Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about Yarl’s Wood.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our very sincere condolences to the family of the woman who died at Yarl’s Wood yesterday. This was tragic news, and I was certainly very sorry to receive the information. The House will understand that what I can say at this stage is limited.

The established procedure in this situation is to bring in the police to look at the circumstances. Bedfordshire police are currently leading that work. No cause of death has yet been established. Once police inquiries are concluded, the established process is that the prisons and probation ombudsman will begin an investigation. That will happen in this case. However, our focus in the immediate aftermath must be to support the family and to keep public comment to a minimum until the circumstances of yesterday’s sad news become clearer.

Following any death in detention, we ensure that detainees are offered counselling and access to a support plan. We review the detention of any individual in the centre who is considered to be vulnerable and ensure that they are given appropriate support. That also applies to staff working in the detention centre.

What I can say, in general, is that the operation of immigration removal centres is a serious responsibility that falls to the Home Office. Nobody involved in this work is in any doubt about the seriousness of the role. In taking on my role as Minister for Security and Immigration, I made it an early responsibility to visit an immigration removal centre to help me understand fully the range of issues connected to detention in such an environment; I visited Brook House and Tinsley House in February.

Like other immigration removal centres, Yarl’s Wood is subject to oversight from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, whose most recent report was published last October. There were some key recommendations for the Home Office to review. However, the assessment of the regime in general was that it was improving. I commend to the House Nick Hardwick’s overall introduction to the report, which succinctly highlights the difficult circumstances of women in detention and the improvements that have been made to the regime. The report, and the Home Office’s response to its recommendations, have both been placed in the Library.

The responsibility for the detention of immigration offenders is taken seriously by everyone involved; I underline that it is a personal responsibility. I hope that the House will understand that it is far too early to draw conclusions at this stage and that to indulge in speculation would be distressing to the family and irresponsible, given the seriousness of the issues involved.

Detention and removal are essential elements of an effective immigration system. It is important that our centres are well run, safe and secure and that our detainees are treated with dignity and respect, and provided with the proper facilities. Detainees’ welfare is extremely important, which is why are committed to treating all those in our care with such dignity and respect. The House will be as distressed as everyone to hear of this news and will want the family and loved ones of the lady involved to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

[Yvette Cooper]

The whole House will agree with the Minister that the news of a 40-year-old detainee dying in Yarl’s Wood is extremely sad. All our thoughts must be with the family and friends, and it is important that they should get appropriate support.

I welcome the Minister’s response that a full investigation is in place. He will be aware that there are unconfirmed reports that the detainee was initially denied medical assistance. Can he assure the House that all those reports are being fully looked into as part of the police and wider investigations? He will also be aware that there are reports that Yarl’s Wood had turned down offers of help from the local NHS for other women detainees who were distressed after witnessing the death. Is that the case, and what further support was provided to others at Yarl’s Wood yesterday?

The whole House will agree that immigration rules need to be enforced, and that does require deportations. Some people need to be detained in advance of deportations, and that is never easy. The House will also agree that this must always be done humanely, with high standards and safeguards in place. Last October’s prisons inspectorate report on Yarl’s Wood referred to some dismissive responses from health staff within Yarl’s Wood, and research by Women for Refugee Women says that many women detainees felt that they were not believed by health staff and raises concerns about physical and mental health support. What action has been taken about that?

What action have Ministers taken since last year’s deeply disturbing reports of abuse of vulnerable women by Serco employees at Yarl’s Wood, including having sex with women detainees and sexual bullying? We have not yet seen a full investigation into what happened and what action has been taken to prevent it from ever happening again.

The inspectorate has also said that women who had been abused or trafficked are still wrongly detained in Yarl’s Wood. These are clearly very vulnerable women who need support, so what is being done to stop them being detained?

The Minister will be aware of the case of Yashika Bageerathi, who is being placed in Yarl’s Wood just before her A-levels despite the Home Office guidance about not separating families and not moving teenagers just before exams. In the light of the concerns raised, will he personally review Yashika Bageerathi’s case?

Given the continuing concerns about Yarl’s Wood, will the Home Secretary commission a joint inquiry on its operations and the Serco contract by the prisons inspectorate and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, and will she then report swiftly back to the House?

I welcome the Minister’s response to the question. He and I both agree that while immigration rules must always be enforced, detainees must be treated humanely, and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that both take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government are already taking action to tackle rogue websites which masquerade as legitimate Government services, exaggerating the nature of the services they provide or deliberately underplaying the services that people can get for free or at a lower cost from official sources. The Government Digital Service is leading a cross-government exercise with organisations such as the Advertising Standards Authority, the National Trading Standards Board, Which? and search engines to raise awareness of the issue and ensure that enforcement action is taken, where appropriate. Ministerial colleagues have also met Google to discuss the enforcement of its policies for advertising on its search results pages. Google will continue to support us by removing misleading adverts and by closing the accounts of repeat offenders.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on his promotion and his ability to generate headlines in his new job, and welcome the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) to her post in the home affairs team.

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the Lawrence family, who have had to endure further betrayal with the information from the shocking Ellison review last week. Twenty-one years after the death of Stephen Lawrence, reforms are needed so that those failures do not continue to cast a long shadow over the vital and valiant work that so many police officers do each day and, in particular, so that we can build confidence among the black and ethnic minority communities. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that the Independent Police Complaints Commission should now be replaced with a new, stronger police watchdog? Will she tell me whether she agrees with the four proposals I made in my letter to her on reforming stop and search—on section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; on section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; on race discrimination; and on banning targets?

[Mrs May]

Of course it is important that we ensure that the IPCC is able to deal with the cases of complaints against police officers. I have been concerned for some time about the fact that the police have, in effect, been investigating serious and sensitive complaints against police officers themselves. That is why I am changing the arrangements for the IPCC, increasing its resources and ensuring that in future it will be taking on the serious and sensitive cases. It is also why we have provided a number of other new powers to the IPCC to ensure that it has the capability it needs. However, as I said on Thursday, I am of course continuing to look at this issue.

I assure the right hon. Lady that we do need to look at stop and search. I have consulted on it and the Government are now finalising the package we wish to put in place in response to that consultation.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer, but given the seriousness of this, I urge her to go further and faster, both on the IPCC, which is simply not strong enough, and on stop and search. She and I agree that its targeted use is really important, but too many searches are simply not targeted at all. We have not heard anything from her since her statement in July; the critical Equality and Human Rights Commission was four years ago; and we are told now that reform is being blocked by regressive attitudes in No. 10. It turns out that the Prime Minister said before the election that he wanted to

“free the police to do far more stopping and far more searching.”

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Prime Minister or is she losing the argument within the Government?

[Mrs May]

What we all want is to ensure that stop and search, a particularly valuable tool for the police, is properly used by the police. The recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which I requested, found that the stop and search powers were not being used properly in far too high a percentage of cases—about a quarter of the cases it looked into. Stop and search is important and a very valuable tool; when it is used properly and well targeted, it has the right impact. I am pleased to say that the Metropolitan police have already started to make some changes in their operation of stop and search, which is having some impact.

Ellison Review

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the statement that the Home Secretary has made and the work of Mark Ellison in drawing up this extremely important but serious and disturbing review. The findings of the Ellison review are extremely troubling and the Home Secretary’s statement today is serious.

Nearly 21 years ago, a young man of 18 was killed by racist murderers. Stephen Lawrence and his family were denied justice then and it is clear that they have been denied justice ever since. The findings of the Ellison review are all the more serious because, in the 21 years since, repeated attempts have been made to get to the truth and to deliver justice but, despite all those attempts, that still has not happened. We in this House should show our support today for the Lawrence family in their continued determination to get to the truth and to justice, but we also know that no family should have to keep fighting in this way for so many decades.

Let me touch on some of the key findings that the Home Secretary has set out. First, she said that the Ellison review stated that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of the officers involved in the Lawrence investigation acted corruptly, but that has never been fully investigated. This is extremely serious and a full investigation is needed of the outstanding lines of inquiry identified by the Ellison review. I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation that this will now be looked at by the National Crime Agency, and also her confirmation that links with the Daniel Morgan inquiry will be pursued. Will she ensure—I am sure she will—that the House and the Lawrence family are kept updated with the timetable and course of this investigation?

Secondly, the Ellison review found that the full information about corruption and internal corruption investigations was not given to the Macpherson inquiry, and also that the Macpherson inquiry may have come to different conclusions as a result. It found also that the Metropolitan Police Service’s record keeping was a “cause of real concern” and that key evidence was the subject of “mass shredding” in 2003. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the NCA looks at whether information was wilfully withheld from the Macpherson inquiry or whether it was wilfully destroyed, and also looks at the wider issue of record keeping within the Metropolitan police?

The Home Secretary will be aware that we have asked before for an updated Macpherson-style review of progress since the original inquiry, because clearly a lot of changes were made as a result of the Macpherson inquiry. Does she not think this would be timely and that it would be an opportunity to look again at the conclusions of the review and whether they would have been different in the light of this further information?

Thirdly, the review found that undercover operations were carried out against those around the Lawrence family, and that information from those operations was given to those within the Metropolitan police who were involved in the legal case brought by the Lawrence family. It states:

“The reality was that N81 was, at the time, an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS.”

The review also found that the SDS, as the Home Secretary mentioned, was inappropriately and unjustifiably reporting on Duwayne Brooks. These findings are deeply disturbing. The Ellison review describes these operations as completely improper and wholly inappropriate, but the whole House will be shocked and we should condemn it in the strongest terms.

The Home Secretary is right: these revelations may mean that there have been miscarriages of justice. So I welcome her decision to instigate a public inquiry into the activities of the SDS. She will know that we have called for an inquiry into undercover policing, and it is right that there should be one. The Home Secretary is right to say that intelligence is a vital part of policing and the Ellison review says so, but it needs to be within a clear legal framework with proper safeguards in place. It is clear that that did not happen in these investigations and operations by the SDS against the Lawrence family and those linked to them at the time. We do not know how wide these miscarriages may go, but we cannot have a branch of policing that operated in this way, against the very ethos of policing and justice that it was charged with protecting and that the vast majority of police officers across the country have signed up to. Will the right hon. Lady discuss further not just with the family but with others on the Opposition Benches what form that public inquiry should take? We would welcome further discussions on that.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to keep pursuing the truth. The Macpherson review was set up to get to the truth in the first place. It is important, too, that we should also keep pursuing justice. Will she ensure that in pursuing all these lines of inquiry, consideration is given to any lines that could lead to prosecutions of the further suspects in Stephen Lawrence’s murder?

Finally, I urge the Home Secretary to consider going further in the reforms that she talked about towards the end of her remarks. There is a serious question about whether the IPCC was able to investigate in the way that the Ellison review has done when it carried out an inquiry in 2006. The IPCC is the independent body charged with such investigations and should be able to get to the truth, but it was not able to do so. It is bad for justice and for policing not to have a credible body able to get to the truth the first time round.

I agree with the Home Secretary about the importance of force-level professional standards. She will know that forces have raised concerns that resources are being transferred from force-level professional standards in corruption investigations to the IPCC. Clearly, both need to be able to do that important job.

I also ask the Home Secretary to go further on the oversight of undercover policing. Clearly that will be considered in the public inquiry, but I urge her to look, in parallel, at further safeguards. As she will know, we have previously suggested additional safeguards, including on pre-authorisation for longer-term operations, because the current oversight regime has clearly not been effective enough in preventing some of the problems that have arisen.

I also ask the Home Secretary to look at the implications for the Hillsborough inquiry. As she will know, when we had the discussion three weeks ago, we also raised concerns about whether there was inappropriate surveillance or intercept against the Hillsborough families. It is hugely important that we get to the full truth about that and that it comes out at the earliest possible opportunity.

Twenty-one years later, no one should underestimate the gravity of the institutional failure two decades ago or the seriousness of the continued institutional failure to get to the truth. The Home Secretary has rightly said that we need to get to the truth. Police officers do a vital job, helping to keep the public safe every day. They need public trust and confidence, and we all need truth and justice. Three weeks ago she made the statement about the failure of the criminal justice system to get to the truth and to get justice for the families of Hillsborough victims decades ago, and today we have heard about that failure over the murder of Stephen Lawrence decades ago.

Families should never have to wait decades to get to the truth. Everyone must recognise that, unless we get to the truth and get justice, these tragedies will continue to cast a long shadow over the vital work that our criminal justice system and the police need to do. We owe it to the families, but we also owe it to confidence in the justice system.

[Mrs May]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady’s comments on the significance of the review. Of course, as she said, it is not alone in identifying problems with how cases have been treated; the Daniel Morgan case and the results of the Hillsborough Independent Panel also revealed failings that had taken place. As she said, it is absolutely imperative, in order to ensure that there is trust and confidence in the police, which is vital for us all, that we deal with these failings appropriately and get to the truth.

As the right hon. Lady and I have said, the results of the Ellison review are truly shocking. I suspect that it will take hon. Members some time to examine all the aspects that Mark Ellison has brought out, but the extent to which the report shows that a deep failure occurred at the time of the incidents and behaviours he examined is obvious from the remarks I have made today. It is therefore necessary that we follow that up by a number of different routes.

With regard to the timetable for the further investigation I have referred to the director-general of the National Crime Agency, I will of course be happy to keep the House informed of the results and how it will be taken forward. I would expect the director-general to look at the various issues the right hon. Lady referred to when considering how the investigation should take place and what is necessary to ensure that prosecutions, if they are required, can take place.

I do not think that it will be possible for us to discuss the form of the public inquiry properly until we have seen more of the next stage of Mark Ellison’s work, which is considering the wider issue and the question of miscarriages of justice. However, I will of course want to ensure that the public inquiry has the right terms of reference and that it is able to conduct the job that we want it to do and that the Lawrence family will obviously be concerned that it does. At the right time, I think that it will be appropriate to have discussions about the form of the public inquiry and its terms of reference.

On the IPCC, as the right hon. Lady said and as I said, Mark Ellison finds that its inquiries and work were not adequate and that it did not find the corruption that is alleged to have taken place. I have already given the IPCC more resources, more power and more of a task. The right hon. Lady referred to transferring resources from professional standards departments. That is a reflection of the fact that we are transferring work to the IPCC. One concern that people have always had is about the police themselves investigating serious complaints against them. That is why we are transferring that responsibility to the IPCC and the resources to undertake it.

On the safeguards on undercover policing, we have recently made changes to enhance them so that although longer-term deployments—anything over 12 months—must be authorised by a chief constable, undercover deployments can be authorised by an assistant chief constable. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners must be notified of all deployments, so the oversight framework is already stronger.

The right hon. Lady rightly raised the concern of Hillsborough families that they may have been subject to inappropriate surveillance. I understand that a formal complaint has been made to the IPCC about that, and that it is considering how best to investigate the concerns that have been raised.

There is much still to be done. Change has taken place over the years but sadly, what we have seen today is that it is necessary to continue the inquiries and investigations to ensure that, for the sake of the family particularly and for all of us and our trust in the police, we get to the truth.

Hillsborough

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome the points she has made updating the House on the progress made in getting justice for the families of the 96 people who lost their lives at Hillsborough.

This year we approach 25 years since that dreadful day. I pay tribute, alongside the Home Secretary, to the Hillsborough Family Support Group, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope for Hillsborough, which have shown such determination in their campaign for their loved ones. None of us should underestimate the strength they have shown and what they have endured over the last quarter of a century, or how difficult it is still for them as the inquest approaches—something that no family would ever want to go through. We should show them our respect and our support in their pursuit of justice.

In October 2012, when the Home Secretary last addressed the House on the disaster, we all welcomed the independent panel report and paid tribute to the panel, led by Bishop James Jones. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the work he did to establish it, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know spoke to her about giving today’s statement, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), and colleagues in all parts of the House who continue to support their constituents in the pursuit of justice.

The list of failures exposed by the panel at that time was extensive, shocking and deeply distressing—the failure to improve the safety of the ground in the years before Hillsborough; the holding of the game at a ground without a safety certificate just four years after the Bradford fire; the failure to organise crowd safety; the failure to close the tunnel; the failure to help fans speedily; and also the failure to be honest about what happened and to investigate, and the falsehoods that were perpetuated afterwards. This House came together to make clear our view that it was a betrayal of victims and their families.

Since the panel’s report, I welcome the overturning of the original coroner’s verdict, at the instigation of the Attorney-General, and the plans to reopen the inquest next month. I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to our proposal for more powers for the IPCC and her decision to provide more resources for such a substantial investigation. I welcome the work by the Stoddart and IPCC inquiries and the substantial investigations that are under way. She is right to highlight the importance of support, including information and legal support for the families, but let me ask her some further questions about developments.

The Home Secretary will obviously know the importance of the inquest to everyone and the concern at how long everything takes. Can she assure the House, first, that the inquest will start on 31 March and that every effort is being made to ensure that all evidence and papers are in place, and that there are no further delays? Secondly, will she tell the House what more she is doing to ensure that every police force organisation and agency provides full disclosure to the Stoddart investigation and the IPCC, and does not simply wait to be asked for information? She will know the distress it has already caused to find that important and shocking information was never revealed to the independent panel—the pocket books she referred to—but also that far more police and witness statements were altered.

We have heard, for example, the disturbing testimony of one witness, who was a teenage student at the time. He told the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme that he was threatened with prosecution for complaining about failings by South Yorkshire police, saying:

“I’m a 19-year-old boy, three weeks out of Hillsborough, traumatised, and he’s threatening me that he’s going to put together a case for wasting police time because he didn’t like my evidence”.

I know that the Home Secretary would agree with me that it is a matter of deep concern that full information was not given to the panel at the time and would welcome the work done by the investigations to get more evidence since, but will she give a direction to all forces to provide all information related to the Hillsborough disaster to the two investigations?

The Home Secretary will also be aware of concern among the families about surveillance operations against families in the aftermath of the tragedy. I understand that the IPCC is not currently investigating those claims or concerns. Will the Home Secretary commit today to ordering the release of any material on surveillance, including intercept surveillance, of Hillsborough families in the aftermath of the disaster to the IPCC?

Thirdly, will she update us on the progress that has been made on the wider investigations that go beyond the inquest and on decisions on prosecutions? Clearly, the main focus of the investigations has been preparing information for the inquest, but what progress has been made in investigating criminal wrongdoing? According to what timetable does she believe files will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service from the IPCC and the Stoddart investigation?

Finally, will the Home Secretary reassure us that the IPCC will have the resources it needs and that she will ensure that the inquiries work effectively alongside each other? She will know that concerns have previously been raised about co-ordination between the inquiries. Will she keep that under review to ensure that the investigations are fully co-ordinated?

The last quarter century has been immensely difficult for the families of the 96, and they know that the coming months will be very hard, too. The House should pay tribute to them and to their faith and determination over a quarter of a century, as well as to those who have stood by them, particularly the people of Liverpool. We should strain every sinew to ensure that they get justice now.

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and echo her point about how difficult it will be for the families when the inquest starts to have to relive the tragedy yet again. None of us can fully appreciate how difficult and traumatic that will be for the families and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.

As for the date of the inquest, as I said in my statement, Lord Justice Goldring has said that the fresh inquest will start on 31 March. That is obviously a matter for him and not for me as Home Secretary, but I am sure from the way he has conducted matters so far that he will recognise the significance of the inquest over which he will preside and the importance of ensuring that it goes ahead according to an appropriate timetable.

The right hon. Lady asked about disclosure, what information is available to the two investigations and what information was not made available to the panel. The panel saw some 450,000 documents from more than 80 organisations, so it did an extremely good job and, having seen all that evidence, it was able to come up with its shocking results about what had happened at Hillsborough. However, everybody has been perhaps not surprised but disappointed that further documents have emerged as a result of the two investigations, particularly the police pocket notebooks and other such documents. I have written to both Dame Anne Owers, as chairman of the IPCC, and Jon Stoddart—they are in charge of the investigations and it is up to them to amass the information they need—to ask whether they were having any problems getting material and whether it would be helpful for me to write to the chief constables of all police forces to ask them to look for any material that they might have.

The right hon. Lady asked about possible undercover operations and although no formal complaint or allegation has been made to the IPCC, it is aware of the concerns and is considering how best to address them. It is reviewing the material on Hillsborough so if it discovers any evidence in its investigation that suggests that surveillance such as that which has been suggested took place it will pursue that evidence.

I recognise, particularly given what has happened over the past 25 years, that everybody is keen to ensure that there should be no sense that the timetable is not be followed appropriately. I discussed the matter with Operation Resolve and the IPCC when I was in Warrington. They are keen to ensure that at every stage they do everything properly so that there can be no opportunity to challenge their results. We would all agree that that is appropriate, but it takes time to do that. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I am making resources available to the IPCC and we talk to it and Operation Resolve regularly about what is necessary.

I was pleased to see—I am going to use the term appropriate again—the appropriate level of co-ordination between the two investigations. They are considering separate issues, although of course the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation, and they are working together in a manner that is fit and proper, ensuring that everything that is being done is being done in a way that will ensure that people have confidence in the results when they come out, whether they result in criminal charges or other findings.

Points of Order

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Secretary, in answer to my earlier question, said that it would not be the practice of the police to confirm whether or not surveillance had taken place. Chief Constable Mick Creedon did provide such information to the Select Committee on Home Affairs when allegations were raised about surveillance of the Lawrence family. May I therefore ask her, given the helpful way in which she has responded to all the comments on the statement today, to look further at the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)?

[Mr Speaker]

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

Immigration Bill

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, thank those who sat on the Committee and all those who have contributed throughout the Bill’s passage. I thank Opposition Members who have been involved, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has worked tirelessly in responding to the Government’s proposals at the various stages.

The Immigration Bill has been a complete car crash for the Home Secretary. She and the Prime Minister launched it as their flagship Bill. It was the pride and joy of their legislative programme, and yet they have been hiding it away for months. It has been nowhere to be seen. They would not bring it back because they were so scared of their own Back Benchers.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am going to make some progress, because time is very tight.

The Home Secretary has become terrified of her own legislation. Even though Parliament has had hardly any business, she has kept the Bill away from the House and has then tried to rush it through in four hours today. We have had just four hours to debate a series of important amendments. On our proposals to tackle the impact of immigration on jobs and growth, and to take stronger action on the minimum wage and agencies that exploit immigration, there has been no debate today. On the proposals of Tory Back Benchers on Bulgaria and Romania, there has been no debate today. On the workability of the housing proposals, there has been no debate today. On the fairness of the appeal proposals, there has been no debate today. A series of amendments has been tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but none of them has been debated today.

What have we had instead? The Home Secretary pulled out of her hat, at the last minute, a new power on citizenship, with no consultation and no scrutiny, in a desperate attempt to distract her own party, but it failed. She then stood up for an hour and a half—I have to admire her resilience—to kill time, without even knowing what her position was on the key new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).

[Mrs May]

As the right hon. Lady was not here for the whole debate on Report, perhaps I should enlighten her on what happened. Yes, I did speak for an hour and a half, but I took a large number of interventions, including many from Labour Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady did indeed take a considerable number of interventions. However, she informed my office yesterday that she would not be responding on Report, but only on Third Reading. She decided at the last minute that she would come to the House to respond to the amendments.

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, who tabled his new clause today. He is right to say that the Government are not doing enough to deport foreign criminals: the number being deported has dropped by 13% during the past three years. The Home Secretary should be doing more, and we think that there are more things the Government could do that would be legal and workable. That is the key. The problem today is that the Home Secretary and Downing street have told us themselves that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is illegal and could make it harder to deport foreign criminals, not easier.

The Home Secretary told the House that she disagreed with the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, so how on earth could she simply sit on her hands and not take a view on it when it came to the vote? How on earth could she tell the Prime Minister:

“I propose that the Government does not support this amendment because it would be incompatible with the ECHR and counter-productive”,

and then—as Home Secretary, responsible for upholding law and order in Britain—just sit there, scared of her own Back Benchers, and fail to vote against it? There is no precedent for Ministers simply abstaining in this way. This is not a free vote, in which Members are able to make their own decision. The Government simply thought that they would not take a view on the new clause, despite the Home Secretary having told the House that she was opposed to it.

The Home Secretary has lost control of her own policy. She told the Prime Minister last year that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton’s proposal would

“significantly undermine our ability to deport foreign criminals.”

She also told him that, under the provision, she would be unable to deport 4,000 criminals a year and would have to release “significant numbers” on bail while she went through the necessary legal proceedings, yet she was too scared to vote against it. We know that she opposed the new clause. If she had supported it, she could have voted for it and got it through, but she did not do so. She sat on her hands because she was scared.

What kind of Home Secretary is that? What kind of Government is this? The Home Secretary needs to get her act together.

The Bill will not sort out Britain’s immigration problems. There are some sensible measures in it, but there is an awful lot missing. Maybe the Home Secretary can get it sorted out in the Lords, but she should start acting in the interests of this country, rather than simply in the interests of the Conservative party, which has scared her away from making the right decision today.

Syrian Refugees

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We have long had cross-party agreement about humanitarian aid for those suffering in the region as a result of the dreadful conflict and crisis in Syria. I believe that now we can come together with cross-party support for helping the most vulnerable civilian refugees, too.

Compassion and common sense have prevailed over the Government’s resistance last week. Britain is rightly providing help and assistance to the majority of refugees that have claimed sanctuary in the neighbouring countries—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—and is rightly leading international efforts, but the Opposition and many others have argued for some time that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or survive in the camps: the abandoned children, torture victims, women who have been abused and those who need medical help.

We have all heard the heart-rending stories of children burnt by chemicals, families torn apart, fathers executed and mothers raped, so when the UN asked us and other countries across the world to provide sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and 18 other countries stepped forward to help it was simply wrong of Britain to refuse. It is a tribute to the support of Members from all parties in this House, to the charities that have campaigned on the subject and to the UN that the Home Secretary has bowed to the pressure before the Opposition day debate this afternoon. It is a reversal of her position last week, but she is right to have listened and I am glad that she has done so.

I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to helping the survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those who have suffered sexual violence. Let me now ask the Home Secretary a series of questions about her announcement today. First, I welcome her announcement that these places will be in addition to the places provided by the UN to the existing UN gateway and mandate programmes. Countries such as France, Finland and Austria have each agreed to take about 500 refugees, and the Netherlands 250. The right hon. Lady has not set a specific figure, but can she confirm that she expects Britain to provide similar levels of sanctuary?

Secondly, can the Home Secretary confirm that the refugees to whom Britain offers sanctuary will also have access to specialist help and support—for example, working with many of the excellent charities that help those who have suffered great trauma and abuse?

The right hon. Lady says that much of the programme will in fact be delivered by the UNHCR, and she will know that all the things she says she wants to do—the three principles she set out—are possible within the UN Syria programme. Some countries within it have set specific figures; some, such as the US, have not set what she would call a quota, but are still operating within the UN programme. So my third question is: is what she has announced effectively the UN programme, but with a different name?

Fourthly, will the Home Secretary agree to look again at her net migration target? I am sure she agrees with me that there is a world of difference between immigration policy and border control on the one hand, and giving sanctuary to those fleeing persecution on the other. Refugees are included in her net migration target; does she agree that they should no longer be?

I believe that there is now cross-party agreement in support of helping the vulnerable refugees whose lives have been wrecked by the Syrian conflict, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Britain has a long history of helping those who are fleeing terror and persecution. We should stand together in this House and support that tradition now.

[Mrs May]

I think this is an issue on which Members from all parties across the House can genuinely come together and welcome the steps—all the steps—taken by the Government to provide aid and support to those suffering from the terrible humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict in Syria.

The right hon. Lady asked several questions, the first about the numbers. We have not set a figure. As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we expect several hundred refugees to come, but we have not set a quota precisely because we want to look at particular needs.

It is particular needs that drive the answer to right hon. Lady’s second question, about specialist help and support. We will of course look to the arrangements we have used for the gateway programme, for example, to see the extent to which we will be able to relocate refugees in line with our existing structures and relationships with local authorities, but there will be people, identified on a case-by-case basis, who need very particular assistance—perhaps very particular medical assistance. We will of course seek to ensure that that is provided for those individuals.

The scheme I have announced is, I think, in the spirit of the UNHCR programme, but it is not technically part of it. The UNHCR has welcomed what we are doing—[Interruption.] I have to say to the Opposition Front Benchers that I think they are trying to make an argument where we do not need to have one. We took a very simple decision. We wanted to create a scheme that gives us greater flexibility and enables us to focus clearly on the issues on which the Government as a whole have been focusing, particularly women and girls at risk and preventing sexual violence. I hope that the whole House accepts that the scheme will offer genuine benefit to some of the most vulnerable people who have been displaced from Syria, and that it will welcome the scheme.

UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.

Much has changed since we tabled the motion a week ago, and I am glad that it has. I am glad that we had the Home Secretary’s statement today, and that she has changed her view in advance of the debate. There is now cross-party agreement on the vital issue of helping the most vulnerable refugees of all, whose lives have been wrecked in the Syrian conflict and who are struggling to cope with that trauma in the region’s refugee camps.

There has long been cross-party agreement that Britain should do its bit in supporting the region. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition joined together before Christmas to describe the “urgent humanitarian issue” that

“transcends the differences of party politics.”

They stood together to say:

“The fate of an entire generation of children hangs in the balance. We must all do everything we can to help them.”

They also urged other countries to do more. Indeed, the British Government have rightly led the way as the second biggest donor, providing development support, food for nearly 200,000 people a month across Syria and cooking and blankets for more than 300,000 people. I pay tribute to the Department for International Development for its work. The British people have also shown immense generosity, donating £20 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee Syria crisis appeal.

We know that more than 2 million refugees have fled Syria into neighbouring countries, particularly Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq, and that more than half of them are children. Those who are still trapped in Syria are suffering even greater ordeals—bitter torture, executions, rape and violations—that are leaving terrible scars on a generation. There has always been cross-party agreement that the majority of refugees should be supported in the region, which is why we need a determined peace process so that people can eventually be returned to their homes. However, that relies on the immense generosity of those four neighbouring countries, which face considerable pressure as a result of the crisis. That is why it is so important for us to show those countries our support and for nations much further afield to do what they can to help.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will have heard what the Home Secretary said in her statement. My right hon. Friend mentions the immense pressure on the countries neighbouring Syria, which are welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees. Does she recognise that there is a real fear that they could close their borders? Will she call on the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue of solidarity with the UNHCR, through which we can give them the assurances that will prevent them from closing their borders?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UN raised with us how important it was that the countries providing the greatest support and generosity to Syria as neighbours should not feel that other countries across the world had turned their backs. That was one of the most important reasons for being part of the support for the programme. I will come later to her point about the UN programme, which is particularly important.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the Opposition use his good offices with the French President? It seems that the French contribution to overseas aid has been tiny compared with the UK’s, and France is surely in a good position to help.

[Yvette Cooper]

As I have just said, the three party leaders jointly called on countries across the world to do more on aid, and it is right that we should continue to do so. France has signed up to the UN programme to take around 500 refugees and provide assistance for the most vulnerable people in the region, which is also right. We want countries across the world to work with the UN and international organisations to provide assistance to those who are most desperate.

As the UN has made clear, some of the most vulnerable refugees are struggling to cope and survive in the camps. It told us about women who have been badly raped and abused, and who are at risk of further abuse in the camps. There are children with no one to look after them whose parents have been killed and relatives lost, and those who have been tortured and are still enduring terrible mental and physical distress. We need to provide help now for those people as a matter of our common humanity.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in Turkey, for instance, the significant majority of refugees do not live in the camps? Of 700,000 refugees, only 200,000 are in the camps, and children who are outside the camps are the ones not getting the education.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is also the case in Lebanon where refugees living in towns and villages now make up a sizeable proportion of the Lebanese population. Some of the vulnerable refugees that the UN has identified are within the camps, but he is right to say that there will be people in other circumstances who are also experiencing great distress. I know he will agree that many of those refugees want to return to their homes and stay in the region, but it is right that we provide additional assistance to those who are most vulnerable.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend will have heard during the statement my raising with the Home Secretary the plight of LGBT refugees from Syria, drawing attention to the work of Human Rights Watch in identifying the specific issues that those people face. Will she address that issue in her remarks?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I have specifically discussed that issue with the UN. It told me that it is keen to ensure that support is provided, and it gave the example of young gay men who have suffered homophobic abuse and persecution, and who may need additional assistance. That is why it is important to include LGBT issues in our consideration of vulnerable refugees who may need additional sanctuary elsewhere and outside the region.

We should rightly provide sanctuary alongside other countries across the world. No one country can shoulder this alone, and we should work together and urge others to join us. France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the USA, Canada, Australia and many other countries are helping to provide sanctuary. That is why Britain must also do its bit and why it would have been wrong for it to turn its back.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she has done over the past couple of weeks in highlighting this issue and working with charities and organisations outside Parliament. Does she agree that the UK taking in refugees—as the Government have now stated we will—is a mark of our responsibility in the world and of our need to lead efforts and lead by example? A constituent wrote to me stating:

“I feel…very concerned at the UK’s refusal to accept displaced persons…We are shamed by the actions of other countries.”

That is a sad thing for a church in my constituency to be saying.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must not only urge other countries to do more, but do our bit and show that we stand together in humanitarian causes right across the world. We are stronger if we stand together, and it says something about who we are as a country.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I compliment my right hon. Friend on the motion she has tabled and the effect it has had. Will she return to the need for efficiency in dealing with the refugee crisis? Surely it would be desirable if the UK were part of the UNHCR process, rather than trying to set up something that appears to be separate but complementary.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a strong case for being part of that UN programme, and I will come on to that point. Indeed, it was the UN who asked us to help in the first place, and it is right that we should respond to that in the most effective way, rather than setting up parallel programmes.

Many other countries are participating. France, Austria and the Netherlands are proving sanctuary for several hundred people, which is similar to the levels of support that the Home Secretary has confirmed she expects to help. Germany and the US are taking many more refugees, but with all our countries standing together, we are not far off the 30,000 places that the UN has asked for. That is the power of countries working together. Although each country itself may offer limited support, it adds up to substantial humanitarian relief for the most desperate people in the world.

When we called for this debate seven days ago, the Government and Home Secretary held a different position on helping the refugees, and it is right that they have now changed that position. I suspect that the Immigration Minister may be glad that he is not responding to this debate, since he had to reply to the urgent question last week when his position was different. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result of strong support for the UN programme from all parties—including many on the Back Benches who raised their concerns as part of that urgent question last week—the Government have changed their position.

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

The right hon. Lady mentions countries working together, and we know that in the UK the Government have put forward an arbitrary figure of 100,000 migrants as their target. Surely refugees should not be included in that arbitrary political figure. That would then give the Government far more room for manoeuvre in order to do the right thing and the humanitarian thing.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in response to the Home Secretary’s statement that I think there is a case for removing refugees from the net migration target. Refugees and those seeking sanctuary are different from those who come as migrants to work and may have homes they can return to and are in a different situation.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The right hon. Lady will have heard me ask the Home Secretary to account for the difference in the scale of ambition between the numbers of refugees being taken in by the UK and by Germany. Given that the UK and Germany are among the largest contributors to humanitarian aid, does the right hon. Lady have any explanation for such a gap in ambition between the UK and Germany on the refugee total?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do not know the detailed discussions that the Home Secretary has had with the UN on the scale of support needed, but the UN has asked for 30,000 places to be provided across the world. Even without the British contribution, the UN was already well on the way to reaching those sorts of numbers, and the contribution that the UK needs to make can still be significant, even if it is more limited. Each country needs to look at the kinds of support it can provide, and also at support that can be provided in the region. My point is that some small countries are offering places for 50 or 100 refugees, and when all countries do their bit, even if places are limited, that still adds up to a significant international humanitarian effort. It is right for us to support that.

I pay tribute to the charities that have campaigned for the change of heart by the Government: the Refugee Council, Amnesty International, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Muslim Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and many more, as well as hon. Members across Parliament who called on the Government to change their mind. Although Labour chose this topic for an Opposition day—I am glad that the Government responded to the prospect of this debate—we recognise the extent of cross-party support and the significance that the views of Back Benchers have had in this debate. This is a good example of Parliament raising and being thoughtful about an issue that was not getting considerable media interest before being taken very seriously in Parliament, and the Government have changed course as a result. I also recognise the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that just because we cannot give sanctuary to everyone does not mean that we should give it to no one. He has also been clear in supporting the Government’s change of view.

Many hon. Members have raised the nature of the Government’s plans and asked why they have decided to set out a programme that is different from the UN programme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s approach and the support that the Government are due to provide. I welcome and agree with the Home Secretary’s emphasis on women who have suffered terrible sexual violence, and her recognition of torture victims. I should also emphasise the point many hon. Members have made about abandoned and vulnerable children who have lost parents and family and other support.

I am glad that the Home Secretary has said she will work closely with the UN, but I am still unclear why she is so uncomfortable about signing up to the UN programme. She says that she does not want quotas, but there is no need to set a quota within the UN programme. Indeed, Britain is already part of the UN mandate programme, which helps a limited number of refugees from around the world who have family in the UK who will support them, and that programme states clearly that it has no quota. The US committed to operate in the UN Syria programme and has set no quota. It has set no specific number and has said that it will work on a case-by-case basis according to need.

The Home Secretary says she wants flexibility, yet the UN programme provides considerable flexibility for different countries to specify the kind of refugees in whom they have expertise and choose to help. For example, in the similar UN gateway programme, Britain specified that we wanted to settle Iraqi interpreters who had helped our troops. We had that level specification within a UN programme.

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

Many of my constituents who have contacted me in the past few weeks were extremely disappointed with the Government’s decision not to sign up to the UNHCR programme. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary seems to be gearing up for the same question to which my constituents want an answer. The Government’s announcement is welcome, but what would be required for Britain to sign up to the UNHCR programme?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend’s point is important. We simply do not understand the reason for not being part of the UN programme. As we understand it, the UNHCR will do the work of identifying the most vulnerable refugees. It will provide that support on the ground—that is exactly what it does as part of the UN Syria programme. Many of the elements of the Government’s programme—the principles that the Home Secretary set out earlier—are principles that can be adopted within the UN programme. Other countries have done so. It is unclear why the Home Secretary is so resistant to biting the bullet and why she wants the UK programme, which looks an awful lot like the UN programme, to have another name.

There is an explicit advantage of being part of the UN programme. If the Home Secretary wants to call on countries that have not signed up to the UN proposal to do so, such as Italy, Portugal, Poland and New Zealand, it will be much easier if she does not distance herself from the UN programme. Britain has the aid programmes and bureaucracy to run a parallel programme, but most of those countries do not. We should therefore encourage them to work with the UN and to be part of the UN programme. Surely there is an advantage in saying that the world should pull together. Britain should not go it alone, because we believe that no country alone should have to shoulder the burden of any serious humanitarian crisis. We believe in everyone doing their bit and sharing the challenge.

We will not fall out over this today. The most important thing is that the Home Secretary has come forward with a proposal that will help vulnerable Syrian refugees. The most important thing for the Opposition is that Britain is doing its bit and providing that assistance—that specialised assistance—to those who are most desperate and in need of her help, but I urge her to look again at partnership with the UN.

Let me turn to one wider issue before I close my remarks—other hon. Members have raised it. Hon. Members agree that there is a big difference between, on the one hand, immigration policy and border control, and on the other, providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. We agree with strong controls at our border, and with stronger measures to prevent illegal immigration and limit those coming to work, but that is different from the question of giving safe refuge to those in fear of their lives.

The Home Secretary has set a target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. That target is going up, not down, and the Home Office is under pressure to turn it around. However, the target includes refugees. Surely there is a serious problem if Home Office officials are inclined to resist any resettlement programme whatever the circumstances because it will affect the net migration target, which they are under such pressure to meet. I therefore ask her to give serious consideration to the net migration target to make it clear to everyone that there is a big difference between the approach to immigration and the approach Britain has rightly taken to refugees today.

Britain has a long history of providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. In the week of Holocaust memorial day, we remember events such as the Kindertransport, which hon. Members have mentioned, and which provided sanctuary and homes for Jewish children fleeing the Nazis at the beginning of the second world war. We have also seen the contribution that refugees have gone on to make to our country, building our businesses, enriching our culture and supporting our public services.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for giving way, especially when she is winding up her speech. Vulnerable and desperate Syrian refugees who fled Syria to escape horrific violence find themselves in neighbouring countries, some of which simply cannot cope. Does she share my fear that they are being driven into the hands of human traffickers? We have seen boats off Lampedusa. Does she agree that that is yet another reason why we need to ensure that the number of spaces we offer in this country is as ambitious as possible?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady is right to describe the risk of vulnerable refugees getting caught up with human traffickers. The Home Secretary rightly referred to people coming to Britain to claim asylum. Some certainly have, but travelling across a continent and being able to claim asylum is difficult for the most vulnerable. When people are vulnerable, they are at huge risk from those who would exploit and abuse their situation. Part of the reason for the UN Syria refugee programme was to avoid the challenges they face—some people are simply too vulnerable to travel and to make their journey elsewhere.

We should recognise the huge contribution that those to whom we have given sanctuary in generations past have gone on to make in our country and their contribution to who we are today. Last weekend, I was in a community in west Yorkshire talking to police officers. One police community support officer who was out on the beat told me that Britain had given him safe refuge when he was 11 years old. His family were fleeing Bosnia. Now, he keeps Britain and people in Britain safe. That is his job. His wife, also a Bosnian refugee, is an intensive care nurse in the NHS, caring for those who are most vulnerable in our hospitals, just as this country helped her family when she was vulnerable 20 years ago.

Our long tradition of giving that help and sanctuary, and of providing refuge for the most desperate, is a testimony to what kind of country Britain is and wants to be. That is why we should stand together in Parliament to support that tradition this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the Police Federation initiated the review. He wanted properly to review the federation’s role and whether it represents officers properly. Obviously, a number of key recommendations have come forward. It is important that the federation has had the review. If any changes require Home Office input, we stand ready to work with the federation on them.

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

Last week, the Home Secretary refused to come to the House to answer a question on vulnerable Syrian refugees, and sent the Immigration Minister to convey to the House her decision that Britain would not provide sanctuary to any of the vulnerable refugees, torture victims, abandoned children and others whom the Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged her to help. He told us that to do so was simply a “token”. Twenty-one MPs asked the Home Office to change its position and sign up to the UN programme, and each time the Minister said no. As a result of the pressure that the Home Secretary has been put under, and in advance of the vote on Wednesday, has she listened, and is the answer now yes?

[Mrs May]

First, the United Kingdom has a fine record in terms of the amount of money we are providing in humanitarian aid—it is the largest sum of money of any of the European Union countries. We have also accepted in the past three years several thousand asylum seekers from Syria. That is another way in which we are appropriately offering support. Through the mandate programme, we have the ability to take refugees who have family connections here and whose families are willing to support them. However, I am working with the Foreign Secretary to look at what further support can be provided by the Government. Further announcements on that will be made in due course.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. As she will know, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that aid to the region is vital. The majority of people will be helped through that, but the UN and others have made it clear that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or even to survive in the camps. That is why it is so important to provide extra help. This is not an either/or.

Let me press the Home Secretary specifically on the UN programme. She will know that there is huge flexibility within the programme on the numbers of people whom Britain can offer to help, on Britain’s ability to do security checks on those coming forward, and on Britain’s ability to specify who and what kinds of refugees it can support. Will she therefore tell the House now whether she will agree in principle to sign up to the UN programme—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

This issue is of concern for hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government are looking at the most appropriate way for us to provide support and enhance the support we are already giving. As I said in answer to the right hon. Lady’s first question, I am working with the Foreign Secretary, and announcements will be made in due course. She wants an answer from me today, but I can assure her that she will have a response from the Government in advance of the House considering the Opposition motion on Wednesday.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Yvette Cooper Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes the ending of preventative measures allowed under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) for six terrorist suspects in January 2014, including individuals that the Home Secretary considers to pose a risk to the security of the United Kingdom through terrorism-related activity; notes the decision made by the Home Secretary to end TPIM controls after two years regardless of whether she assesses individuals are likely to involve themselves in terrorism-related activity; is concerned that the Home Secretary has provided to Parliament no assessment of the current threat these individuals may pose to the public through terrorist-related activity, and notes the recent finding of Mr Justice Wilkie that the Secretary of State does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation; further notes the disappearance of two terrorist suspects subject to TPIMs, Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed; calls on the Government to make a statement to Parliament on the threat of terrorist-related activity posed by the six suspects exiting TPIMs, and to share the full assessment from the Security Service with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and further calls on the Government to establish a cross-party review of TPIMs in the light of these assessments to decide whether changes are needed to protect the security and liberty of the United Kingdom.

By the end of this week up to six terror suspects will have all their restrictions removed so that they can walk the streets of Britain unhindered. These six men were previously considered sufficiently dangerous by the Home Secretary and the courts that they were subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, with their communications and movements restricted to prevent terror-related activity. According to the courts, one was a suspected suicide bomber planning to blow up an airline; one was planning a firearms attack, either in the UK or abroad; one was trying to join terrorists in Somalia and another was trying to join Islamist terrorists in Syria; a fifth was accused of fundraising and supporting terror activity in Pakistan; and a sixth was accused of planning attacks and fundraising for al-Shabaab, the group responsible for the awful attacks at Nairobi’s Westgate centre last year.

We know how dangerous the court and the Home Secretary believed these men were even just 12 months ago, when their TPIMs were renewed. The Home Secretary needs to tell us today whether she believes they are still dangerous now. Their TPIMs are not being removed because the Home Secretary has changed her security assessment; they are being removed because the Home Secretary changed policy and legislation three years ago. We need answers today on the risk each of these men poses and on what action she has taken to reduce the risk. Parliament also needs to know whether TPIMs are still fit for purpose, or whether reforms are needed in the interests of public safety.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Can the right hon. Lady be clear on her position? Is it her view that people who have been accused but never convicted should be held under such measures indefinitely? That is the consequence of what she is saying.

[Yvette Cooper]

I will make a little progress and set out our concerns and views. We have always raised concerns about the introduction of the two-year time limit, because we believe that that raises serious questions. We also want nobody to be under control orders or TPIMs longer than is necessary, so it is right that they are continually reviewed. However, it is also right that we make sure that concern for public safety is at the heart of the debate, and that is what we need to discuss today.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is talking about the answers we need. Promises were made to the Bill Committee—I was on it—and Parliament about the cost of TPIMs, but we have never got to the bottom of how much those costs have increased by. Would she like to comment on that?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Figures were given in briefings to newspapers of about £50 million of additional funding to the security services and the police as a result of the switch from control orders to TPIMs, but it would be helpful to have that figure confirmed by the Government. In addition, however, we do not know whether extra resources are being provided for the ending of TPIMs. That clearly creates additional pressures on the police and security services.

This country has always to be vigilant against terrorism, and we should thank the police and our security and intelligence services, which do a difficult job incredibly well, often behind the scenes and unnoticed. According to the independent reviewer of terrorism, the threat of a terror attack directly by al-Qaeda has decreased since the mid-2000s, but the threat from its affiliates and its power to motivate other extremists and provide training and planning support all remain. Over this Parliament, we have seen attempted bomb plots in the west midlands, plans to attack a Territorial Army base and target Wootton Bassett, and of course the dreadful murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last summer.

UK nationals attempting to travel overseas to fight and train are also potential threats to the UK, both to our interests and citizens abroad and to us here when they return home. The independent reviewer has warned that the Syrian conflict might begin to rival the traditional threat from al-Qaeda core and regions north of Pakistan. We need to be vigilant against these threats and ensure that the British people are protected, and to ensure that the terrorists do not divide us or undermine our democratic values. The laws we pass against terrorism need always to be proportionate and fair.

That is why, like control orders before them, TPIMs are exceptional powers and should be used only in exceptional circumstances, but there are difficult cases: where there is substantial evidence that someone poses a terror risk, but where convictions cannot be achieved—for example, if they depend on secret intelligence that cannot be used in court. Given the risk of harm and potential loss of life from terror attacks, Parliament and our courts have long supported preventive measures based on a clear legal procedure, with safeguards to reduce the risk to the public.

Three years ago, however, the Home Secretary decided to weaken those terror powers by replacing control orders with TPIMs, putting a two-year limit on each one and removing relocation and other restrictions from them. She said there would be a greater focus on prosecution and imprisonment.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the narrative being put out by the Conservative part of the coalition is that the legislative change that brought in TPIMs was a result of their coalition partners, the Liberals? Was not the start of this, however, in the Conservative party’s 2010 manifesto?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I want to come to that. The Home Secretary ducks the issue if she simply blames the Liberal Democrats for this change in legislation, because she introduced it and Conservative MPs voted for, supported and defended it at every stage of its passage through the House, even when we raised questions and concerns.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

rose—

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I want to make some progress, because I have not yet reached the main substance of my speech, but I will briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman and then my hon. Friend.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the right hon. Lady not accept that it was the courts of law in this country that criticised and weakened the control orders that her Government set up—the courts sounded their death knell—and that any Home Secretary has to establish a proper legal framework for the orders of this country to subsist?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong, and he knows he is wrong because he asked exactly that question of David Anderson, the independent terrorism reviewer, in the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The reply from David Anderson was clear. He said that control orders had not been undermined by the courts and had in fact been upheld by them—that the principle had been upheld and individual control orders had been upheld. Of course it is right for control orders to be scrutinised in the courts, as it is right for TPIMs to be scrutinised. However, the independent reviewer was absolutely clear: it was not the courts undermining control orders, nor was it the courts that decided to replace them with the weaker TPIMs; it was the Government.

[Mark Tami]

My right hon. Friend touched on relocation, which was one of the most effective parts of control orders, but it is now being replaced by a costly system that cannot work as effectively.

[Yvette Cooper]

The concern for us is that the weakening of the terror powers has led to additional costs. We simply do not know what additional costs there might be now as a result of ending control orders for up to six people this month.

The Prime Minister told the House earlier this month that TPIMs “are working”, but the verdict on TPIMs, two years on, is very different. According to the independent reviewer, there have been no successful prosecutions, despite all the Home Secretary’s promises. The removal of relocation powers has badly backfired. No one relocated as part of their control order ever absconded, yet the Home Secretary removed relocation powers and lost two out of 10 suspects in 12 months. Ibrahim Magag ran off in a black cab; Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed ran off in a burqa. They have not been seen since, and the Home Secretary and Prime Minister have no idea where they are. The Prime Minister calls this a successful policy, yet 20% of the terror suspects on TPIMs have disappeared within a year.

We want to concentrate on the six men expected to be released from TPIMs this month. The House warned the Home Secretary of the risks that she was taking by restricting TPIMs to two years regardless of the security assessment unless fresh terrorist activity had occurred. Here is what Mr Justice Collins said about her legislation:

“if a TPIM has achieved its purpose and the Home Secretary has no reason to believe that any terrorist related activity has occurred, there will be no power to impose a fresh TPIM whether or not…the Secretary of State has reason to believe the subject will involve himself in terrorist related activity.”

In other words, if the TPIM works to prevent terrorist activity, there is no possibility of the Home Secretary extending it, even if she has good reason to believe that that terror suspect remains a serious risk and will return to terrorist activity straight away.

If that is the case, Parliament needs to know the extent of the risk that these men pose now, and the Home Secretary needs to give us this simple piece of information: does she believe that these six men are still likely to pursue terror-related activity: yes or no? The courts said they were likely to do that 12 months ago. Does she believe they are now? Are these men still a risk: yes or no? She cannot claim that she does not comment on individual cases, because she has already done so. Public statements have been made about these men and the risks they pose.

Let us take the person known as CD—one of the men whose TPIM expires this month. The Security Service said he was trying to procure firearms for a terrorist attack in the UK. Just over a year ago, the judge agreed he was too dangerous to remove the TPIM controls. The judge said at that point that

“the evidence that CD has been involved in terrorist activity is overall stronger now than it was”.

He also said that the

“control order and now TPIM are having something of their intended effect, but that is very different from saying that the TPIM should be ended…there remains a network, his views and determination are unchanged, he has training”.

What has changed since then? Have CD’s views and determination changed? Has his network changed? Or is there still a significant risk that he will try to get firearms or other weapons again to pursue a UK attack? The Security Service and the judge told us a year ago that this man was a serious risk; now the Home Secretary is removing all his restrictions. We have a right to know whether she still thinks he is a risk or whether that risk has gone. I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us now whether CD is still a risk. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has chosen not to intervene to answer the specific question about whether CD remains a risk.

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

Is the right hon. Lady really telling us that she is going to take us back to the bad old days of Labour’s anti-civil-libertarian state, with its control orders, ID cards, national database and 90-day detention? Is that where new Labour is going to take us once again?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman, too, should want this information and these answers from the Home Secretary. Whatever his views about the legislation, he ought to want answers from the Home Secretary about whether CD still presents a risk. Our view is that it is right to have exceptional legislation, but that strong safeguards should also be in place. Sometimes there is a need for clear powers, but clear safeguards must also be in place. There should be provision to review TPIMs or control orders to make sure that they are used only where it is proportionate and justified. However, the Home Secretary should provide answers about whether she is needlessly putting people at risk as a result of the decisions she has taken.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the independent review of David Anderson recommended that consideration be given to an additional power at the end of a TPIM to provide something similar to licence conditions when people are released from prison. At the moment, there is no legislation to provide any degree of control once the TPIM is ended. Does my right hon. Friend think it a good idea to introduce such provisions into the TPIMs legislation so that if we do not have a TPIM, we at least have something akin to licence conditions on the release of prisoners?

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As we understand it, no restrictions will be in place for these six men, regardless of the security risk. We do not know what the security assessment of these six men is; that is why the Home Secretary needs to tell us. She may now believe that they are no longer a risk and that no further restrictions are needed. If further restrictions are needed, however, we need to know what they are. We are happy to engage in a cross-party discussion about whether further legislation and changes are needed, but we need answers from the Home Secretary on the security assessment of these men.

Let us take the man known as AM, for example. The Government have argued that he was part of

“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic airlines by suicide bombing”.

Here is what the judge said just 18 months ago:

“But for the disruption of the transatlantic airlines plot, there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people.”

Those are the judge’s words. He also said that

“convincing evidence of a change of heart was required before the Secretary of State could reasonably consider that the need to protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism had gone or been reduced to a level at which preventative measures were no longer required.”

The Home Secretary has now removed those preventive measures. Does she believe that there has been

“convincing evidence of a change of heart”?

Does she have evidence that

“the need to protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism”

has gone? I have cited what the court said 18 months ago, but what does the Home Secretary say about AM now? Once again, I give her the opportunity to intervene to answer the question whether she believes that AM is still a risk.

There are others, such as the man known as BF. Just seven months ago, the Home Secretary described him as a

“long term, committed and historically well connected extremist”

who

“maintains a desire to travel overseas and he would seek to travel after restrictions are removed and he would seek to engage in terrorist related activities.”

That was seven months ago; what has changed? Is he still a risk; yes or no? Then there is the man known as CE. The Home Secretary told the courts that he was trying to travel to Somalia to engage in terror-related activity and that he was linked to a UK-based network of Islamist extremists who are fundraising and supporting terrorism in Somalia. Is he still a risk; yes or no?

The courts confirmed nine months ago that CF had attempted to travel to Afghanistan to engage in suicide operations, while the Security Service said he was fundraising for al-Shabaab and recruiting fighters from the UK. Is he still a risk? The man known as BM is accused of fundraising for terrorist organisations in Pakistan and of trying to travel there to engage in terror-related activities. Is he still a risk?

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Perhaps the Member known as YC will tell the House what measures she would introduce to replace those to which she is referring.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an important question. We think that the decision about the framework must depend on the security assessment, to which the Government have access but we do not. We believe that it was wrong to introduce the two-year limit in the first place, and wrong to remove the relocation powers. That was our view when the legislation was passed, and we continue to be concerned about those issues. However, we are willing to work with the Government and with other parties, on a cross-party basis, to consider what the framework should be now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) advanced important proposals which have also been advanced by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. There may be other options, and we think it important for those to be debated, but they need to be debated in the light of the security assessment.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the right hon. Lady agree with the independent reviewer that there should be a licence system, or does she recognise its weakness?

[Yvette Cooper]

The independent reviewer’s proposals should be looked at very seriously. As I have said, there may be other options, such as the extension of time limits. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, any set of proposals will involve limitations. This is the kind of debate we ought to be having in Parliament, but it needs to be informed by that proper security assessment.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way once more, but I must then make some progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; I know that she wants to move on. Do I understand from her response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that her understanding of justice in this case is that the group of people concerned should not be allowed to see the evidence that will be presented in a trial that they will not actually undergo, and that they should then be forcibly relocated from their communities and kept in detention for at least 23 hours a day, for an indefinite period? Is that the Labour party’s view of justice in this case?

[Yvette Cooper]

No. We have made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation that these measures should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, and that there must also be a court procedure. There must be legal safeguards, and there must be judicial processes. I have cited the views of the judges, not just the views of the Security Service and the Home Secretary. However, we must also recognise that there are some cases in which it is very difficult to prosecute in the courts because of secret intelligence, and the risk to human sources who may put their lives at risk by providing that important information.

The Home Secretary should tell us this: does she still believe that each of the six men whose restrictions she is now removing poses a terror threat—yes or no? She told us 12 months ago that the answer was yes, because she renewed their TPIMs, but what is her answer now? We know what she thought of those men when she imposed the restrictions, but surely it is even more important for us to know the risk when she takes those restrictions away. We are not asking her to show Parliament the detailed Security Service assessment—she should show that to the Intelligence and Security Committee—but we are asking her to inform us of her conclusions, and to give us as much detail as she gave publicly to the courts.

The Home Secretary gave us her security assessment when Magag and Mohamed ran off. She told us then that she did not believe they posed any risk to people in the United Kingdom. If she could tell us that much about those two terror suspects once they were out on the streets without restrictions, why can she not do the same now in relation to all the others?

People change and risk levels change. If the risk has been reduced, restrictive measures may no longer be justified, in which case they should certainly be removed. We support the removal of restrictions as soon as they are no longer justified. Over the last decade, control orders have rightly been removed from more than 30 people because they were not longer justified. Terror powers such as these must always be kept under review, but the Home Secretary has removed these restrictions not because they are no longer justified but because of her legislation, the legislation she pushed through Parliament. How can Parliament assess whether that legislation was right, and whether she has done the right thing, without knowing the continued risk that any of these men is expected to pose?

We also need to know what action the Home Secretary has taken to prepare for the end of TPIMs. The independent reviewer warned us some time ago that serious planning should be done to work with those individuals to reduce the risk once the restrictions were removed. Has that happened? Has any work been done with them to address their extremism? Judge Wilkie suggests not. On the basis of the evidence that the Home Secretary submitted to the court, he said that she

“does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation.”

What planning has taken place to cope with the restrictions being removed? The Home Secretary has told us that the Metropolitan police have a plan for each person, but will she ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is shown those plans? Will she also tell us what those plans will cost? When control orders were downgraded to TPIMs two years ago, the Government provided extra funding for surveillance and investigations. However, that extra funding was clearly not enough to ensure that there was sufficient surveillance on Mohamed and Magag, who were able to abscond, or enough to deliver successful prosecutions. That reduction from control orders to TPIMs will have put additional pressure on the resources of the police and the security services, but surely the ending of TPIMs for those suspects altogether will put even greater pressure on those resources now, as there are no restrictions in place. Has any additional funding been made available to cope with the ending of TPIMs for those men, or will surveillance resources have to be redeployed from other important targets?

Before the Home Secretary stands up to answer my questions, let me address some of the points that she usually makes in her defence, as well as some new ones that she has added to her list in the past few days. She usually argues that control orders were not strong enough, and that people absconded while subject to them. She and I agree that the control orders without relocation powers, under the regime that operated before 2007, were not strong enough, but that is why the control order regime was tightened up in 2007 with a greater focus being placed on relocation, after which no one absconded. My response to that was to say that we should keep the relocation powers. Hers was to ditch them. She has lost two terror suspects as a result.

The Home Secretary has now come up with two new defences. She has told the Daily Mail that the problem was the fault of the Human Rights Act, and she has told The Sun that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats. Both claims are nonsense. She has also tried to claim that control orders had to be reformed because they were being undermined in the courts. The independent reviewer has made it clear, both to the Home Affairs Committee and in other statements, that the courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of control orders and upheld individuals’ cases time and again. The independent reviewer has said:

“The replacement of control orders by TPIMs was a political decision. It was not prompted by any court judgment, either from the United Kingdom or from Strasbourg.”

As for the idea that this was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault, the Deputy Prime Minister is not even strong enough to sort out the problems in his own party. No one believes that he is strong enough to make the Home Secretary put forward legislation that she does not agree with. Let us remember what she said at the time. She made it clear that it was her legislation, not his. She defended every one of the changes, including the two-year limit, the end of relocation and the granting of extra freedoms. Indeed, she was proud that she was

“re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 71.]

The Home Secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats, the Human Rights Act or the courts. She has only herself to blame if she does not like the consequences of her legislation. We need to know what she is going to do now, however. What is the risk to the public from those six men? What is the risk to the public from her legislation? What is she doing about this? She told us three years ago:

“Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

So can she now get up and tell us that she is not doing exactly that? Can she put her hand on her heart and tell us she is confident that she is doing the right thing for the British people by removing those TPIMs from those six individuals this month? And if she is really as uncomfortable with her own legislation as her briefings to the newspapers suggest, is it not time that she backed down and set up a cross-party review to look at this legislation again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because David Anderson has consistently said:

“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”

As I said at the beginning of my speech, that option, without charge or prosecution, has already been struck down by the highest courts in the land.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). He specifically said that the independent reviewer has said:

“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”

to terrorism-related activity. The Home Secretary has just claimed that the Government had to get rid of relocation because it kept getting struck down by the courts, but the independent reviewer has said the complete opposite. He has said that the courts supported the principle of relocation. Will she now make clear her view: does she simply think the independent reviewer is wrong or will she now withdraw her previous comments?

[Mrs May]

I will repeat precisely what I said a few minutes ago, which is that what the right hon. Lady never tells this House is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases. The point is that she and others speak about relocation in this House as if it was never queried, but it was; in four cases it was struck down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am going to make some progress as I have taken quite a few interventions.

We continue to believe that the best place for a terrorist is behind bars. As I have said, if the police and Security Service find any individual engaging in new terrorism-related activity, the police will seek to have them prosecuted. If that is not possible, it is open to the police and Security Service to recommend that a new TPIM notice should be imposed.

In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim, I said that I would talk about the new powers that we have introduced. We have not just given extra money to the police and Security Service; we have strengthened their powers. In April last year, in a written statement to the House, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who we believe want to travel abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorist training or other fighting. That has significantly enhanced the security services’ powers in this area and the prerogative has already been used on several occasions, helping to disrupt terrorist suspects who want to travel abroad to gain skills or contacts that they could use to plot attacks in this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

In the cases of several of the six people expected to be released from TPIMs this month, the concerns raised were that they would travel abroad to be involved in terrorist activity. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether that power has been used to remove the passports of any of those who are coming off TPIMs this month?

[Mrs May]

I will not go into operational detail, but what I will say to the right hon. Lady is that it is open to the Security Service and police to make a request for the royal prerogative to be exercised in those cases where they think it is appropriate to do so.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary answered this question when she was asked about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, and specifically about his passport—she initially gave an incorrect answer to the Home Affairs Committee, which she then corrected. If she was prepared to answer a question about his passport, why is she refusing to answer legitimate questions about the attitude towards the passports of these suspects?

[Mrs May]

I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would have been able to distinguish between the information given to this House about the passport of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed and the question of whether the royal prerogative has been exercised.

Given the conflict in Syria, powers to disrupt terrorist travel are now particularly vital. The UK already has some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with suspected terrorists and those suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity, both in the UK and abroad. We will not hesitate to use every power at our disposal. If a terrorist suspect is a dual national, I will consider deprivation of their British citizenship, and the Government are considering strengthening our legal powers in that area. If a suspect is a foreign national, the Government can exclude them from the UK. This Government have excluded more foreign hate preachers than ever before.

We will further increase our efforts to remove foreign nationals from this country where they threaten our national security. After this Government finally secured the deportation of Abu Qatada—who was, of course, one of the original Belmarsh detainees—we introduced the Immigration Bill to make it easier for us to get foreign terrorist suspects out of our country. The Opposition failed to vote for that Bill on Second Reading.

As well as tackling foreign terrorist suspects, we are doing more to stop home- grown extremism. This summer, we saw events that shocked the nation, with the horrific killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich and the murder of Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham. Last month the Prime Minister announced new measures to tackle extremism, with the outcome of the extremism taskforce, which was established in the wake of those tragic events. That built on the revised Prevent strategy, which we extended to cover all forms of extremism, including non-violent extremism. We have already had success in restricting extremist speakers. Many events with extremist speakers have been referred to the police, some have been disrupted, and in other cases, venues have been persuaded not to host speakers with extreme views.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are some people whom it is not possible to deport or prosecute. That is the sentence I opened my speech with. That is precisely why we have the TPIM measures as possibilities to be used for certain individuals.

In addition to the other measures I have spoken about, more than 21,000 items of illegal terrorist content have been taken down from the internet. As I have mentioned, we have excluded more preachers of hate from this country than ever before. While some Labour politicians positively welcomed the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London, under this Government foreign hate preachers are not welcome here.

We are stopping terrorist suspects travelling abroad, we are depriving them of the option of coming back, we are deporting foreign terrorist suspects and we are doing more to tackle home-grown radicalisation.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary has not answered the basic question about whether these six men still pose a risk. Let me ask her about one of them, the man known as CD. She has told us plenty about him before and has said plenty to the courts. She told us plenty about Magag and Mohamed. Why does she not simply tell us now whether she believes that CD still poses a risk that he will pursue terrorist-related activity—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady and to the House that of those individuals who are coming off their TPIMs, the police and the Security Service have made a proper risk assessment and have put in place measures to ensure that they are dealing with those individuals in the way that they believe is appropriate. Those are decisions that they take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is not actually the moment; the Government have moved on from control orders, but that is another issue. I would say that if there has been a trial and that person has been found not guilty, fair enough. There may, however, be reasonable suspicion that somebody poses a real danger to the public. This whole debate has been skewed because the Labour party has attacked the Government from the right, but I am more interested in what the public think. When the public look at the appalling outrages that have taken place, and when they consider the plots to blow up hundreds of innocent people for no reason at all, I do not think that most of them think that the sorts of measures that the Labour Government brought in, and that our Government are enforcing, are such a dramatic infringement on our traditional way of life. In that sense I support the former Labour Government; I think they had to act as they wanted, although we know there was a problem with the courts.

It does not seem to me that TPIMs are so very different from what we had before. They are instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, and they are granted on the basis of a reasonable belief in the subject’s involvement in terrorism—that all sounds quite sensible. That is, I agree, a higher threshold than the one for control orders, which required “reasonable suspicion”, but as far as the public are concerned, is there a great deal of difference between the “reasonable suspicion” that was required under the former Labour Government, or a reasonable belief in the subject’s involvement in terrorism? I do not think so; that is not a great difference between control orders and TPIMs. The Home Office memorandum on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 states that the Home Secretary must reasonably—again, “reasonably”, and all this is subject to judicial review—consider

“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”.

Let us always focus on members of the public. That is what we are here for, not to debate party political issues. I wish those on our two Front Benches could get together on this issue; it is a matter of national security.

[Yvette Cooper]

indicated assent.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sure that on a Privy Counsellor basis, the Home Secretary would be happy to brief the right hon. Lady. I am speaking as a Back Bencher, but it seems that when the public are concerned, and when there are people who hold such dangerous views, it is not unreasonable for us as members of the public to ask our two parties of state to work together on this.

The memorandum says that the Home Secretary must reasonably consider

“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism,”

and with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity,

“for TPIMs to be imposed on an individual.”

That is not unreasonable.

There are two points to consider and I understand the attack from the Labour party. I also understand that the High Court had a problem with relocation, but I would have thought we could find a way through that. If relocation was absolutely necessary from the point of view of protecting the public, I do not think it unreasonable —I have been listening to the shadow Home Secretary—for there to be some requirement for relocation.