve crimes.

These data are particularly important in dealing with serious and organised crime. For example, they can show that drug dealers who claim not to know each other have in fact been calling each other every week. They can show who the armed robber called to help him get away from the scene of a crime, or where a missing child was when their phone was switched off. They can also help to trace who a terror suspect contacted before they went to Syria, for example, and to work out who might be grooming or radicalising more young people to go there.

These data are used in court in 95% of the serious and organised crime cases that reach prosecution. They are particularly important in relation to online child abuse, because they allow the police to get warrants, to contact companies to find out the name and address of the person who has sent vile images of child abuse and to rescue children who are being hurt. A recent Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre investigation resulted in the arrest of 200 suspects and identified 132 children who were at risk of abuse. The prosecutions and actions needed to rescue those children were made possible only through the use of communications data. A similar investigation in Germany, where communications data are not held, led to only a handful of cases being investigated.

The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police has described the importance of communications data to rape investigations. She has said:

“As to robberies and rapes, it is very usual for phones to be stolen. The stranger rapist, on many occasions, will take the phone from the victim and within 24 hours we find the rapist.”

The data also protect our children’s safety. In one case that the Joint Committee looked at, an online help service contacted the police, worried about a child who had posted on their website a threat to commit suicide. The police contacted the relevant companies, which helped to track down the service user’s name and address, then sent the local police to the door to find that the child had hanged himself but was still breathing. Fast action and communications data saved his life.

It is because we recognise how crucial this evidence is to so many investigations that we believe it would be too damaging to the fight against crime and terrorism for the police to lose this information this summer. The Government have rightly made changes to ensure that the new legislation can comply with the ECJ directive. They have narrowed the number of organisations that can access the data, for example, and introduced further safeguards to ensure that the process is necessary and proportionate.

The second part of the Bill is more complex, as it addresses the global nature of our telecommunications. Increasingly, the companies that help us to communicate with each other, with the family members we live with and with our neighbours and friends down the road, are based abroad. They should not be excluded from UK law just because of where their headquarters are based. International companies have been covered by and complied with RIPA for many years. Indeed, the legislation has always made it clear that companies should be covered if they provided services in the UK. We recognise, however, that other court judgments have made it more important to be explicit about legislation that has extraterritorial effect, rather than just leaving the arrangements implicit in the legislation. Again, it would jeopardise important intelligence if we were to ignore this factor.

Similarly, on telecommunications data, we have sought assurances from the Home Secretary that these measures are not an extension of powers and that they are only a clarification of the arrangements that already exist and of practices that already take place. It is important to recognise that this is not just about the legislation. The Home Secretary has now given the House assurances that the way in which she issues warrants will comply with that intention not to extend those powers, and that this is simply about maintaining the powers that are already in place.

This means that the safeguards are extremely important. The safeguards in the Bill and in the regulations are welcome. They ensure that the legislation is temporary, as well as restricting the purposes of the legislation so that it cannot be used only for purposes of economic well-being, and restricting the number of organisations that have access to data. We welcome the proposals for a privacy and civil liberties board, although we will need more debate about how that should work and how it should fit with our proposals to overhaul the commissioners and ensure that there is stronger oversight.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to have the widest possible consultation with as many groups as possible before the names are put forward for the new board?

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right, and I would certainly expect the Select Committees to play an important role in that process. There needs to be a debate about the way in which the board should work. It has considerable potential. Wider, more substantial reforms of the existing framework are needed, including, for example, to the structure relating to the commissioners, who in theory have oversight of different parts of legislation, and to the role of the counter-terrorism reviewer, which is more effective than the work of some of the commissioners. We need to look at the whole framework in determining how the privacy and civil liberties board will fit in with the wider reforms that we need. That might need to be a two-stage process: the introduction of the board and reforms made to the commissioners’ structure in the light of the wider review that we are calling for. We have tabled amendments to secure such a review.

The review of the legislation is particularly important. For some time, we have been calling for an independent expert review of the legal and operational framework and in particular of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. As a result of the communications data revolution, the law and our oversight framework are now out of date. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, new technology is blurring the distinction between communications and content, and between domestic and international communications, as well as raising new questions about data storage. We therefore need to reconsider what safeguards are necessary in an internet age to ensure that people’s privacy is protected.

We need stronger oversight, too. We need to know how far the new technology is outstripping the legal framework, and what powers and safeguards are needed for the future. We need to determine how warrants should operate, who should have access to data, and whether the police and intelligence agencies have the lawful capabilities that they need. The police need to be able to keep up with new technology, but the safeguards need to keep up, too. All those elements should be included in the scope of the first stage of the independent review by the counter-terrorism reviewer, David Anderson.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the long list of considerations that she wishes her party to look at, but has she considered the easy availability of strong cryptography? What is her party’s position on that?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will not pretend to be an expert on individual technologies or on the legal framework that is needed to safeguard them. That is exactly why we need an expert review. The honest truth is that most of us here in Parliament are considerably less expert on these technologies than our children, and we therefore need technological expertise as well as legal expertise as part of the review. That is the kind of review that David Anderson needs to lead.

We have tabled an amendment to put the review on a statutory footing and to outline some of the issues that it must cover, so that the House can be reassured that a sufficiently wide-ranging review will take place. It will need to look at the practice as well as at the legislation. We will also need to have a serious public debate about David Anderson’s conclusions, through the Joint Committee of both Houses and through taking public evidence. A public consultation must form part of that process. This is about getting the balance right, but it is also about ensuring that we have public consent. We cannot have any more sticking-plaster legislation; we need a serious and sustainable framework that will command consent for years to come.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Forgive me, but I am slightly confused. It is perhaps because I am a bit thick, but will the right hon. Lady clarify the current situation for me? Do we have these rules and regulations now? If we do not pass this Bill into law, how long can the police and the security services continue to have access to these data?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary responded to a similar question earlier. The advice that I have received is that the UK regulations are still in place, but that they are likely to be challenged and likely to fall as a result of the European directive having already been struck down. The consequence of that would be that we might risk losing some of those powers over the summer, before Parliament returns in the autumn, and we should not put the police and intelligence agencies in that position. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me argue for the wider reforms and wider debate that is needed, but in the short term we should not pull the rug from underneath the police and intelligence agencies this summer as a result of a European Court judgment.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that the sunset clause should simply be moved to five months’ time. I understand the intention of the hon. Members who have signed the amendment, and I recognise their concern and their desire to increase the short-term scrutiny of the legislation, but I fear that if we do that, we will simply be stuck with another unsatisfactory sticking-plaster legislation process. We will not have the time to obtain the conclusions of the expert review, to consult on them, to debate, to take evidence or to draw up proper primary legislation with the more substantial reforms that I believe are needed. If we continue with repeated sticking-plaster legislation, we will undermine public consent in this process even further. That is why we must not rush things; we must do it properly. We are doing quite enough rushing this week, as it is, without trying to rush through the more substantial debate that we need within five months. That is why the longer period is needed.

Hon. Members are right that we need stronger safeguards in the short term, right now. We need more reassurance that the Bill is doing what the Home Secretary has made clear. That is why we have tabled a second amendment, and why I welcome the Home Secretary’s indication that she will accept it. It is about requiring the intercept commissioner in the mean time to report on the operation of the Bill every six months. During that period, we need to know whether the Bill is simply being used to continue the work that was being done before or whether it is being used to extend the Government’s powers against the will of Parliament. The six-monthly review will reassure the House that the Bill is being implemented in the way that Parliament intended.

We also want to see longer-term reforms, including strengthening the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has the same powers as other Select Committees and an Opposition Chair, and we believe that an overhaul of the commissioners is needed. We currently have lots of different commissioners, and even when they do excellent reports no one notices them because the reports are not public-facing. Too often, they are limited to assessing compliance with existing legislation rather than looking at whether the legislation is still appropriate or effective.

This is a difficult debate for Parliament today. We have legislation that is urgently needed, but it is against the backdrop of us all knowing that a much wider debate is called for. So we have to make sure that that debate happens and that sustainable reforms are brought forward. Too often, this debate becomes polarised. The hawks say that we need stronger powers to protect national security, but they will not say what and why. The civil libertarians say that it is all a conspiracy; that they do not believe the scare stories; and that privacy is paramount. But most of us, and most of the British public want both—security and liberty, safety and privacy. We want to be kept safe from fraudsters stealing our identity or our money online. We want our children’s innocence kept safe from abusers, and paedophiles to be caught. We want the police and intelligence agencies to be able to track down murderers, fraudsters and terror suspects.

However, we also want to know that, unless we are suspected of a crime or terrorism, we have a right to protection of our information and privacy. We want to know that people will not be listening to our calls, reading our e-mails or checking out where we have been surfing on the web; to know that there are fair, up-to-date laws governing what Government agencies, the police and private companies can do; and to know that there are safeguards, checks and balances in place to make sure that those laws are upheld.

Yes, we need to pass this Bill today, because the powers that it retains are too important to the protection of public safety to lose carelessly one summer. But we also need a proper debate about the balance of privacy and safety, and how we maintain both liberty and security in an internet age, because both are essential to our democracy. Today must be the start, and not the end, of that debate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Nomanton Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We have had the Second Reading and four hours of debate in Committee, and we have now reached Third Reading. I, too, pay tribute on behalf of the Opposition to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has been in the Chamber since 12.30 pm, as well as to the Minister for Security and Immigration, who has probably not even had a chance to have a cup of tea, and to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who when not popping up and down to speak, has been glued to his seat for many hours.

Many hon. Members have been present for several hours of a very thoughtful debate on such important legislation, but inevitably the debate has been limited. Many of the concerns raised today have been about the process—about the lack of time not only to debate the Bill, but to consider it further. I hope that the Government recognise that the process has undermined confidence. For that confidence to be restored, it will be particularly important for the Government to take steps on the implementation of the review and the wider safeguards.

Some Members have raised concerns about the retention of any data at all. The vast majority, however, have recognised the value of data retention in tackling serious crime, abuse and terrorism, and in protecting our children, but want the right kinds of safeguards to be put in place. Most Members recognise the need for Parliament to take action and to pass legislation before the summer break, because we do not want suddenly to prevent the police and the intelligence agencies from having access, under warrant, to the information on which they normally depend in investigating organised crime and fraud, identifying those abusing children online and building intelligence to foil terrorist activity.

I do not want to repeat the points I made on Second Reading about the Bill, the safeguards and the wider debate, but I will briefly cover some of the points made throughout the debates this afternoon. Some have raised concern about whether the Bill does what it says on the tin, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)—whether it simply replicates existing capabilities or extends them. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to maintain existing capabilities and, indeed, to restrict them in line with the ECJ judgment. I am glad that the Government agreed to our amendments that were designed to ensure that that is the case. They require six-monthly reports on the operation of the Act to ensure that its implementation does not go further in any way.

As I argued earlier, many of the areas of concern that hon. Members have raised are not about the specifics of the legislation, but about the wider framework that governs communications data and interception. That is why we have called for a much broader review of the powers, safeguards and operations in the light of changing technologies and threats. I am glad that the Government agreed to our proposal that the review that we called for should be put on a statutory footing.

Nobody should underestimate the importance of that review, because we cannot keep passing sticking-plaster legislation, we cannot carry on with business as usual, and we cannot carry on with the current framework when new technology is overtaking it. Nor should anybody just hope that these issues will go away once today’s debates are finished, because they will not and they cannot. The changing technology, changing attitudes, changing expectations and changing threats mean that Parliament needs to keep up.

I hope that Members who have argued about the different aspects of the legislation, who have taken different views on aspects of the legislation or who have even disagreed with the legislation will come together to contribute to the review, to decide what the next steps should be and to take part in the wider debate that we need about security and liberty in the internet age. In the end, these issues go to the heart of our democracy. We need both security and liberty. If we do not feel safe or secure on our streets or online, we are not free, but if security is absolute, we lose that precious freedom for which people have fought for generations. We will not all agree on how to sustain both, we will not all agree on how to get the balance right, and our constituents will not all agree either. However, the debate itself is healthy and vital, and I suspect that there will be rather more consensus than most people think.

I hope that we can finally agree on three things today: first, that the wider debate is needed to keep up with the changing world and to ensure that there is public confidence and consent for the vital work that the police and agencies do; secondly, that this last-minute process has not been a good one, and that we really should not do it again; and thirdly, that this temporary legislation, with its safeguards, really is needed in the short term, and that we should pass it tonight.

Communications Data and Interception

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the detailed legal and security briefing with which her officials have provided me.

We agree with the Home Secretary that a temporary and urgent solution is needed as a result of the European Court judgment in April, because otherwise the police and intelligence agencies will suddenly lose vital information and evidence this summer. It would be too damaging to the fight against serious and organised crime, to the work against online child abuse, and to counter-terror investigations to risk losing that capability over the next two months while Parliament is in recess, and that is why we need to act.

However, as the Home Secretary will appreciate, there will be serious concern, in Parliament and throughout the country, about the lateness of this legislative proposal, and about the short time that we have in which to consider something so important. That lack of time for debate makes the safeguards that we have discussed particularly important, and I want to press the Home Secretary on some of them. It also makes it essential for the Government to engage in a wider, public debate about how we balance privacy and security in an internet age.

The European Court judgment has clearly created an immediate problem for companies that hold billing and other communications data to which the police have access under warrant when they investigate crimes. Action needs to be taken in the short term simply to allow them to continue to do what they have been doing, in a way that complies with the European Court judgment. The communications data need to be properly used under safeguards, but they are also vital to serious criminal investigations and to protecting the public. The police use them to find out with whom a suspect or criminal may have been conspiring to commit serious crimes, or to radicalise a terror suspect. They are used in 95% of all cases of serious and organised crime that reach the prosecution stage. When children go missing, the police can contact their mobile phone companies and find out where they were last. That helped them to find out that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were close to Ian Huntley’s house when their phone was switched off, and it helped to convict him of their murder.

The data also help the police to identify people who are sending online vile images of children who are being abused. An investigation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre resulted in the arrest of 200 suspects, and found 132 children who were at risk of abuse and needed to be safeguarded. However, it was able to reach those suspects and those children only because of communications data. The legislation is certainly needed, and the information is certainly needed. The legislation is a more restricted version of the existing data retention powers. It is because we recognise how crucial the evidence is that we believe that it would be too damaging to lose it over the summer.

We also recognise that there is a problem for some companies that provide communications services here in Britain but whose headquarters are based abroad, and which have asked for clarification of the scope of the legislation, as a result, again, of recent court cases. Companies should not be left in limbo or put off from complying with warrants when national security is at stake, for example, simply because they are concerned about whether it is lawful to do so because of the location of their headquarters.

We will scrutinise the detail of the legislation, and we will debate the safeguards that are necessary, but we agree that the legislation is needed now. However, I am concerned about its late arrival. The European Court judgment was in April, and the legislation has been published just seven days before the end of the parliamentary session. I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that it risks undermining confidence for issues as important as this to be left until the last minute and rushed through on an emergency basis rather than being given more time. We recognise the timetable of the European Court judgment and we recognise, too, the information she has provided to us in the Opposition over the last week about her proposals, but she will also recognise the importance of Select Committees being able to take evidence, and being able to consider these proposals, too.

The short time for Parliament to consider this makes the safeguards we have argued for and agreed even more important, so the Home Secretary is right to make this temporary legislation. It means that Parliament will need to revisit this issue properly next year, with detailed evidence and the chance to secure a sustainable longer-term framework. She is also right to add further restrictions to the way in which the legislation will work, and I ask her for further clarification on this, because she will know we discussed, for example, narrowing the scope of some of the measures, as well as narrowing the number of organisations that will be able to access the data, and I would like to ask her for an update on those discussions, and whether she was able to produce that narrowing in practice.

We look forward as well to working in Parliament to make the new privacy and civil liberties board work effectively, but one of the most important safeguards is the Government’s agreement to an independent expert review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, for which the Home Secretary will know I called this year. The legislation was drawn up in 2000. As a result of the communications data revolution, the law and our oversight framework are now out of date. New technology is blurring the distinction between communications and content and between domestic and international communications, and raising new questions about data storage. We need to reconsider, therefore, what safeguards are needed to make sure people’s privacy is protected in an internet age, and we need stronger oversight, too.

Previously the Government have resisted this proposal for a RIPA review, and I am glad that they have now agreed. I have suggested the review should be done by the independent counter-terrorism reviewer, David Anderson. Will the Home Secretary tell me whether that will be possible and also ensure that he will have the resources and capabilities and expertise he needs to be able to produce a thorough report which can recommend the reforms that we need but that can also give confidence to the process?

There are three other areas, which we have raised with the Home Secretary, and where it would be helpful to see whether we can go further: first, in asking the interception commissioner to provide reports every six months on the operation of this legislation while it is in force; secondly, in strengthening the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has the same powers as Select Committees to call and compel witnesses and by having an Opposition Chair; thirdly, the longer-term reforms to overhaul the commissioners to provide stronger oversight. Again it would be helpful to have the Home Secretary’s response to those proposals.

Most important, however, we need a wider, longer public debate on these issues, which so far the Government have refused. The majority of people in Britain rightly support the work of the intelligence agencies and the work the police need to do online to keep us safe, but there are growing concerns as a result of new technology and the Snowdon leaks about what safeguards are needed and whether the framework is still up to date. The fact that the Communications Data Bill was so widely drawn last year also raised anxiety and undermined trust in the Government’s approach.

The Government must not ignore those concerns or they will grow and grow. It is vital to our democracy—both to protecting our national security and to protecting our basic freedoms—that there is widespread public consent to the balance the Government and the agencies need to strike. President Obama held such a debate last year. We have urged the Government to lead such a debate now. I hope that the agreement to the RIPA review will now allow that widespread cross-party approach to having that open debate about the safeguards for both privacy and our security that we need, because we cannot just keep on doing short-term sticking plaster legislation in a rush, without the proper consideration of the privacy and security balance modern Britain wants to see.

We will scrutinise the detail of this Bill as it goes through Parliament next week and we will support it, because we know the police and intelligence agencies need this information to fight crime, protect children and counter terrorism, and I hope we can also agree to the wider national debate that we need about how we safeguard our security and our privacy in an internet age.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the support she has shown for the emergency legislation and I am grateful for the recognition across the House that we need to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies, and our police and law enforcement agencies, have available to them the powers they need to be able to do the job we all want them to do in catching criminals, preventing terrorism and catching terrorists. There is also a recognition that, as we have said, and as the sunset clause shows, this is meeting a gap now; it is ensuring that those bodies have the capabilities they have until now been able to rely on and that those are able to continue in the face of the legal challenges that have arisen.

The right hon. Lady made a number of points. First, on the timing, the European Court of Justice judgment did indeed come in April, and, obviously, we have been spending quite a time since then looking at the most appropriate way to respond. But to any Members of the House who think it would have been possible to put these changes into normal legislation—into another Bill that is going through the House or into a separate Bill that was not fast-tracked—I say that that timetable was not available to us; it was always going to be necessary for this to be fast-tracked legislation in order to ensure that those capabilities are retained.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Select Committees wanting to be able to look at this measure. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I briefed six Select Committee Chairmen yesterday, and today I am publishing a draft version of the Bill. The Bill will be formally introduced on Monday, but I thought it was appropriate to publish it in draft today, as that gives that little bit of extra time for people to be able to look at it. As I have said, I am aiming to make the maximum amount of background supporting information—the regulatory impact assessments and so forth—available to Members of the House, so that people have as much opportunity as possible within the short timetable to be able to look at the various issues.

The right hon. Lady asked whether there was any narrowing in the scope of the powers. The Bill makes something absolutely clear in relation to the issues of intercept. There have always been three areas of scope—national security, serious crime and economic well-being—and the Bill clarifies that economic well-being is there in the context of national security. Just for the avoidance of doubt, the Bill makes it clear that that is the context in which that has been used; it is related back to national security.

The right hon. Lady raised a point about the ISC and its chairmanship. Of course, the House has relatively recently debated the ISC’s structure and its relationship with Parliament. She has raised a specific point about the chairmanship and where that person should be drawn from, and I recognise the strength of view that she and the Opposition have on the matter. Hers is not a policy that we have, but it is open to the House to debate these matters should Members wish to do so.

Finally, let me deal with the review that is to take place. The right hon. Lady made a number of points about that, referring to it as a RIPA review. I should be absolutely clear with the House that it is not just a review that will look at RIPA and ask whether we need to tweak that; as I said, the review will look at the interception and communications data powers we need, as well as the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated in the context of the threats that we face. That is important because we know that there are new challenges, through new technology, to our capabilities, and the threat context that we face is developing. RIPA came through in 2000 and we would want any legislative changes that the Government make after the next election to stand the test of a reasonable amount of time; we would not want to have to keep coming back to them. That is why this review has to be that wider review about the powers we need against the threat context we have and about the legislative and regulatory framework in which those powers and capabilities are regulated.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the proposal that David Anderson should undertake this review, and I am pleased to say to the House that I have been able to speak to him this morning and that he is willing to undertake it. I think that is very good, given his expertise and his knowledge and understanding of these issues. He and I have been very clear in our conversation. We have not yet been in a position to sit down and discuss terms of reference and the resources he would need, but I am absolutely clear, given the nature of the review that I have just set out, that we need to make sure we get the terms of reference right and that he has the resources and support necessary to be able to do the job that I think everybody across this House wants him to do.

Modern Slavery Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is a point that has come up in some of the deliberations of the Committee that has been looking into the matter, and it is a point that I have looked at seriously. There is a judgment to be made here. By definition, if somebody is in slavery, the chance of their being able to get out of slavery to go to work for another employer is pretty limited, if not non-existent. In changing the way that the visa operated, one of the things we did was to try to ensure that there was a proper contract between the employer and the individual who was being employed, but I recognise that this is an issue. I suspect that it will be subject to greater debate and discussion as the Bill goes through the various stages in this House and another place.

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

As the Home Secretary knows, we strongly support the legislation, but on that point, I understand that in its research the charity Kalayaan found that since the visas were changed, 60% of those on the new domestic workers visa were paid no salary at all, compared with 14% on the original visa. That is a worrying increase since the visa change. Has the right hon. Lady looked at that research?

[Mrs May]

Yes, we have been looking in detail at the research that has been undertaken. We have taken the issue and the points that have been made seriously. I suspect that this aspect will be subject to further, more detailed discussion as the Bill goes through its various stages in this House and another place. The number of people who were identified by the charity—which, by definition, can only look at those who come to it—is fairly small. We need measures that will protect those who are being brought in as overseas workers and will not open up some other avenue for people to be brought in. We need to enable people to work properly for an employer, not effectively be placed in modern slavery.

We all have the same aim. The question is which regulatory track makes most sense. I continue to believe that the current arrangement is the right one. I am sure that it will be subject to considerable discussion as the Bill goes through its various stages.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the Bill and make clear the support of not only this side but both sides of the House for taking action against the horrific crime of modern day slavery and for the Bill’s passage through the House.

Last year, a 20-year-old woman was kidnapped from her rural home in Slovakia. She was trafficked out of the country and brought to the UK, to Bradford. She was kept captive for several weeks before being sold into a sham marriage. In her marriage, she was not allowed to leave her home and was raped repeatedly and beaten by five men, all of whom lived in the house. The barrister who prosecuted the case described her experience as like

“something from a 19th century novel by Dickens”,

and said that the victim

“was handled round the continent and this country like a commodity, a human slave.”

She was raped, beaten and enslaved and robbed of her most basic freedoms not in 19th-century Britain but in 21st-century Britain, which is why we need to act and why the Bill has such strong cross-party support and will be on the statute book soon.

I pay tribute, as the Home Secretary has done, to the members of the cross-party Joint Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) and the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), who have worked so hard. I also pay tribute to the former Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, who is the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and has done so much work in this field.

The Bill builds on work carried out under the previous Government, including criminalising trafficking in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004; the introduction in 2009 of the offence of forced labour, slavery or servitude, which recognised that slavery is not just about international forced travel; the national referral mechanism, which we introduced in 2009; and, of course, the creation of the UK Human Trafficking Centre.

[Andrew Selous]

The shadow Home Secretary is absolutely right to mention the horrific case from Slovakia, but does she recognise that many British citizens are being trafficked around the UK and, indeed, from the UK to other countries, and that we must capture that element of this horrific crime as well?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, I was just mentioning the original introduction of the offence of forced labour in 2009, because it was introduced exactly for the purpose of recognising that the issue is not just about people trafficked across international borders, but about the appalling abuse and enslavement of British citizens or of people within their countries. That is rightly covered by part 1 of the Bill.

I commend the Home Secretary for her work, which has built on many years of cross-party work and support for action against the horrors of modern slavery. Because there is such strong support for the Bill and for action against slavery, I believe that there is strong support for going further. As the Home Secretary heard in hon. Members’ many points and questions, there is consensus on going further than the measures in the Bill. We want to debate such points and to point out areas where amendments could be tabled as the Bill goes through this House and the other place.

Let me begin with the measures in the Bill which we support. The Home Secretary has made a powerful case for consolidating and strengthening the law to make it easier to prosecute those committing this vile crime, as she is rightly doing in part 1. Many hon. Members will remember the shocking case of Craig Kinsella, who was held captive by a family in Sheffield and forced to work from 7.30 am to midnight for no pay. He slept in a garage and was starved, and he was beaten with a spade, a crowbar and a pickaxe. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has mentioned, such a victim was not trafficked into the country; he was a British national. He had even moved in voluntarily with the family who enslaved him, but he was still in slavery.

That is why it is vital that UK legislation should recognise the different forms of human trafficking and slavery, and should make it possible to prosecute those who enslave, abuse and exploit. It should not only cover those who have been moved across international borders, but recognise that consent can be complex. In complicated cases, the offence should not rely on a simple lack of consent, because people can be deeply vulnerable and slavery is complex in such circumstances.

The Home Secretary is right that the law should be strengthened and that penalties should be increased. We strongly welcome clause 5, which will give trafficking offences the maximum of a life sentence. Traffickers steal people’s lives and their humanity. It is the very worst abuse, so it should carry the most severe sentences. We also welcome the work on asset seizures and reparation orders, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has called.

I commend the Home Office’s work to prevent enslavement and trafficking, including the work on prevention and risk orders. When there is evidence that someone is likely to commit an offence, we should be able to intervene in advance for the sake of the victims, rather than waiting until it is too late. We support the introduction of an anti-slavery commissioner to keep the pressure and focus on this dreadful crime. We welcome the statutory defence for victims, the concessions made so far by the Government on child guardians, and the duty to notify the National Crime Agency.

Measures on the presumption of age are extremely important, because we know of harrowing cases in which children end up being caught without the support they need simply because there is a dispute about their age. It is vital for the authorities to show some humanity in how they approach children in those cases. The Home Secretary is right that the Bill alone is not enough. It will of course need to be supported by much wider action in terms of training, co-ordinated action and leadership, and we support her determination to make sure that that happens.

I now want to set out the areas in which we hope the Home Secretary will go further. I know that she listened during the considerations of the Joint Committee, and I hope that she will now listen to the areas where we want to table amendments and to urge her to go further and take stronger action.

We want a stronger focus on victims. If we do not support the victims of human trafficking, we are leaving people to be abused and enslaved, and to be forced to work or forced into prostitution. Those who have been abused once by evil traffickers are at risk of being abused and betrayed again by authorities who either do not understand their experiences or simply ignore the abuse that they have experienced. That is why we need more work by border staff, the police, the criminal justice system, councils and voluntary organisations to identify the victims.

As part of that, the Bill should strengthen the national referral mechanism. In 2012, the UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 2,255 human trafficking victims, but the national referral mechanism identified only just over 1,000. At the moment, the national referral mechanism is an internal process of the Home Office—there is no transparency, and no appeal—but this is an opportunity to place it on a statutory footing to give it a greater ability and authority to support victims at the time they need it most.

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

On strengthening the national referral mechanism and the whole question of the speed with which we must move to protect victims, particularly young victims, does my right hon. Friend think we should look again at the idea of a pilot joint immigration and family court to address such matters at a very early stage?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am very interested in looking further at that idea. My hon. Friend is right that the most complicated and difficult cases are sometimes hard for the legal system to address. It is obviously important to have clear frameworks of family law and of immigration law, but he is right that complex cases sometimes end up falling between the two systems and not getting the kind of recognition that they deserve.

We want the anti-slavery commissioner’s work to have more emphasis on supporting victims. The Bill talks of the anti-slavery commissioner’s obligation to identify victims, not of the need to support victims or to make recommendations to all Departments, not just the Home Office, on victim support, which would be helpful.

[Michael Connarty]

A matter that has puzzled me since I went to the launch of the Scottish report is a point made by the Justice Secretary there: when the Border Force changes people’s status from victim to criminal, those people very soon leave Scotland and end up in Yarl’s Wood, which is outwith Scotland’s jurisdiction. He told me that the problem is the Border Force, or what was called the UK Border Agency. How can we give some comfort to people in the devolved parts of the UK that they will be allowed to decide whether they are dealing with a victim or a criminal, and that they will not be overruled by the Bill and what is basically a UK authority, not a devolved authority?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes wider than devolution. Wherever across the United Kingdom trafficking victims are identified, we must make sure that they are properly supported as victims of trafficking throughout the system, and that they are not simply identified by one agency as needing support as victims because they have been abused and enslaved, but end up being treated by another agency as criminals or illegal migrants, with the abuse effectively being multiplied because their vulnerability and experiences are simply not identified within the system. Such a purpose is vital. The Home Secretary is right that this is not simply about legislation, but about the way in which organisations operate, the training given to staff and how staff respond. My hon. Friend’s point is therefore extremely important.

That is particularly important for children, about whom many hon. Members intervened on the Home Secretary to raise concerns. Trafficking is an evil trade, but it can exploit weak systems of child protection. Of the 2,000 potential victims of human trafficking identified in 2012, 550 were children, but that is likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Some 65% of those cases were not recorded on the national system, which would have increased the protection of those children. Too often, they are treated as immigration cases, not as trafficking victims. Several of my hon. Friends made important points about the way in which such children can, in practice, be abused, including by being told what to say by their traffickers.

Most appalling of all is the figure that shows that almost two thirds of rescued children go missing again. They have been found, rescued by the authorities, put into care and they simply disappear again, presumably picked up by the same or other trafficking gangs. Already abused, they are let down by a system that is supposed to keep them safe.

[Lisa Nandy]

As my right hon. Friend knows, many trafficked children also believe that the trafficker is their friend, their uncle or their boyfriend. It is not just that they have been frightened into saying that; they genuinely believe it. I therefore hope that she will press the Home Secretary on her call, which I support, for a statutory system of guardians, because somebody has to be able to instruct the lawyer in a case where a child believes that they have not been exploited to ensure that the relevant person is brought to justice.

[Yvette Cooper]

I will do that and I agree with my hon. Friend. We would like the law and the Bill to be strengthened on child guardians and child offences. Let me make a few points about that.

My hon. Friend is right that the situation for children can be complex, and often the adult who is abusing them is the only adult they know: the only adult with whom they have contact and who speaks their language, if they have been trafficked across borders.

Charities describe finding children who do not even know which country they are in. Some are sexually exploited in brothels or tend cannabis factories, like Deng, who was trafficked from Vietnam to work as a gardener in a cannabis factory. When police raided the house, Deng was arrested and spent almost a year in prison. On release, he fell back into the hands of traffickers, who regularly beat him so badly that he was hospitalised. Passed from local authority to local authority, his case was eventually assessed and an independent age assessment concluded that he was only 16 or 17. He had already experienced years of abuse, including a year of imprisonment at the hands of the British authorities. Children like Deng have their childhood taken by the traffickers. By 17, they have often been held by the traffickers for several years, moved through several countries and forced to grow up very fast, but they are still children in desperate need of care.

If those children know no other life and nothing of the UK, they can often return voluntarily to their traffickers because they feel that they have no choice. There is a real problem with the idea that a child could ever consent to their exploitation. That is why we believe that we should pursue a separate offence of child exploitation. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s points and, clearly, we do not want to make it more difficult to prosecute. I think that we have the same objectives, but I did not find her answers very convincing or clear on why creating such an offence would make it harder to prosecute. Of course, there will be cases where the age may be difficult to identify at the margins, but surely it is possible to draw up the law in a way that allows the prosecutor to decide whether the case is clear cut and can be prosecuted as a child offence or whether it is not clear cut and therefore should be prosecuted under the wider legislation on the basis that somebody is vulnerable.

If the Home Secretary has any overwhelming objections to that, she needs to explain them much more clearly. The Opposition simply cannot see why we should not pursue the Joint Committee’s proposals for a separate offence of child exploitation and why that would not help us all in our objective of tackling slavery, particularly the awful and extreme abuse of children.

We would also like a system of independent guardians to be introduced. They are a requirement of the EU directive that the Government eventually signed up to, and the system has been implemented elsewhere in Europe and shown to work well. After three years of campaigning, we welcome the Government’s pilots for child advocates and the enabling provisions, but we do not believe that they go far enough. The position is unclear, but the advocates do not appear to be the same as the child guardians for which a huge coalition of charities, including Barnardo’s, UNICEF and the Children’s Society, have called. During the Bill’s passage, we will seek to strengthen the powers given to child advocates, thereby establishing guardians who can act independently of local authorities and in the best interests of the child.

I raised those who are in domestic work conditions and are particularly at risk in an intervention on the Home Secretary. I urge her to look again at the domestic worker visa and the risks to those forced into domestic slavery, unable to escape. Earlier, I cited the evidence from the charity Kalayaan. The Home Secretary knows that when the tied visa was introduced, many, including Kalayaan, warned her that it would increase the risk of servitude and domestic abuse.

In addition to the figures that I cited earlier, Kalayaan also found that 92% of those on the new visa were unable to leave the House unaccompanied. That is slavery. The Home Secretary seemed to suggest that that was just a small number of people, but that is not the point. One of the examples that Kalayaan gave was the case of Rupa, who arrived in the UK with her employers. She had worked for them in India and had little choice about coming to the UK. Once here, she worked long hours and got no proper breaks. Looking after a baby, she was on call all the time. Like 85% of those interviewed by Kalayaan, Rupa did not have her own room, so she slept on the floor, next to the cot. For all that, she was paid just £26 a week and had her passport confiscated. Eventually, Rupa ran away and a stranger helped her find her way to Kalayaan.

However, because of the changes that the Home Secretary introduced to the visas, Kalayaan could do nothing. Under the old system, the charity would have contacted the police, had Rupa’s passport returned to her and helped her find other work. Now Rupa’s options were limited: to return to her employer or be deported. With a sick family to support in India, Rupa decided to return to her employer and a life of servitude. That is slavery. It is what the Bill should abolish. The Opposition will table amendments on the matter, but I hope that, if the Home Secretary has an alternative remedy, she will come forward with it during the Bill’s passage. We cannot have a situation whereby all the work that the House is trying to do to tackle modern slavery is undermined by visa changes elsewhere in the system.

We also need more action in the world of work. The Home Secretary talked about the importance of tackling the supply chain, and we agree, but again, we would like to go further. The Bill provides a great opportunity to build on the work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We would like to consider how that can be extended to cover exploitation in hospitality, care and construction, and also how the law on exploitation in the workplace can be strengthened.

Slavery in the UK is only a small part of the problem. The Joint Committee was clear in its recommendations for stronger action on supply chains. Other countries are legislating on that, and there is a growing consensus that legislation that requires large companies to report on their actions to eradicate slavery in their supply chains will make a difference.

In the past few months, all hon. Members will have been shocked by, for example, the details of the investigation by The Guardian into the fishing industry. There were stories of men trafficked from Burma and Cambodia, forced to work 20 hours a day for no pay fishing for prawns for shops in the US and Europe, and also for British supermarkets. One rescued worker, Vuthy, a former Cambodian monk, said:

“I thought I was going to die. They kept me chained up, they didn’t care about me or give me any food… They sold us like animals, but we are not animals—we are human beings.”

Another said that he had seen as many as 20 fellow slaves killed in front of him, one of whom was tied limb by limb to the bows of four boats and pulled apart at sea. All Members will be horrified by such stories, but it is even more horrifying if that slavery, abuse and murder could be linked in any way with the goods that end up on shelves in our supermarkets. That is why we believe that the Bill should go further.

According to polls, 82% of the UK public want legislation on the matter. The charity sector is equally clear and the Joint Committee supported action. So, too, did the businesses that gave evidence to the Committee. Marks and Spencer said that legislation could play an important role. Amazon, IKEA, Primark, Tesco and Sainsbury all gave evidence and said that they could support legislation. Many businesses have said that they do not want to be undercut by unscrupulous employers.

That is why the idea of a voluntary agreement simply does not go far enough. The Ethical Trading Initiative and its 80 corporate members that are campaigning for legislative measures in the Bill are right to do so. Perhaps the Home Secretary will let the Prime Minister know that the Opposition will table amendments on that. I hope she can persuade him that the House should be able to support that action, which so many businesses support. It will allow them and all of us to be ethical, and to recognise how far the problem stretches—it stretches not just across this country, but across the world.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

There will be support from Government Members for the supply chain proposal. Those of us who defend a free market do not want the competitive distortion of those who are undercutting legitimate businesses through the abuse of their employees.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right on that. That is why so many businesses and major retailers are supporting that proposal. They recognise not only that it is morally right, but that it is very hard for them to identify abuse among their competitors, and to identify when they are being undercut by something that is so immoral and criminal throughout the world.

I believe we can build a consensus in the country and in Parliament. We have rarely seen a Bill that has such overwhelming support from Members on both sides of the House. Let us be clear that we will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill passes within the limited parliamentary time available, but we will also push for it to go further, so that we can make a real difference in wiping out the horrendous practice of trafficking and enslaving men, women and children in this country.

Almost 230 years ago, a milkmaid from Bristol, Ann Yearsley, had her poem on slavery published. It tells of the anguish and woe of a woman taken away from her home country and sold into slavery. It talks of debasement and degradation. Parliament was slow to respond, and it was another 45 years after Ann’s poem was published before Parliament introduced the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. The Home Secretary rightly spoke of the rare moment of consensus. We need to seize that. We have legislation before us, and we need to build on it. We need to seize the moment with the legislation and make it go as far as we possibly can. Let us push to get those further improvements and safeguards, because we know that, in the end, it is about stopping evil people committing terrible crimes; ending the enslavement, abuse and degradation of modern-day slavery; and giving everybody the liberty and freedom that they should have a right to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

We are taking a number of steps, because my hon. Friend is right that digital technology makes the police more effective, not just by giving them access to information out on the street so they can make better decisions, but by enabling them to stay out on the streets and not have to return to the station. I mentioned the innovation fund earlier. Over £11 million of its first £20 million was allocated to IT projects that give police precisely the sort of technology they need to keep crime coming down.

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

First, may I welcome the Home Secretary’s words about her visit and about the terrible loss of young lives in the middle east, and also her tribute to Bob Jones, who, as she knows, was a very kind and thoughtful man as well as a great public servant, and is a friend who will be missed by very many of us?

May I also join the counter-terrorism Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), in remembering the 52 people who were killed on 7 July 2005 and pay tribute to their families and also the 770 people injured that day? That is why the whole House and the whole country recognises the continued need for vigilance against terrorism and those who want to kill, maim or divide us.

The Home Secretary will shortly outline her response to calls for action against historical child abuse, but let me ask her about the child protection system today. Since she changed the law, there has been a 75% drop in the number of people barred from working with children even though the number of offences against children has gone up. Why has it fallen so much, and is she worried about that?

[Mrs May]

There has, indeed, been a fall in the number of people who are automatically barred from working with children. That fall has taken place since 2010 because we did change the system: I think we restored some common sense to the barring regime, because the scheme is now focused on groups of people who work closely with children or other vulnerable groups. Unless they have committed the most serious offences, we no longer bar people who do not work with those groups, such as lorry drivers or bar staff. They were barred under the old scheme, and I do not think those bars did anything to help keep children safe, but anyone working closely with children is still barred and that is the important point.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have listened to the Home Secretary’s response and I have to say I find it very troubling. What is to stop a lorry driver who is convicted of a very serious offence applying to work with children or becoming a volunteer in the future? The figures show the numbers who have been barred have dropped from 11,000 to 2,600. That means there are people who have been convicted of sexually assaulting a child, possessing or distributing abusive images of children, grooming or trafficking who are not being barred from working with children in future, and there has also been a serious drop in the number of those who are barred on the basis of intelligence about grooming even where convictions have not been secured. I really would urge her to look again at this because I am concerned that this system is exposing children to risk.

[Mrs May]

We all want to ensure that the system we have makes sure that those who will be a risk to children are not able to work with children, but I repeat the point I made in response to the right hon. Lady’s first question: under the previous scheme a large number of people found themselves automatically barred who were not directly working with children and were not working closely with children. The new scheme that we have has, in fact, barred some people who would not have been barred under the old scheme. The Disclosure and Barring Service can now pick up and consider serious offences by those who apply for criminal records checks to work with children and those in the new update service, so I say to her that the scheme we have introduced does actually mean some who would not have been barred under the previous scheme are today barred from working with children.

Child Abuse

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Child abuse is a terrible, devastating crime that traumatises children when they are at their most vulnerable and ruins lives. Perpetrators need to be stopped and brought to justice. Too often, the system has failed young victims, not hearing or believing them when they cried out for help, and failing to protect them from those who sought to harm them. There have been particularly troubling cases of abuse involving powerful people and celebrities, and the failure of institutions to act. As Members in all parts of the House and from all parties have made clear, when allegations go to the heart of Whitehall or Westminster, it is even more important to demonstrate that strong action will be taken to find out the truth and get justice for the victims.

The Home Secretary is right to announce today that she has changed her position on and response to child abuse, but I want to press her on the detail. We need three things: justice and support for victims; the truth about what happened and how the Home Office and others responded; and stronger child protection and reforms for the future. First, any allegation that a child was abused, even decades ago, must be thoroughly investigated by the police. Will she tell us whether all the allegations uncovered or put forward in any of these investigations will be covered by Operation Fernbridge? Will the files that she said had been passed to the police go to Operation Fernbridge? We understand that it has only seven full-time officers working on it. Does she think that they have the resources and investigators they need? She referred to the importance of prosecutions when there have been child sexual offences. She will know that prosecutions have dropped in recent years. Does she believe that that is cause for concern, when recorded offences have increased?

Secondly, we need to know what happened when the allegations were first made decades ago. The Home Secretary will know that former Cabinet Ministers have said that there may have been a cover-up. The previous response from the Home Office was not adequate; the 2013 review to which she referred was not announced to Parliament, did not reveal that more than 100 files had gone missing, and has never been published. Will she tell the House whether she or other Ministers saw that review, and whether they were told about the missing files?

I welcome the involvement of Peter Wanless, who is well respected, but will the Home Secretary clarify whether this is simply a review of a review, or whether it will look again at the original material? Will this review have the power to call for further information, range more widely, and interview witnesses if necessary? She talked about publication of the review; does she mean the original 2013 review, the new review, or both? It would be very helpful to have transparency.

Thirdly, as the Home Secretary will know, I raised the issue of the need for an overarching inquiry directly with her in Parliament 18 months ago, when she made a statement about abuse in care homes in north Wales. She and the Prime Minister rejected the need for such an inquiry at the time, but I welcome her agreement to it now. There is currently a range of reviews and investigations in care homes, the BBC, the NHS and now in the Home Office. Also, more recently, there is an inquiry into events in Rochdale and Rotherham. At their heart, they all have a similar problem: child victims were not listened to, heard or protected, and too many institutions let children down. Reform of those individual institutions must not be delayed, but isolated reforms are not enough. An inquiry needs to draw together the full picture to look at the institutional failures of the past and to examine the child protection systems that we have in place that may continue to fail children today. An inquiry must also be able to take evidence from the public, in public, as the Hillsborough review was able to do. I welcome her comments on that and her decision to keep under review whether an inquiry has the powers it needs and whether a public inquiry is needed.

An inquiry must also cover the child protection system in operation today. The Home Secretary’s answer in Question Time to my question on the 75% drop in the number of criminals barred from working with children suggests that the Home Office is still too complacent in that area. I urge her to include the vetting and barring system and the current child protection system in the overarching review. It is important that we do not have systems in place that store up future child protection problems.

The cases that have emerged involving child abuse and sexual assaults by high-profile, powerful people and celebrities have been deeply disturbing, as has the failure of the system to stop them and to protect children and young people today. Previously, the Home Office had not done enough to respond, but I welcome the further steps that the Home Secretary has announced today. She will understand that that is why we seek assurances that the investigations will now be strong enough. She and I will agree that we need justice for victims, the truth about what happened and a stronger system of child protection for the future. People need to have confidence that the process will deliver justice for past victims and protect children in the future.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady shares my concern to ensure that we have proper safeguards and protection for children in the future and that not only are lessons learned but that action is taken as a result of those lessons being learned following the various reviews into both historical and more recent cases of child sexual exploitation.

The right hon. Lady asked whether all the matters that are felt to be for the police to investigate will be matters for Operation Fernbridge. Actually, a number of investigations are taking place across the country into historical cases of child abuse; it is not appropriate that all those investigations will be in relation to Operation Fernbridge. The National Crime Agency, for example, is leading on Operation Pallial, which is the investigation into potential sexual abuse in children’s care homes in north Wales, and other investigations are taking place elsewhere. All allegations do not necessarily go to a single force; they go to whichever force is the most appropriate to deal with the particular cases and to ensure that people can be brought to justice.

The right hon. Lady asked about the number of prosecutions and offences, which is a matter that is most properly for my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, but she will have noticed that he is on the Treasury Bench and has noted her comments.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims answered a parliamentary question in 2013—in October 2013, I think—in which reference was made to the missing 114 files.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked what I had seen as Home Secretary. I saw the executive summary of both the interim report and the final report commissioned by Mark Sedwill. I did not see the full report for very good reason: the matters that lay behind the report were allegations that senior Members of Parliament—and, in particular, senior Conservative Members of Parliament —may have been involved in those activities. I therefore thought that it was absolutely right and proper that the commissioning of the investigation and the work that was done should be led by the permanent secretary at the Home Office, not by a Conservative politician.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of questions about lessons learnt. Some of those lessons are already being acted on. As I mentioned, the national group that my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention is leading has already brought forward proposals on how the police and prosecutors could better handle these matters, and it will continue with its work. That will of course feed into the work of the wider inquiry panel that I am setting up. I want it to look widely at the question of the protection of children. I want it to ensure that we can be confident that in future people will not look back to today and say, “If only they had introduced this measure or that measure.” We must ensure that the lessons that come out of the various reviews that are taking place are not only properly learned, but acted on.

Passport Applications

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House expresses concern at the experience of constituents applying for passports at HM Passport Office, including lengthy delays and consequential cancellations of holidays and business visits; notes the Government’s response to the Urgent Question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford of 12 June 2014, setting out emergency measures to deal with the passport backlog after an increase in demand; further notes that HM Passport Office is taking over responsibility for issuing an estimated 350,000 passports to citizens overseas from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this year; believes that the Government failed to properly plan to meet the level of demand this year; calls on the Government to expand its emergency measures by compensating passport applicants who had to pay for urgent upgrades in recent weeks because of internal delays with HM Passport Office; and further calls for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish monthly figures for passport applications from within the UK and abroad compared to previous years to monitor performance at HM Passport Office.

The Opposition have called this debate because we are still not getting answers about what is happening to get people the passports and travel documents they need. In answer to a question earlier, the Prime Minister suggested that the Home Secretary might have more to announce today. I hope that that is the case, because the action taken so far is clearly not enough. It is disappointing that we get answers and action only when the Home Secretary is called to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to make further progress.

Since we last heard from the Home Secretary, MPs have had yet more constituents get in touch to raise their concerns and problems.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Will the shadow Home Secretary join me in wishing well my constituent, Jordan Frapwell, at the European triathlon championships in Austria, and extend her thanks to the Passport Office for making sure that he could get there in time to compete?

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent all the best, and I am glad that he got his passport in time. I also hope that he did not face undue stress over any delays. Other hon. Members have constituents who have been attending international sporting competitions and have had to drive halfway across the country to Durham the night before they were due to fly out to make sure that they had their passport on time.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

About 23 minutes ago, yet another constituent contacted me with the problem of a delayed passport—that makes almost 30 cases I have had since this episode started. That constituent may benefit from the free upgrading service announced by the Secretary of State last week, but I had an e-mail this morning from another constituent who has spent a total of £176.50 on upgrading passport applications for herself and her children because their passports were delayed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such people should get a refund?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and that is one of the purposes of the motion today. We hope that the Government will give way on this and do more to help those who through no fault of their own have had to pay out in order to meet deadlines.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the case of my 94-year-old constituent. She was going on a cruise—her first holiday for 20 years—and we managed to get her passport, thankfully, the day before she was due to travel, but she had to pay an extra £55. Her daughter told the Daily Mail:

“They’re holding people to ransom. It’s disgusting”.

The family had to pay the money, because otherwise their relative would not have been able to go on holiday, but why should she have had to pay when she applied in good time for her passport?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. So many people have worked hard to save up for holidays, for months and sometimes years, and they do not want those precious holidays that they have been looking forward to put at risk. That is why they have been forking out, but it simply is not fair on people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that at yesterday’s meeting of the Home Affairs Committee the PCS refused to rule out strike action? Does she agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that it would do nothing to enhance the reputation of the PCS if it strikes while hard-working taxpayers are waiting for passports for their holidays or to go on business?

[Yvette Cooper]

Of course we do not want to see strike action—nobody does—but we do want to see action by the Home Secretary to make sure that people get their passports on time and have not had to fork out in the process.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I was very interested to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is no longer in his place. I have received an e-mail from a constituent whose son applied for a passport in March to go to Austria at the end of this month as part of achieving his explorer badge with the Scouts. Does my right hon. Friend hope that my constituent is able to get his passport like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent did?

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly do. March is three months ago, and people should get their passports within three weeks, according to the Government’s targets. That simply is not happening.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I have also had constituents contact me with concerns, and in most cases those have been sorted out, but in addition I am being contacted by constituents before the target time has been exceeded. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that perhaps people are unnecessarily getting the message that they should be anxious about their passport applications?

[Yvette Cooper]

The unfortunate thing is that the message on the Government’s websites and helplines still says that passports will be processed within three weeks. Families are making decisions on that basis: they think it will be done within three weeks and then it is not. It can be delayed by many weeks, and that is a huge problem, because they have made plans and invested in booking holidays.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that staff in places such as Liverpool passport office are doing their best with the backlog, and that this is a systemic failure on the part of the Government and not the fault of people who have been put in an intolerable position by staff cuts?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. We understand that staff are working long hours, including weekends, but people are still not getting their passports in time.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend think that my constituent should be refunded? She was standing in the queue at Newport passport office being asked to part with £55 for the privilege of getting her delayed passport at the very moment that the Home Secretary was on her feet last week saying that charges would be waived from the following Monday. Should she not have that £55 refunded, as well as a letter of apology, perhaps?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It is unfair on British citizens across the country who have been asked to pay more money in order that they can go on holiday simply because of the Home Office’s incompetence. Carla McGillivary and Dean Anderson applied for a passport for Dean more than six weeks ago. He cannot get an urgent upgrade because his is a first-time adult application. They paid for their holiday to Portugal out of Carla’s redundancy pay. Her new job is a zero-hours contract, so she does not know when she will be able to book a holiday again. They have been looking forward to this holiday, even arranging for their son to go swimming with dolphins. They fear now that they will have to cancel their holiday or risk losing all the money—they are supposed to pay the remainder of the deposit today. They have not got Dean’s passport and they do not know when it will arrive. Carla said:

“This is our first family holiday. I have no idea when we will be able to go on holiday again. I just don’t know what to do.”

One family had to leave their young son behind with his grandparents, because his passport did not come in time. One man missed his brother’s wedding in Greece because his passport did not come in time, despite his applying weeks in advance. People have saved up, worked hard and looked forward to a precious holiday for months. People have weddings, funerals, family events abroad, business trips, conferences, meetings and deals to make. Some people who are living abroad are keen to come home or just want to make sure that their visas are still valid.

Today we need to know whether the Home Secretary yet has control of the problem, whether she knows when things will be back to normal and whether she understands what went wrong in the first place. We also want to debate the new policies that she has announced. Are they working and are they enough to solve the problem? So far we have had little reassurance that the Home Secretary has been on top of the problem. Just last week she and the Minister for Security and Immigration were saying that there was no backlog. Now we know that it is hundreds of thousands. Last week the Home Secretary said how pleased she was that the Passport Office was meeting the service standards and that 99% of passports were being sent out within four weeks. Yesterday we learnt from the Passport Office chief executive that tens of thousands of passports every week are missing those service standards.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I did some quick calculations on the cases in my office at the moment, and the average wait is eight weeks.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that people are facing long waits. The Home Office simply does not seem to know what is going on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Immigration Minister, has asked countless questions to try to get to the facts of what is happening. A typical answer from the Minister reads, “The Home Office has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.” The Home Office cannot even answer questions, never mind get people’s passports to them on time.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The Home Office does not seem to understand the financial realities for people affected by this situation. One of my constituents is stuck out in Saudi Arabia. His work has ended but he cannot return to the UK. He is broke, but the Home Office does not seem to be doing anything urgently about the problem.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why the Home Office should compensate those who have had to pay the extra upgrade fees to get their passports on time.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

We share a concern to make sure that people get their passports as quickly as possible, as I hope everyone would agree. Can the right hon. Lady point me to any line in her motion that would help someone who is currently waiting for their passport? What has she proposed that would help someone, as opposed to putting blame about?

[Yvette Cooper]

We will set out today what we think the Government should be doing. First, they should help the families who have had to pay extra, but the Home Secretary will have to do more to make sure that people get their passports on time.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way one more time and then make a bit more progress.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On the subject of what the Government could and should do, I asked the Home Secretary last week about the wording on the Government’s website on the three-week time. We have already heard the estimates my hon. Friends have made of the cases they have seen. The wording gives every indication that it should take three weeks—no more, no less. Is it not that that is causing the problem? What does my right hon. Friend think the Government should do right now to help people?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. People rely on the advice they are given on the website and via the helpline. When they go to the post office to do the check and send they are given information, but they have had no response or further information from the Home Office to tell them that something is going wrong. They make plans accordingly, and as a result they suddenly find themselves in the lurch.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will make a little more progress and then come back to my hon. Friends.

We do not even know whether the Home Secretary has got to the bottom of why she is in this mess in the first place. Why was the increase in passport applications such a surprise to the Government? Ministers tell us that demand is up by 300,000 compared to last year, and the Passport Office chief executive said it may be 500,000 higher over the course of the year. Why were they so surprised by that? Last year already saw a big increase, with applications going up by 400,000 compared to the year before. Was it really beyond the wit of the Home Office to ensure that it had plans in place in case the number went up again, especially when Ministers’ own decisions were pushing up demand?

The Home Secretary agreed to close the international offices and bring passport applications for overseas residents back home this year. She did not make sure there was enough capacity to cope. According to the Passport Office chief executive, that decision alone has led to an increase of 400,000 more applications to the Passport Office this year. Those cases have seen some of the longest delays of all. It used to take 15 days to sort those passports out—that is what it says in the Foreign Office annual report—but now some of those families are being told it could take nine or 10 weeks. That is affecting everyone else’s applications, too. This is what one mother from Liverpool was told when she tried to chase her son’s passport application. She said:

“I called the Liverpool office again. A lady said they were much busier than normal as they are now processing passports for all over the world not just for the UK and passports are taking 6 to 8 weeks to process.”

[Nicola Blackwood]

The right hon. Lady is very generous, but I fear she has misunderstood the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee heard from the chief executive of the Passport Office. He was very clear that the increase in demand was not solely from processing foreign applications but from a whole range of sources, and that it was conducting a review to find out exactly what they were. Foreign applications were not the reason why it was experiencing an increase in demand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Does not the hon. Lady have some concern that neither the Home Secretary nor the chief executive of the Passport Office have been able to break down the increase in demand? They simply have not told us how much is due to the increase in foreign residents’ applications, which we know is taking place as a result of their policy decisions, and how much is increased demand from British residents. She simply has not given us those facts.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Whatever Mr Pugh said yesterday, let me read what he put in his annual report only a year ago. He said, on the transfer of work in 2014, that

“IPS will be providing passport services for approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually.”

That is the increase in demand that he predicted.

[Yvette Cooper]

Exactly. We know there has been a substantial increase as a result of foreign residents applying for their British passports to be renewed, or applying for new passports for their children. Those who are living abroad are often the most complex cases, yet it is clear that the Home Secretary has not put in place the capacity to cope.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend might be aware that yesterday the Home Affairs Committee spoke to the gentleman representing the union. He said that the unions and the people working in the Passport Office had told the management there were a lot of applications and that the cuts in numbers were not helping. This matter was raised with the management on many occasions.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. I know she raised that point in the Committee’s evidence session yesterday. People have made it very clear, including the very nice lady who spoke to a constituent at the Liverpool office, that it is having an impact, because they are having to process so many more foreign applications. That was a decision taken by the Government, by Ministers, and yet they failed to put the additional capacity they needed in place.

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

Does the right hon. Lady not agree that the UK has a very cumbersome process for passport applications? A constituent of mine in Hong Kong applied months ago for a passport for her new baby son, but after months of delay with not much happening she has now decided to apply for a Canadian passport for her son, as the father is Canadian. She is choosing Canadian citizenship for their child over being a British subject because the passport will be given solely on the basis of the father’s birth certificate, as opposed to sending passports away to a passport office in another country. The passport application process is done far more easily in Canada in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost. Is there not something the UK can learn from places like Canada?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it used to be done in a fraction of the time. The British Passport Office used to be able to process passports much more rapidly. The international centres used to be able to process passports within 15 days, but they are not doing so now because of decisions Ministers have taken.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will make a little progress and then give way. Actually, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), because she has been waiting for a long time.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

The majority of the delays I have seen have been for parents with very small children and babies. They have been very distressed. The problem is not just the delay in itself. As she said, my constituent, Mr Martin Griffin, had to drive up to Durham, after paying extra money, the night before the holiday. He talked about days and weeks of distress and very poor contradictory advice, with different things being told to them every day. While his wife was trying to care for their little baby son, they were very anxious about their holiday. Day in, day out they were told different things. There is no excuse for the delay, but there is no excuse for all that confusion either.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It is clear that a lot of the cases being raised are where there are long delays for families applying for their child’s first passport. Those applications should be relatively straightforward, but families are facing very long delays and that is jeopardising family holidays.

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

Is not the fundamental issue a complete lack of confidence in what the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister are saying? Two constituents contacted me on Twitter yesterday to say that promised emergency travel documents were still out of reach and that the embassy in Qatar was clueless on how to issue them. They have newborns still stuck here. What seems to be consistent is that they are hearing one message from the Home Secretary, but when they try to deal with the system, it does not follow through.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is a very important point and I will come on to some of the problems with the emergency measures the Home Secretary has introduced, because it is clear that they are not yet working.

The problem is that the Home Office simply did not listen to the warnings. Why did the Home Secretary not act in January when the Passport Office says it first realised there was a problem? Why did she not act in February when applications kept going up? My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the shadow Immigration Minister, wrote to the Immigration Minister in March, three months ago, to warn him about the problem. Why did she not act then? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary sits on the Front Bench and says that she did act. How come so many people are still waiting so long for their passports, when they have paid so much extra to get them on time? Why did the Home Secretary not do enough in April, when more and more MPs’ complaints started coming in? Why did she not act in May, when diplomats warned her the system was not working? Why, even in June, did she spend days denying there was a backlog, denying there was a problem and boasting about meeting all the targets?

The Prime Minister claimed last week that the Home Office has been on it since January. On what? It certainly was not on it even last week. The Home Secretary did not have her eye on the ball. She was too busy dealing with the Education Secretary’s hissy fits and too busy blaming everyone else. She said last week it was the seasonal upsurge. How British—it really must be the weather to blame! She then said that the problem was an unprecedented increase in demand—the Home Secretary blames the passport crisis on people wanting passports. The Prime Minister blamed identity cards. Conservative Back Benchers even claimed it was a crisis manufactured by the Opposition. With this Home Secretary, it is always someone else’s fault. She blames the weather, the holidaymakers, the economy, the Labour party, the civil service and even the Education Secretary—we will join her in that, but round in circles they go. We have known for some time that the Government are not going anywhere, but now no one else is going anywhere.

When will the crisis be over? Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary said that 98% of targets were being met. This week, the Passport Office chief executive said that 90% were being met. It is getting worse, not better. How many months will it take to have the system back on track? What difference will the new measures make now? The Home Secretary has said that there will be 250 extra staff. It is clear from the Passport Office chief executive that many of them are still being trained. In addition, they are coming from other parts of the Home Office, including borders. Just as this is a busy time for the Passport Office, it is an increasingly busy time at our borders. We know that customs checks are not being done, so what else is being put at risk? Is the Home Secretary confident that she now has enough staff in place to clear the backlog? If she has enough, surely she can give us a timetable on when applications and processing will be back to normal, and when families can be reassured that they will not face delays.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that many of the staff in Liverpool are constituents of mine. They are extremely concerned at the lack of urgency that she has very well described. Does she agree that the Passport Office refusal to meet the trade union after repeated requests demonstrates what a fiasco this is, and how badly the problem has been approached? The union is attempting to help resolve the issue. Surely that offer of help should have been taken at the earliest opportunity.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope the management and work force can work together. It is helpful that the union has shown support to sort the problem out and get things done in time.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee was very surprised when we heard that the amount of work in progress was 493,000, because we have not yet reached the peak of the application period. However, we were even more surprised when no timetable was given. The chief executive said it would be done in a reasonable time. When we asked him what a reasonable time was, he said, “How long is a piece of string?” We need a timetable to get work in progress quickly.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Affairs Committee work in taking evidence has been important, because my right hon. Friend is exactly right that we need a time scale. We need to know how long this piece of string is. Is it a short piece of string or a long one? Are we talking about a few weeks or a few months, or about this time next year? People who have holidays in September or business trips in October need to know how far in advance they should plan and whether they should be worried. Ministers are not giving us answers on how long it will take.

The Home Secretary has said that there will be 650 extra staff on the telephone helpline, which means more extra staff for the helpline than for clearing passports. How much does she think that will help? Currently, most people’s experience of the helpline is that people take messages and promise that someone else will call back. The person who is supposed to call back does not do so, and the people on the helpline do not know the answers.

That system is doing people’s heads in. We heard from Ria Runsewe and her family in Bromley. On 5 May, they applied for a passport for their 10-week-old son, and then heard nothing. She said:

“I called the helpline to check its progress…I was told someone would call me back within 48 hours, but I missed the call while I was changing my son’s nappy. Ten minutes later, I called back—only to be told that I had gone to the bottom of the queue and would have to wait another 48 hours.”

She eventually got through to someone and asked to upgrade to the premium service, and spent two more weeks chasing before someone else called her back to take payment and promise that the passport would be there the following day.

Another family gave us this account of their conversation on the helpline. Passport Office: “We can’t guarantee when your passport will be sent or when you will receive it.” Me: “What can I do?” Him: “You can’t do anything?” Me: “Can’t I pay to upgrade?” Him: “We can’t talk about that. You have to ring another number.” Me: “But that is your number.” Him: “We can’t talk about it until you mention it.” Me: “Okay. I’m mentioning it, and, in fact, I can categorically say I want it.” Him: “We can’t guarantee that they will do anything and they may not respond to you, but you can apply again for an urgent upgrade after that, and you may be lucky that time.” That is not even Kafkaesque; it is Monty Python. We do not need a system that simply has more staff to take messages. We need staff in place to clear passports and ensure that constituents throughout the country are told what is going on.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have just had an e-mail from Michelle Morris, a member of my staff who has been waiting for three days to hear back from the helpline about her case. She has had a phone call in which she was told that the case is too complicated. She was due to leave today from Gatwick with her son. The travel agents have rescheduled the flight for Friday. The question is whether the helpline will ring back to tell us that the passport will be sorted out by then.

[Yvette Cooper]

I hope my hon. Friend’s member of staff gets answers. In too many cases, people simply do not get a reply or a response.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

We have been listening to the debate for about half an hour and, so far, unless I am mistaken, I have heard not one solution from the right hon. Lady. Can she tell us what the Labour Government learned from the 1999 debacle? Can she provide advice on how to put the current situation right?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Conservatives have been in government for four years. They cannot simply blame history to explain why things have gone wrong this time.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that there is a Welsh language helpline. However, Sian Burton, my constituent, applying for a passport for her son, called the Welsh language helpline repeatedly over several days and never managed to get through to an adviser. She was eventually put through to an English-speaking adviser. She speaks English and so eventually collected the passport from Liverpool. She told me that staff in the Liverpool office were friendly and helpful, but clearly under very great stress. She is going on holiday this afternoon—she is flying now.

[Yvette Cooper]

I wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent a good holiday after the stress she has endured.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

We are talking about people who are unable to go on their holidays, but my constituents are stuck in India with their newborn babies, unable to get home. They get no response from the helplines. In fact, their passports would have been issued by the Hong Kong office had it been open. They are desperate, running out of money and stuck in a hot hotel room in India.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point on some of the difficult cases and long delays faced by British citizens overseas, not least as a result of the decisions that the Home Secretary has taken. I, too, have constituents who are abroad who are waiting for passports to be returned because they depend on having up-to-date papers to meet their visa conditions. They are worried that they will be penalised in the country where they are resident because their papers will not be valid unless they get their passports back in time.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My case is like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). My constituent lives in Stockport, but his wife and their son are stuck in Mumbai. The baby was born on 18 January. They still do not have a passport or a resolution. The hotline advice was for them to travel from Mumbai to Delhi. Of course, they cannot do so because they do not have a travel document for the baby. What kind of advice is that?

[Yvette Cooper]

These are the kinds of difficulties faced by British citizens across the world, many of them working hard in jobs abroad, including families who want to return home, but are unable to get the papers they need to return with their young children.

The Home Secretary outlined some measures to deal with British residents overseas. They are belated, but she has announced some measures to respond and we welcome that. However, there are still questions about those measures. She has said, for example, that British citizens overseas can now simply extend their existing passports and that children abroad can get emergency travel documents. However, people who have applied and are already in the system have been told that if they want to do that, they will have to withdraw their existing application, that that might take two weeks and that they will have to wait for their existing papers to be returned before they can apply for the emergency provisions and emergency travel papers instead.

[Robert Flello]

My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in taking interventions. I have a constituent in Abu Dhabi waiting for children’s visas who is being charged on a daily basis until the problem is sorted out. Therefore, in addition to waiting, my constituent is also being penalised financially.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that goes to the heart of the problems faced by a lot of families, who are experiencing stress and delay, but also having to pay for it.

The Home Secretary has said that British residents will be able to get a free fast-track upgrade if they are due to travel. Again, that is welcome, but even that is causing problems. One family who drove to Durham told us:

“My husband queried the fee and they said it’s not true about the fee waiver and it was just a rumour.”

Another was told that if they wanted to fast-track, they would have to cancel their existing application and that that would take 14 days. People who submitted their application online are being told that they cannot get a free upgrade. Even for a fast track, people have to make an appointment. One family were told that the only appointment in the next three weeks was in Durham.

According to the helpline today, the soonest that anyone can get an appointment anywhere in the country is Friday in Durham or Sunday in London, and even then it could take them an extra week to get their passport. Anyone who wants the premium service—to get their passport the next day, because they are about to travel urgently—will still have to pay. According to the Home Secretary, only the fast-track upgrade is free, not the premium service, despite the fact that some people applied for their passports many weeks ago and are now right up against the line.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Did she notice a Monty Python-esque moment in the Home Affairs Committee yesterday? It was very similar to the salesman’s explanation that the parrot was not dead, but was very deeply asleep. When the chief executive was asked about the logjam, he said there was no logjam. When he was shown published photographs of rooms of chairs and tables filled with passport applications, he said, “That’s not a logjam; that’s work in progress.” It was pure Monty Python.

[Yvette Cooper]

We have heard that point made by Ministers, the Home Office press office and officials—“Backlog? No backlog.” Yet that is not the experience of families across the country.

What about those who have paid already, one of the key issues in our motion? Martin Cook from Ipswich, who applied many weeks ago, before the three-week deadline, has now had to pay £65 to upgrade, so that he and his wife can go on a romantic break to Prague. Audrey Strong’s 94-year-old mother—whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)mentioned—has paid the extra to upgrade so that she can go on her cruise. She feels like she is being held to ransom. After weeks of delay, Anne Dannerolle from Hull paid for the upgrade to next-day delivery. Her passport still did not come and she had to drive a 200-mile round trip just hours before her flight. Roy Pattison, a security guard from Worcester, applied seven weeks ago, before his holiday to Turkey. Finally, on Friday he paid to upgrade to the fast-track service, but his passport still did not arrive on time.

The Passport Office has made money out of those families. Too early to get the Home Secretary’s fast-track offer, but too late to wait any longer before they travel, they have been forced to pay out. I therefore urge the Home Secretary to agree today that those families who have already had to pay out because of her delays should also be refunded the cost of their fast-track service.

We still do not know when things will be back to normal. Families still do not know how long they can expect to wait. We still do not know whether the Home Office has a grip, but families want answers now. We want to know when things will be back to normal. The Home Secretary should look again at the system for processing overseas passports, because it is not working. She should look again at the staffing, to ensure that she has enough staff in place to get the backlog down fast. She should look again at other measures to get through the summer, such as more support for check and send to reduce errors at this difficult time. She should look again at the fast-track and premium services, because they do not seem to be working well enough. She should also look again at compensating people who have paid extra fees through no fault of their own.

Would it be too much to ask for a little bit of humility from the Home Secretary when she stands up today, given the holidays she has put at risk? Yesterday the chief executive of the Passport Office gave an apology; last week the Prime Minister gave an apology; so can we have an apology from the Home Secretary, as the Minister in charge of it all? Why doesn’t she begin her speech with that apology to those families now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I absolutely recognise that some people have been suffering delays and have not received their passports within the three weeks. I say to the hon. Lady and to her right hon. and hon. Friends that it is important that people out there who are applying for their passports understand what the situation is—and the situation remains that, thanks to the very hard work of Passport Office staff in passport offices up and down the country, the vast majority of people are getting their passports within three weeks. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has spoken about an individual case, and other Members are raising individual cases, too. I understand why they are doing so, and I shall explain later how we hope to enhance our ability to deal with MPs’ queries on these matters and, as far as possible, to ensure that people are able to travel when they have booked their travel, and that they are able to get their passports in time.

[Yvette Cooper]

I noticed that the Home Secretary said that the proportion of straightforward applications being processed on time had dropped from 97% previously to 89% over the last couple of weeks, so the situation is getting worse. Will she clarify exactly what she means by “a straightforward application” and what proportion of passport applications are not “straightforward”?

[Mrs May]

The vast majority of applications are straightforward: renewal or replacement applications for which the forms have been properly completed and all the required documents are available. Those applications are processed more easily than first-time applications because the individual has all the information that they need to provide. It is the case that first-time applications take longer than three weeks, and we have always been clear, as the Passport Office has always been clear, that first-time applications take longer because, of course, an interview is needed. That is part of the security that was introduced for passports, and I think we were absolutely right to introduce it. I shall see if I can get a precise figure for the right hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

There are a number of issues that I shall address later in my speech, but let me say this to the hon. Lady. We want a passport system that ensures that people can apply for their passports and receive them within a reasonable time. The majority of those whose applications are straightforward are receiving their passports within the time scale that has been set, but when we deal with passport applications, it is important for us to carry out the necessary checks. Sometimes information will not have been submitted, or someone will not have filled in the form correctly, and it will be necessary to contact the person again. That means that delivering the passport will take longer.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said a few moments ago that 3.3 million passport applications had been received, as opposed to 2.95 million last year. One would expect foreign residents to account for at least half that increase, as a result of her decision to close the international centres. Can she tell us what proportion of the increase in demand is due to overseas applications, and what proportion is due to applications from domestic residents?

[Mrs May]

I shall come to the figures relating to the number of foreign applications, and to the issues that have been raised about whether this is all due to overseas applications, which it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. When I was at the passport office in Peterborough, staff told me that a number of people, on hearing the publicity, had been contacting them about what was happening. These were people who would be getting their passports within the time frame, but their anxieties had been raised by what they had been hearing about the Passport Office. As I said, we must be clear that while some people have not been getting their passports within the normal time frame and while some people have been having difficulties in relation to their travel—we have been taking steps to alleviate that, as I announced last week—the vast majority are still receiving their passports within the three-week period. It is important that we provide that reassurance to people.

Before I deal with some of the Opposition’s claims about what is behind the surge in demand for passport applications, I should emphasise that it is clear that HMPO’s modelling failed, and we will need to address that. Likewise, there will undoubtedly be measures that we will need to take to improve the productivity and efficiency of the organisation in future. I have already said that I am considering removing HMPO’s agency status so that it can be made directly accountable to Ministers. I want to correct some of the claims that have been made in the past week or so. First, it is not true that this happened as a direct result of the decision to move the processing of overseas passport applications to the UK. HMPO and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimated that demand for overseas passport applications would be between 350,000 and 400,000 per year. Coincidentally, the surge in demand for passports represents about 350,000 more applications than last year. The vast majority of the surge is caused by domestic applications.

Secondly, it is not true that the delay in processing applications was caused by staff reductions. In fact, over the past couple of years, staff numbers in HMPO have risen, not fallen. On 31 March this year, HMPO had 3,444 full-time equivalent staff, up from 3,260 in 2013 and 3,104 in 2012.

[Yvette Cooper]

Of the 350,000 to 400,000 additional passports applied for in the past six months, what proportion is from overseas residents?

[Mrs May]

I will get the exact figure checked and give it to the right hon. Lady.

The Opposition have repeatedly compared current staffing levels with those in 2010 but, as they well know, HMPO was not just a passport office in 2010. It was called the Identity and Passport Service because of the previous Government’s plan to maintain an identity database and introduce identity cards. One of the first things this Government did in 2010 was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database. The Opposition know therefore that their comparison with 2010 does not stand up to scrutiny.

Thirdly, it is not true that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am coming close to the end of my speech.

Mark Sedwill will also be reviewing HMPO’s agency status and looking at whether HMPO should be brought back into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.

Passports are important security documents, but they are also the important means by which people live their lives. Likewise, the numbers we have talked about today are not just statistics but people who want to know that they will get their passports in time for their holidays and for other pressing travel plans. As I said, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; she has been very generous. She obviously has not been able to get the precise figure that I asked for before she sits down. I hope that the Minister for Security and Immigration will be able to get that before he stands up. As I understand it, she said that the Passport Office is experiencing 150,000 domestic applications and 9,000 overseas applications. Given the figures that she has also given us about the 2.95 million last year and the 3.3 million this year, those figures suggest that the overseas applications account for at least half the increase in applications that we have seen. Can she say whether that is the case, and will she take one final opportunity to tell us whether she will refund the extra fees that people have paid in order to get their passports on time? They have already paid the fee. Will she refund it?

[Mrs May]

Of the 3.3 million figure, about 6% are overseas applications. That is why I said what I did about the surge that has been coming through.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, a number of people are waiting too long for their passport applications to be processed. To anybody who is unable to travel because of delays caused by HMPO, the Government are sorry. It is important to remember that the vast majority of people—

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I have indicated to the right hon. Lady that I will get her some more precise figures—

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary said that the figure had gone up from 2.95 million to 3.3 million. That is about a 10% increase. She has now said that 6% of that was overseas applications. They were not happening in previous years. Therefore, there has been only a 4% increase in domestic applications. Can she confirm those figures?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady is wrong on that, which is why I suggested that it is perhaps better if I set out the figures to her in writing so that she is absolutely clear about them, rather than trying to make back of the envelope calculations in the Chamber.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of people are still receiving their passports within the expected three weeks, but the Government are putting in place measures to make sure that HMPO can process passport applications without the delays we have seen. HMPO staff are working tirelessly. The pinch points are being addressed, more staff are being trained and brought on board, and the measures I announced to the House last week are being implemented. More passports are being issued, and people who need to travel urgently can have their application fast-tracked without charge if their application has been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks.

We are not going to be able to wish this problem away or fix everything overnight, but the measures that the Government are taking mean that HMPO can get to grips with its work load, meet the demand that it is facing and make sure that the public get the service they deserve. That is why the House should vote against the Opposition’s motion and vote with the Government today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

I will not give way again, because Madam Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress so that other Members can speak.

The passport is a key document. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury gave the important statistic that there were 565,000 documents in 1999. I should like to discuss my experience, because hon. Members will be shocked to discover that I was actually there when the work of the Passport Office was outsourced by the previous Government. In 1998, the Labour Government outsourced me to Siemens Business Services, which wanted to replace my dot-matrix computer with 125 passports on it with some high-falutin’ laser printer based in Manchester. We would examine the passports in Liverpool, and when we pressed “print” on our computers, they would be sent off to Manchester to be printed.

People will be shocked to discover that, during that period, there was complete and utter chaos. The roll-out was so poor that it was actually delayed in all the other passport offices in the United Kingdom. We had spoken to the unions, and to the Ministers involved, and they had been warned for more than 12 months that there would be utter chaos. I left the Passport Office in March 1999, and after it lost my services, there just happened to be a passport crisis that summer. I have no idea why that happened. I was beavering away doing the best I could, and when I left, there were problems.

There were huge problems in 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has mentioned the fact that £12.6 million was paid out. My brother and sister were working in the passport office at the time, and they remember that angry people from all over the country, with their umbrellas, were forming huge queues round the India buildings. They were having to pay out, and it was a huge problem. Every one of those cases was a personal tragedy.

I find it upsetting that some Opposition Members have tried to suggest that the situation today is similar. What has happened over the past few months has been difficult for the individuals involved, but it is nothing like what it was then. I worked there; I experienced it and I can assure every Member that the word “chaos” does not do it justice. Towards the end of 1998, it was so bad that I was paid treble time to work on Sundays, with an extra £10 an hour just to turn up to work. I left university with no debts as a result of that, for which I am grateful to the previous Government. I took advantage of that overtime as much as I could. The reality was, however, that there were huge problems. What the Home Secretary has done over the past few months has resulted in a huge step forward from what I experienced when I was there some years ago.

I would like to put on record my gratitude to the staff in the Passport Office who have helped me and my constituents to get the nine passports that we have contacted the office about over the past few weeks. I give the Passport Office warning now on the Floor of the House that I shall be contacting it in the next few hours about a further three cases, when I have received further details from my constituents, and I hope that they will be processed just as fast.

We have to remember that there are human beings involved, and that the staff who are doing the examining and the printing are all doing the best they can. I was a little disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary saw fit to mock someone who was working on the advice line. I have been in that position myself, and it was very difficult when people were ringing from different countries and I was constantly fielding their concerns. That person will no doubt be disappointed to hear what she said. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her action to try to deal with the situation.

[Yvette Cooper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has sat down. He has run out of time. I am reducing the time limit to five minutes in order to ensure that all Members can speak in the debate. I hope that it will not be necessary to reduce it further, but this is a time-limited debate. I call Mr Geoffrey Robinson.

HM Passport Office

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Passport Office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs May]

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

[Yvette Cooper]

This has been a sorry shambles from a sorry Department and a Home Secretary who cannot even bring herself to say that word. Government incompetence means that people are at risk of missing their holidays, their honeymoons and their business trips. Every MP has been inundated with these cases and it seems that she has not even known what was going on.

There has been a huge turnaround in the things the Home Secretary has to say since two days ago, when we asked her the same questions. On Tuesday, she told us that the Passport Office was meeting all its targets; on Wednesday, she told us that maybe it needed more staff; and today she says that maybe it needs some changes in policy too. On Tuesday, she told us there was no backlog; on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said there was. On Tuesday, she said, “it is not true” that staff numbers have been cut; on Wednesday, her own figures showed that they have been cut by 600; and now she is having to put them back.

On Tuesday, the Home Secretary told us the only problem was rising summer demand, but now we find out that she took over passports for foreign residents from the Foreign Office in April, even though diplomats warned that it was not working. On Tuesday, the Minister for Security and Immigration said that security was not being compromised, and now we find out that on Monday security checks on addresses and counter-signatories were dropped; and Ministers claim that they did not have a clue what was going on. Well, that much is certainly true.

Can the Home Secretary tell us now how bad the situation is, not only for the straightforward cases but for all the other cases, and what she means by “straightforward” cases anyway? How long will it take to get the system back to normal? When all her changes are in place, what can families across Britain expect? When did she first know there was a problem? MPs have been warning about this issue for ages. Why did she not know that those security checks were being dropped? Surely she has spent the past week asking for details about everything that has been going on. Or perhaps she has not, because the truth is that she did not know what was going on. She has come to this late. She has not had her eye on the ball. She has been distracted by other things.

It is really unfair on people who have saved up everything for their holiday, only to see it wrecked by the Home Secretary’s incompetence. Will she now apologise to those facing ruined holidays, business trips or trips back to Britain? Will she get a grip on her Department and sort it out?

[Mrs May]

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

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

Home Affairs

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the service provided is now under a new contract. A greater range of facilities is now available to individuals— for example, the advice phone line.

Of course, one of the key issues in dealing with modern slavery is being able to identify those who have been subject to it or to human trafficking. That is why it is so important to train our Border Force officials to spot people who may have been trafficked when they enter the country, and it is why the national referral mechanism review will crucially look at identification. At the moment we know, in a formal sense, who is referred to the NRM, but we fear that there are many more victims of slavery and/or trafficking, as I said earlier.

Crucially, more arrests and more prosecutions will mean more victims released from slavery, and more prevented from ever entering it in the first place. At the same time, we must improve and enhance protection for victims and give them the support they need to recover from their ordeal. The Modern Slavery Bill—the first of its kind in Europe—will substantially strengthen our powers to tackle this crime. It will do so by doing three things. First, it will ensure that measures are in place so that law enforcement agencies and the judiciary can crack down on offenders and give them the punishments they deserve. Secondly, it will provide vital new policing tools to help prevent further cases of modern slavery. Thirdly, it will ensure that victims receive the protection and support they deserve during the judicial process and in accessing vital victim support services.

Currently, modern slavery and human trafficking offences are spread across a number of different Acts. The Bill fixes that by consolidating and simplifying existing offences in one single piece of legislation, providing much needed clarity and focus and making the law easier to apply. Punishments will now fit the crime, with the maximum sentence available increased to life imprisonment. Slave-drivers and traffickers will have their illicit gains seized and, wherever possible, used to make reparations to victims. A new anti-slavery commissioner will drive an improved and co-ordinated response. The Bill will also introduce a statutory defence for victims who are compelled to commit a crime as a direct consequence of their slavery, alongside other measures to enhance protection and support for victims.

The Bill has benefited considerably from pre-legislative scrutiny and the detailed evidence heard during that process. I am enormously grateful to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and other members of the Committee for their unstinting dedication and I share with them a determination to see an end to modern slavery. We have listened to the Committee’s findings and, where practicable, have put forward proposals to address its key concerns. A detailed response to its work has been published today. However, as I indicated earlier, stamping out modern slavery in Britain will require more than legislation alone. Law enforcement must play a robust and effective role in tracking down, arresting and prosecuting offenders. That is why I have made tackling modern slavery a priority for the National Crime Agency, and at our borders I have established specialist teams to help identify and protect victims being trafficked into the country.

Victims must be at the heart of everything we do, so I have ordered a review of the national referral mechanism, as I indicated in response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). Recognising the particular needs and vulnerabilities of child victims, I am putting in place trials for child advocates. The Bill gives those advocates a statutory basis and the status they need to support and represent the child effectively. We are also encouraging businesses to look at their supply chains and ensure that they are free from trafficking and exploitation.

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

Will the Home Secretary clarify that point about child guardians? Will the Bill include statutory provision to bring in child guardians, or simply the permissive power to do so depending on the trials, the length of which we do not know?

[Mrs May]

The Bill will provide the enabling legislation that we undertook to provide when the Immigration Act 2014 was going through this House, following an amendment made in another place. We are doing it that way because we want to see what the best model is for child advocates; there are differences of opinion over which model will work best. We are therefore including an enabling power to ensure that we adopt the best model when that becomes clear from the trials.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Home Secretary has set out the Bills and measures announced in the Queen’s Speech, including measures on modern slavery and on tackling organised crime and helping, we hope, pay back the profits of crime—which we have called for before—as well as action on female genital mutilation, child neglect and terrorism abroad. All of those measures will have strong cross-party support and I want to address some of them. I also want to talk about what is missing from the Queen’s Speech, because the Home Secretary’s proposals are not sufficient to address some of the challenges that Britain faces for the future.

I will start with the Bill that we welcome most—the Modern Slavery Bill. I pay tribute, as the Home Secretary has done, to the members of the cross-party Joint Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who have argued for changes and improvements to the Bill.

The Home Secretary was right to talk about the torture, rape and persecution of those who see no way out. The gangmasters, traffickers and slave drivers are not just stealing vulnerable people’s money; they are stealing their freedom and stealing their lives. Tougher laws and penalties are needed, and I also hope the Bill will go further in providing more support for victims by making sure they are not punished in the immigration system or sent back to those who sold them in the first place. It also needs to make sure that there are child guardians, which we have been calling for since 2010, because it is chilling that two thirds of children rescued from trafficking in Britain just disappear. They are betrayed by their abusers only to be betrayed for a second time by the authorities, which fail to protect them when their abusers and traffickers steal their lives and freedom all over again.

The Home Secretary also needs to look again at the domestic workers visa and the risks to those forced into domestic slavery, unable to escape. The charity Kalayaan has found that since the Home Secretary changed the visas, 60% of those on the new visa were paid no salary at all, compared with 14% on the original visa. That is slavery, and the evidence suggests that the Home Secretary’s visa reforms have made it worse. We will also press her to support joint action on supply chains, as the Joint Committee has suggested.

I am glad that the Home Secretary is doing more to recover the proceeds of crime. She will know that less has been recovered in recent years. The amount collected by the police and the volume of confiscation orders have fallen, yet we know there is still £1.5 billion-worth of outstanding orders—ill-gotten gains that criminals are still stashing away. We have already called on the Home Secretary to end early release with regard to default sentences where organised criminals refuse to pay, and to stop loopholes whereby criminals transfer assets to families. I hope those measures will be in the Bill.

We welcome further action on organised crime and those aiding and abetting criminals, and we certainly need stronger action against those who are mutilating the bodies of girls and young women. It is a stain on our country that so many young women are at risk and no one has yet been successfully prosecuted.

More action is also needed against online child abuse. We are glad that the Home Secretary is looking at new offences, but what is she doing to reverse the fall in Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre arrests and the drop in the number of chid abusers being caught?

I am also glad that the Home Secretary is looking at terrorist offences overseas, but after all the noise yesterday about the Prevent programme she needs also to recognise that there is a significant gap in her policies on preventing terrorism and extremism. She claimed yesterday that it was okay for the Home Office to narrow the work it does and to stop funding work by communities themselves to prevent extremism, because, she said, the Department for Communities and Local Government is doing that instead—but it is not.

The reality is that neither the Home Secretary nor the Communities Secretary—nor even the Education Secretary—are taking seriously enough the need to work with communities on preventing young people from being seduced into going to Syria. Some of the strongest voices and most effective people in counteracting the ideology of the jihad are those within the communities, in faith groups and friends in social media, yet not enough work is being done with those communities or to give them support. I hope the Home Secretary will make sure that that happens.

[Keith Vaz]

May I endorse what my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has said? In my constituency, 52% of the people are from ethnic minority communities and there are more than 27 mosques, 35 Hindu temples and five gurdwaras in Leicester. It is important to bring communities with us. Of course, a tough strategy is very important. We did not get it absolutely right under the previous Government and Prevent had to be modernised, but without those communities we cannot make change.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Affairs Committee has done some important work on this issue and my right hon. Friend is right that we will always have to keep reforming the programmes and learning from things that do not work, because preventing extremism is a difficult area. However, experts in countering extremism and preventing terrorism have raised concerns with me that some of the work done previously with the Somali community to ensure that it got the support it needed to prevent people from going to Somalia to fight is not being replicated to prevent people from going to Syria.

[Kate Green]

I also represent a constituency with a highly diverse population and many families from minority communities. They tell me of a deep sense of bubbling anger and that they are no longer being made to feel welcome or respected in the community as a whole. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that the broader strategy engages the whole community and respects and honours everyone’s contribution as members of our country?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. She knows that many of the strongest advocates of fighting extremism or preventing extremism—for example, preventing Islamist extremism—are those in the Muslim communities themselves, such as Muslim community leaders who have done excellent work on preventing extremism. The Government should do more to support those communities in the work that such communities are often better at leading.

A lot is missing from this Queen’s Speech. There is no serious action to tackle domestic violence or rape, of which reported cases are going up, but prosecutions and convictions are going down on the Home Secretary’s watch. There are no national standards, and no commissioner on violence against women to make sure that such standards are enforced. I still fail to understand why the Government will not do more to prevent violent relationships among young people. Where is the proposal for the compulsory sex and relationship education that all our children should get to ensure that they are taught zero tolerance of violence in relationships from the start?

What about immigration? The Home Secretary’s approach is failing. She set a net migration target, and the Prime Minister promised—no ifs, no buts—that he would get immigration down to the tens of thousands. The Home Secretary said that she would meet the target by the end of the Parliament. Yet net migration is now at 212,000, which is hardly less than the 222,000 at the time of the last election. Despite all her rhetoric and four years’ worth of legislation, the public are more worried about immigration now than when she started as Home Secretary. However, universities and businesses are concerned that they cannot attract the best international talent, which they need. In the past year alone, the number of people saying that immigration is their biggest concern has doubled. It is the worst of all worlds, so why does she not stop pretending about meeting her failed target and act to address some of the practical concerns that people have about the impact of immigration on wages and jobs?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Lady tell me what the Labour party is going to do? It seems to me that there are only two ways to deal with UKIP’s agenda: either to accommodate and pander to it, or to challenge the very assumptions on which it is based. Labour cannot look two ways on this matter—will it challenge or pander?

[Yvette Cooper]

UKIP is exploiting people’s fears and concerns, and it needs to be challenged every step of the way. We need to set out the practical reforms that would address people’s concerns about the impact of immigration on their wages and jobs when employers exploit immigration to undercut local wages and jobs. I do not understand why the Home Secretary will not take such measures—we could support them—in a new immigration Bill.

[Andrew Percy]

The shadow Secretary of State came to my constituency recently. She did not give me notice of her visit, but she may have heard from residents in Goole of their concerns about immigration. The visit did no good: the Labour vote completely collapsed in the Euro elections. Will she now take this opportunity to apologise to residents in Goole for what happened in 2007, which led massive numbers of immigrants to come to our town and put huge pressure on schools, housing and our public services?

[Yvette Cooper]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, unfortunately, public concern about immigration is much higher now than it was at the time of the general election. I hope that he will apologise to his constituents for backing a net migration target and promising that it would be met by the time of the next general election, but utterly failing to meet it.

The Government are not setting out the practical things that they could do. For example, they could stop agencies recruiting only from abroad, close loopholes in the minimum wage, go much further on unfair zero-hours contracts and make serious exploitation a crime. All those are things that the Government could do.

In response to my hon. Friends’ questions, the Home Secretary commented about the Passport Office, but I must say that her answers were incredibly complacent and simply do not reflect the experience of MPs right across the country. She claimed that all the targets are being met. From what she said, we would think that everything was absolutely fine. Tell that to James Bowness from Cumbria, who nearly missed his chance to qualify for the Commonwealth games because his passport did not arrive in time; pensioner Eileen Shepherd from Darlington, who missed her dream cruise because her passport did not arrive; or the Vernon family from Coventry, who missed their first family holiday abroad. They all applied in time, but the Passport Office let them down.

[Mr Donohoe]

One of the problems faced by Members of Parliament and their staff is that when they phone the ministerial hotlines, they do not get an answer for two or three days, and when they do it is incomprehensible and does not help them with the particular case.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of us have had the experience of trying to ensure that our constituents get their passports in time to go on the holiday that they have put all their savings into, or to go on a business trip abroad. We are told that there is a backlog of 500,000 cases. We all know that people are now in a state of panic and, for fear of losing their money, are putting extra money in to pay for fast-track services or rushing across the country to Durham or elsewhere to pick up their passport.

[Keith Vaz]

For my right hon. Friend’s information, the Home Affairs Committee has called the head of the Passport Office to appear before us on Tuesday. We have heard that the real problem is that 80 members of staff have been moved off passport fraud duties to help with the backlog, meaning that they are not doing the very important work of checking fraud that they are required to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I know that he and the Committee will scrutinise this matter in great detail. It is deeply troubling if important security measures have been dropped simply because there is a crisis in the Passport Office and the Home Secretary has taken her eye off the ball.

We know that the delays are even longer for Brits living abroad, such as the family who cannot come home from Qatar with their baby because they cannot get him a passport to fly. With expats stuck abroad and unable to come home, keeping Brits out of the country seems to be the Government’s only chance of meeting the net migration target. This is a shambles.

There are some sensible measures in this Queen’s Speech, but too much that is not in it. Frankly, from our debates over the past week, people would not have known even about the measures that are in it. The Home Secretary was not talking about them on the day of the Queen’s Speech. In fact, no one was talking about them, and even the fainting page-boy struggled to get a look in. We had the headlines, “Cabinet at war over extremists in schools”, “Angry Cameron rebukes rivals as Tory rift widens”, and “Tory bloodbath over Muslim schools fiasco”. We had to pity the poor Prime Minister, who was standing on the sidelines and desperate to talk about pensions or fracking, and even the Deputy Prime Minister, who was trying to get noticed and madly waving his plastic bags. No one heard about the slavery Bill or the crime Bill on Queen’s Speech day, because the Home Secretary had started her own plot to cause a parliamentary explosion on the day the Queen came to Parliament.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House that she did not authorise the publication of the letter on the website or in the media. Presumably, she woke up on Wednesday morning to be as shocked by the headlines as everyone else. Presumably, she was as horrified as the Prime Minister that the Gracious Speech we should have been talking about was overshadowed. Presumably, she rushed into the Department and said, “Oh, Fiona, what on earth have you done? Take it down. Quick—rush across and make nice to the Education Secretary. Get me the Prime Minister on the phone, and I’ll apologise for this dreadful departmental mistake on such an important day.” Except that she did not; there was no contrition, no rush to limit the violence and no punishment for the culprit in her Department.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary got terribly touchy about the ministerial code. She said that she had not breached it, but let us see what it says. Under section 2.1, ministerial correspondence should be confidential. Yet she kept the letter on her website for three days. Under section 3.3, she has responsibility for her special adviser. Is that why she will not tell us who leaked the letter? These are blatant breaches of the ministerial code and she knows it. If she wants those charges against her to be dropped, she should answer these questions. Who agreed to put the letter on the website? Who agreed to give it to the press? Why did she write it after she had heard about the briefing from The Times, and did she write it knowing that it would be leaked? When did she find out it was on the website, and why did she not take it down?

The Home Secretary launched a sabotage attack on the Queen’s Speech, even though her own Department had some perfectly reasonable measures that she should have wanted to include. The Queen’s Speech just does not do enough to tackle the serious problems in the country. There is not enough on crime, immigration or violence against women, and the Home Secretary has taken her eye off the ball. She has been too busy in briefing wars with the Education Secretary to keep her own house in order, and too busy worrying about her next job to get her day job right, and the country is being let down.

Extremism

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on her conduct regarding the Government’s action on preventing extremism.

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

The Government take the threat of extremism—non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism—very seriously. That is why, in line with the Prime Minister’s Munich speech in 2011, I reformed the Prevent strategy that year, and it is why, in response to the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby, the Prime Minister established the extremism taskforce last year.

The Prevent strategy we inherited was deeply flawed. It confused Government policy to promote integration with Government policy to prevent terrorism. It failed to tackle the extremist ideology that undermines the cohesion of our society and inspires would-be terrorists to murder. In trying to reach those at risk of radicalisation, funding sometimes reached the very extremist organisations that Prevent should have been confronting. Ministers and officials sometimes engaged with, and therefore leant legitimacy to, organisations and people with extremist agendas.

Unlike the old strategy, this Government’s Prevent strategy recognises and tackles the danger of non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism. Unlike the old strategy, the new strategy addresses all forms of extremism. Unlike the old strategy, there is now a clear demarcation between counter-terrorism work, which is run out of the Home Office, and the Government’s wider counter-extremist and integration work, which is co-ordinated by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Unlike the old strategy, the new strategy introduced explicit controls to make sure that public money must not be provided to extremist organisations. If organisations do not support the values of democracy, human rights, equality before the law and participation in society, we should not work with them and we should not fund them.

Turning to the issue of the unauthorised comments to the media about the Government’s approach to tackling extremism and the improper release of correspondence between Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary undertook a review to establish the facts of what happened last week. As the Cabinet Secretary and Prime Minister concluded, I did not authorise the release of my letter to the Education Secretary. Following the Cabinet Secretary’s review, the Education Secretary apologised to the Prime Minister and to Charles Farr, the director general of the office for security and counter-terrorism. In addition, in relation to further comments to The Times, my special adviser Fiona Cunningham resigned on Saturday.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Education Secretary will shortly make a statement about Birmingham schools, but last week the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary turned this instead into a public blame game about the Government’s approach to tackling extremism. There are important questions about the oversight and management of these schools, which the House will debate shortly. There are also real and separate concerns about the Government’s failure to work with communities on preventing extremism and about the narrowness of the Home Secretary’s approach.

Both issues are complex and require a thoughtful, sensitive approach and for Ministers to work together, just as Departments, communities, parents, local councils and the police need to do. Instead of showing leadership on working together, the Home Secretary and Education Secretary chose to let rip at each other in public, making it harder to get the sensible joint working we need. That is why the Home Secretary needs to answer specific questions about her conduct in this process, particularly about the letter she wrote to the Education Secretary, which the Home Office released and which has made it harder to get that joint working in place.

The Home Secretary has said that she did not authorise the publication of the letter on the Home Office website, but why did she not insist that it be removed, rather than leaving it in place on the website for three days? She wrote that letter and sent it after she had been advised that The Times newspaper had briefing from the Education Secretary. Did she write that letter in order for it to be leaked, and did she authorise its release to the media? Section 2.1 of the “Ministerial Code” makes it clear that

“the privacy of opinions expressed in Cabinet and Ministerial Committees, including in correspondence, should be maintained.”

Did she and her Department breach the “Ministerial Code”?

Secondly, the Home Secretary made it clear in her letter that she disagreed with the Education Secretary’s approach. She said:

“The allegations relating to schools in Birmingham raise serious questions about the quality of school governance and oversight arrangements in the maintained sector”.

Does she stand by her claim that the oversight arrangements for Birmingham schools under the Education Secretary were not adequate?

Thirdly, the Home Secretary’s strategy on preventing extremism has been criticised from all sides—not just by the Education Secretary—for failing to engage with local communities and for having become too narrow, leaving gaps. She now needs to focus on getting those policies back on track, because it matters to communities across the country that there is a serious and sensible approach to these issues and joint working at the very top of the Government.

The reason why the Home Secretary needs to answer these questions about her decisions last week is to assure us that she and the Education Secretary will not put their personal reputations and ambitions ahead of making the right decisions for the country. We cannot have a repeat of the experiences of last week. It is shambolic for the Government, but it is much worse for everyone else.

[Mrs May]

On the specific allegations of extremism in schools in Birmingham and the wider question of how we confront extremism more generally, there are very important issues that I will come on to, but I should perhaps first remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few facts.

Under this Government, foreign hate preachers such as Zakir Naik and Yusuf al-Qaradawi are banned from coming to Britain. Under her Government, they were allowed to come here to give lectures and sermons, and to spread their hateful beliefs. In the case of al-Qaradawi, he was not just allowed to come here; he was literally embraced on stage by Labour’s London Mayor, Ken Livingstone.

I have excluded more foreign hate preachers than any Home Secretary before me. I have got rid of the likes of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. The Government do not give a public platform to groups that condone, or fail to distance themselves from, extremism. For the first time, we are mapping out extremists and extremist groups in the United Kingdom. We make sure that the groups we work with and fund adhere to British values, and where they do not, we do not fund them and we do not work with them. None of these things was true when the Labour party was in power.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the “Ministerial Code”. I can tell her that, as the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister concluded, I did not break the code. As she has no evidence for suggesting I did, she should withdraw any allegation of that sort.

The right hon. Lady asked about the letter, its presence on the website and why action was not taken, but action was taken immediately, because the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate, and he did.

The right hon. Lady referred to schools in Birmingham. I am afraid she will have to wait for my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to make his statement; he will do so shortly, and answer questions about school inspections and oversight arrangements.

I would just say this to the right hon. Lady: I am responsible for the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy and, within that, the Prevent strategy, but she seems to misunderstand how the Prevent strategy works, so I think I should perhaps explain it to her. The Home Office sets the Prevent strategy and it is up to the rest of Whitehall, including the Home Office, as well as the wider public sector and civil society, to deliver it. There is always more to be done, things we can improve and lessons we can learn, but we have made good progress under this Government. Yes, we need to get to the bottom of what has happened in schools in Birmingham, but it is thanks to this Education Secretary that the Department for Education has, for the first time, a dedicated extremism unit to try to stop this sort of thing happening.

The shadow Home Secretary repeated her complaint that Prevent has become too narrowly drawn under this Government, but she does not seem to realise that we took a very clear decision back in 2011 to split Prevent into the bit that tackles non-violent extremism as well as violent extremism and counter-terrorism, and the Government’s integration strategy, which is quite consciously run out of the Department for Communities and Local Government. If what she is suggesting is that Prevent and integration work should go back to being together and being confused, she needs to think again because her Government’s approach was damaging and caused a lot of resentment among many British Muslims.

As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, said at the time we made that change, it follows

“the eminently sensible objective of keeping the ‘prevent’ strand of counter-terrorism separate from the ‘integration’ initiatives of DCLG.”

He continued:

“I completely agree with what the Home Secretary has said about Prevent.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1011.]

The shadow Home Secretary should listen to her right honourable colleague.

What has happened in Birmingham is very serious indeed, and the Education Secretary will set out his response in due course. We need to do everything we can to protect children from extremism and, more generally, to confront extremism in all its forms. The Government are determined to do that. However, it is quite clear from what the shadow Home Secretary has said today that on extremism, like on so many other things, the Labour party would take us backwards, not forwards.