Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Theresa May Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

We have had a lively and constructive debate today on the urgent need to ensure that communications data continue to be retained, and to clarify the law in respect of interception for communications service providers.

I thank all those who have contributed to the Bill during its various stages so far. I also want to place on record my gratitude to those who have recognised both the need for this legislation and the reason it is so important that we see it enacted quickly.

We discussed the Bill earlier today on Second Reading and it has just been scrutinised in Committee. I thank the Opposition for the support they have given to the Bill and their recognition of the importance of the issues it deals with. I also thank the Clerks of the House and all those involved in supporting us and enabling us to do this business in one day. Particular thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration for the excellent job he has done in taking the Bill through its Committee stage, and to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his contributions on behalf of the Opposition.

I do not want to rehearse in detail all the arguments that have been made, but I remind Members that the Bill deals with two urgent issues, including the response to the European Court of Justice decision in April, which struck down the European data retention directive. That has created uncertainty among communications service providers about the legal basis for the retention of communications data in the UK, which is a crucial resort for law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sure the Home Secretary knows that I am, in general, supportive of the Bill, but, in the light of the vote we have just taken, what sort of guarantee can she offer the House that the same European Court that struck down the previous situation will not strike down this Bill as well?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated earlier, and as I think others have indicated during the course of the various debates we have had today, the European Court of Justice did not strike down the ability to retain data. It recognised that the ability to retain data was necessary and it recognised purposes for which those data could be retained. What it did in its judgment was say that the data retention directive was drafted too broadly and it challenged its scope.

Of course, it was always the case that regulations here in the United Kingdom had been drawn more tightly and narrowly than the data retention directive. We are able to put through this Bill with confidence because not only were our data retention regulations drafted in a way that met many of the issues that the ECJ raised, but we have made some changes to ensure that we meet the extra requirements that the ECJ made on us. That is what gives us confidence in the future of this legislation.

We have heard a number of examples today of how important it is to have the ability to retain and access communications data. It is vital for piecing together the activities of suspects, victims and vulnerable people, and ensuring that serious criminals and terrorists can be brought to justice. This Bill will clarify the legal basis for us to oblige communications service providers to continue retaining communications data.

At the same time, we need to put beyond doubt the legal obligation on companies that provide services to people in the UK to comply with our laws on interception, regardless of where they are based. As we know, the communications services used by us all are increasingly provided to the UK by companies based outside the country. Interception, which can take place only within strict limits and with a warrant authorised by the Secretary of State, can prove vital when investigating the most dangerous criminals or defending the security of the United Kingdom.

In the absence of explicit provisions in legislation, some overseas companies have started to question whether the law applies to them, so we are clarifying the law. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was always intended to apply to any company providing communications services to the UK, as the provisions in the Bill make absolutely clear. The Bill does not introduce new powers, or extend the reach of law enforcement or security and intelligence agencies in any way. It responds to the European judgment, clarifies the existing provisions of RIPA and ensures that the police and security and intelligence agencies can maintain essential capabilities to fight crime and protect the public.

The Bill does not replicate the draft Communications Data Bill. As I have said several times, I continue to believe that its measures are absolutely necessary, but this Bill is not about what was in the draft Bill; it is about ensuring that we retain the capabilities we have at the moment. It will be for the next Parliament to debate other extensions in relation to communications data, as in the draft Bill. We know that that debate will take place because this Bill has been “sunsetted”. It will therefore be necessary for the Government to look at the issues after the election. Indeed, that will be on the basis of informed debate, following the review undertaken by David Anderson, as agreed.

The Bill will ensure that the job of those who protect us does not get even more difficult; that they can continue to use powers that are part of everyday policing; that they remain able to find vulnerable people at risk or in danger; and that they can maintain the use of vital capabilities to solve crime, save lives and protect the public from harm. It will ensure that our police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities to do that. I now invite the House to pass the Bill and send it to the other place, and I commend it to the House.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Theresa May Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s Justice and Home Affairs opt-outs.

I have just noticed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) sitting in solitary splendour on the Opposition Front Bench.

On 24 March this year, Francis Paul Cullen was sentenced to 15 years in prison for a series of sexual assaults on children. He committed those offences over a period of more than three decades while serving as a priest in Nottingham and Derbyshire. His victims were both boys and girls, and were aged between six and 16. The judge said that their

“whole lives have been blighted”

by this

“cunning, devious, arrogant”

man. Indeed, one of them tried to take their own life.

When his crimes came to light in 1991, Cullen fled to Tenerife to evade justice. Last year, after 22 years on the run and two decades of further suffering for his victims, he was extradited from Spain on a European arrest warrant. This spring, he pleaded guilty to 15 counts of indecent assault, five counts of indecency with a child and one count of attempted buggery. After a lifetime of waiting, his victims who were watching in that courtroom in Derby finally saw justice done.

That harrowing case and too many others like it form the backdrop to today’s debate. Francis Cullen is just one of the despicable and cowardly criminals who have fled our shores to try to escape British justice. In an earlier age, he might have succeeded. Under the system of extradition that existed before the European arrest warrant—the 1957 European convention on extradition—his 22 years on the run would have rendered him immune from prosecution by the Spanish authorities, helping to bar his extradition back to the UK. It is thanks to the European arrest warrant that Cullen is behind bars at last.

I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the way in which that measure has operated since the Labour party signed us up to it, and I have shared many of those concerns. That is why I have legislated to reform the operation of the arrest warrant and increase the protections that we can offer to those who are wanted for extradition, particularly if they are British subjects.

First, Members were concerned that British citizens were being extradited for disproportionately minor offences. We changed the law to allow an arrest warrant to be refused in respect of minor offences. A British judge will now consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence are sufficient to make the person’s extradition proportionate. Secondly, Members were concerned that people could be extradited for actions that are not against the law of this land. We have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which the person is wanted took place in the United Kingdom and it is not a criminal offence in the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

These are serious matters. Nobody wants to protect criminals. However, there is a lot of concern about these matters in the House of Commons, not least because it is difficult to argue to our people that we want to take powers back from the European Union if we are giving it powers. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that although this is effectively an Adjournment debate on a one-line Whip, there will be a substantive vote after a proper debate so that the House of Commons is able to vote on these matters?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend causes me to progress to another part of my speech. I want to make the situation absolutely clear. As he knows, we have had a number of debates on this matter in the House, and the Justice Secretary and I have made a number of appearances before various Select Committees, including the European Scrutiny Committee. We had hoped and intended that by this stage we would have reached agreement on the full package that we are negotiating with the European Commission and other member states. That has not happened. The package was discussed at the General Affairs Council towards the end of June, but some reservations have still been placed on it, so we do not yet have the final agreement. However, we believed that we had sufficient knowledge to make it right and proper to have this debate in the House today.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

Sorry, I am still responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I am trying to answer his question as carefully and clearly as possible.

The House will have the opportunity to vote on this matter in due course, but having said that we would bring the matter back to the House before the summer recess, I thought it right and proper to give the House the opportunity to have this debate.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. I apologise if I interrupted her.

I am sure that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the House that if we do not have the European arrest warrant, we will need to have a large number of individual treaties with individual countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I are both old enough to have practised at the Bar when that was the situation. I remember that, whether one was prosecuting or defending, it could take ages and ages, going to Horseferry Road magistrates court time after time, with adjournment after adjournment, year after year, before someone was extradited.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is the point that I had hoped to illustrate with the case that I set out at the beginning of my speech, which is that the European arrest warrant has given us distinct advantages in our ability to have criminals extradited back to the United Kingdom and, indeed, to extradite people elsewhere when they have committed crimes that warrant that extradition.

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

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will, if my hon. Friend will wait a moment.

There have, of course, been a number of concerns that we have addressed in our legislation. That is an important point. I was in the middle of setting those out, but before I go on with the list, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Government, in their July 2013 Command Paper, said that

“it may be possible to negotiate bilateral treaties…with the EU”.

The EU now has legal personality and I believe that there is legal advice, at least in the Ministry of Justice, that says that a bilateral treaty with the EU would be possible. Why is that avenue not being pursued?

[Mrs May]

There are two issues in relation to that. First, people often say, “That’s what Denmark has; it is able to negotiate directly because it has a complete opt-out on these matters.” However, Denmark does not have any other legal avenue for opting in to those measures. As the Commission has made clear, given that there is another legal avenue for the United Kingdom—as negotiated by the previous Government—that is what should be pursued, rather than a separate extradition treaty with the EU. Secondly, I say to right hon. and hon. Members who think that some form of bilateral treaty would be a way of getting around the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, that Denmark has been required to submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ as part of the conditions of agreeing a treaty with the European Union.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is right that the European arrest warrant is needed and right in principle, but the Home Affairs Committee was concerned about the way it has operated. I know she has worked hard to put forward changes, with forum bars and other such issues, but at the end of the day she does not have control over the judiciary in a country such as Poland. Some of those countries are issuing warrants that are executed in our country, and it is extremely difficult to control that.

[Mrs May]

That is one of the issues we are addressing. One problem that has been raised—particularly in relation to the country that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—is the number of arrest warrants being issued for offences at the lower end of the scale that would perhaps not be treated in the same way in the United Kingdom. That is why we have considered the issue of proportionality, and introduced the requirement that a British judge will consider whether the alleged offence and likely sentence is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate. We have written the need to address that issue of potential disproportionality into our legislation, and it will come into effect soon.

[Keith Vaz]

I am grateful for that information. Further to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, the Committee also decided, because of the concerns of so many Members, that there should be a separate vote specifically on the European arrest warrant when this package comes before the House. Will the Home Secretary agree to give the House a separate vote on that?

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of the views that the Committee put forward in its report, and as I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we have not yet agreed absolutely the final package with other European member states and the European Commission, and some technical reservations have been made. We are working on that and expect to be able to remove those reservations, and the House will have an opportunity to vote in due course.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said that we have legislated in a way that protects us from the issuance of trivial European arrest warrants, but surely those will be subject to the European Court of Justice. They could, in future, strike out our own legislation, reinforcing concerns among Conservative Members that this Parliament continues to be sidelined in favour of the European Court of Justice.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend should look to other member states in the European Union that are already subject to the European Court of Justice and already exercise a test of proportionality on such matters. To return to the point I made earlier, although some may think that an arrangement similar to that held by Denmark would get over that problem, it would not because part of the arrangement is precisely being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs May]

If I may I would like to get to the end of this list of measures so that right hon. and hon. Members are clear about the provisions we have made in UK legislation. Hon. Members were concerned about arrest warrants being issued for investigatory purposes rather than prosecutions, and that is the third issue we addressed. We have legislated to allow people to visit the issuing state temporarily to be questioned ahead of an extradition hearing in the UK, if they consent to do so. Members were also concerned about the prospect of people being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they chose to consent to extradition, so our fourth measure is to lift the requirement that individuals lose their right to “speciality protection” when they consent to extradition.

Finally, a number of hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has spoken passionately in the Chamber about the case of his constituent, Andrew Symeou—were concerned about people being detained for long periods overseas before being charged or standing trial. Our fifth change, therefore, was to change the law to prevent lengthy pre-trial detention. No longer will people be surrendered and have to wait months or years for a decision to be made to charge or try them.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the Home Secretary understand that either this House is sovereign in criminal justice or the European Union is, and that if we opt into this measure, the European Union becomes sovereign? She has rightly pointed out lots of defects with the arrest warrant, but once we have given away our sovereignty we have no absolute right to stop or change things in the way that we can if we keep the authority here.

[Mrs May]

The point I have made to my right hon. Friend, and others in the past, is that of course there is a question about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and we have already opted into measures post the Lisbon treaty where the Court operates. We have seen decisions by the ECJ that have been unhelpful—perhaps I can put it like that—such as the Metock case, or the case I referred to earlier when making a statement to the House. We believe that the Court should not have the final say over matters such as substantive criminal law or international relations, and that is why we are not rejoining more than 20 minimum standards measures on matters such as racism and xenophobia. That is why we will not be rejoining the EU-US extradition agreement, and we should be able to renegotiate as we see fit. I am clear that we should have the final say over our laws.

By already opting out of certain European measures, we have taken powers back from Europe that had already been signed away. The process we were left with, which was negotiated by the previous Government, was an unappealing choice between the potential impacts of ECJ jurisdiction over those measures that it is in the national interest for us to rejoin, or the prospect and dangers of an operational gap.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I am being generous and will continue to be generous to my right hon. and hon. Friends, all of whom I know have firm views on this matter. I say to hon. Members, however, that I too have firm views about ensuring that from 1 December this year, our police and law enforcement agencies can continue to do the job we want them to do in catching criminals and keeping people safe.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows—she has said this already—there are concerns that our laws are being made elsewhere in this context. She then says that in fact we will keep control over our laws. That is precisely not what is happening because, as she knows from the statement she made earlier today, through section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, the European Court of Justice overrides not only this Parliament voluntarily, but also our Supreme Court.

[Mrs May]

As I indicated earlier, the House will introduce its own legislation to ensure that we are able to do what we wish to do in terms of the powers of our law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies. We must, however, make a choice on some of these measures, and the question is whether we believe that we need such measures to keep the public safe and ensure that people are brought to justice, or not. I believe that with the measures we have negotiated, both I and the Justice Secretary—he has also been working hard on this matter—have recognised those issues and will ensure that our police and law enforcement agencies are able to do the job we want them to do.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary and sorry to trouble her a second time. This argument that our whole security depends on the European arrest warrant must be false. An answer was given to the European Scrutiny Committee about how many indictable offences there were in the UK in one year, and the figure was 377,000. In a four-year period, however, there were only 507 requests for us to use a European arrest warrant to the continent. That is 125 a year against 377,000 indictments in this country. Our security is not dependent on the European arrest warrant.

[Mrs May]

I find my hon. Friend’s argument strange. He says that, simply because a small number of serious criminals such as murderers are extradited on the European arrest warrant compared with the number indicted here in the UK, we should not worry. If somebody has committed a murder and we wish to extradite them from another European member state, we should be able to do so. The EAW, as all those who work with it will recognise and confirm—it has been confirmed in evidence to Select Committees—is a better tool to use because it enables extradition to take place more quickly.

As I have indicated, the Council of Europe arrangements, which were in place previously, had a time limit. Had the European arrest warrant not been in place, we would not have been able to extradite the individual I mentioned earlier, Mr Cullen, back to the UK to face justice, and his victims would not have seen justice done. All the provisions—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentions the DNA database from a sedentary position. He and I have a different opinion on the database because he would like everybody in the UK to be on it.

All the EAW provisions to which I have referred have been made in UK law and will commence later this month. I believe they will make an important difference in the operation of the arrest warrant. The Labour Government could have made all those changes during the eight years they oversaw the EAW, but they failed to do so. That failure has coloured the views of many in the House and beyond it about the EAW, but it should not cloud the fact that the EAW is a vital tool for ensuring that justice is done in this country and for keeping the British public safe, as has been so clearly impressed on me and Committees of the House in evidence given by the police and prosecutors who use it. I take that responsibility as Home Secretary very seriously, and it underpins everything I say in the debate and the process that has brought us to this point.

It might be helpful to remind hon. Members of the background. When without the promised referendum the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), signed the UK up to the Lisbon treaty, he ceded more powers to the European institutions and gave up our veto over police and criminal justice matters. We got very little in return, but one of the few things we got from that flawed negotiation and imperfect treaty was the option to opt out of all the police and criminal justice measures that were agreed before the Lisbon treaty came into force. However, that opt-out had to be exercised en masse before the end of May 2014. Following votes in both Houses of Parliament last year, that is exactly what the Government did. That decision is irreversible and will come into effect on 1 December 2014. From that date, we must either opt back in to the smaller number of measures that we think are vital for the protection of the British people and other victims of crime, or face an operational gap that will hamper the efforts of our police and law enforcement agencies.

When the Justice Secretary and I came to the House last July, we explained that we had listened carefully to the views of our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, and concluded that a small number of measures that were subject to the opt-out decision add value in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice, and that it would therefore be in our national interest to rejoin them. We listened to right hon. and hon. Members, and carefully considered the reports of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee, before opening formal negotiations with the European Commission, the Council and other member states.

Good progress has been made, and I am pleased to be able to report that we have reached an in-principle deal with the Commission on the non-Schengen measures, which fall under its purview, and we have made good progress on the Schengen measures, on which the outline of a possible deal is now clear. I indicated earlier that the matter was discussed at the General Affairs Council on 24 June, but technical reservations remain, and discussions continue with the aim of allowing those reservations to be lifted. Therefore, the negotiations are ongoing, but, as I have said, the Justice Secretary and I have been clear throughout that we will update Parliament as appropriate and give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to debate the issue. That is what we are doing today. Last week, we published the Command Paper—Cm 8897—which includes the full list of measures that were discussed at the General Affairs Council, and impact assessments on each of the measures. That fulfils the Government’s commitment to provide those impact assessments and further demonstrates our commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of the matter.

Many were sceptical that a deal could be done, and many believed that the European Commission and other member states would force the UK into measures that we did not want to rejoin, but I am proud to say that we have been able to resist many of the changes demanded by others, and have not been pushed into rejoining a larger number of measures. We are clear that the deal is a good deal for the United Kingdom.

One measure that we have successfully resisted joining is Prüm, a system that allows the police to check DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data. I have been clear in the House previously that we have neither the time nor the money to implement Prüm by 1 December. I have said that it will be senseless for us to rejoin it now and risk being infracted. Despite considerable pressure from the Commission and other member states, that remains the case.

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

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House why it is so important to have those cross-border co-operation arrangements with the EU and not with the entire world?

[Mrs May]

Our police forces of course co-operate with other police forces throughout the world in bringing criminals and perpetrators to justice. The European arrest warrant—I will repeat myself—is an extradition arrangement that improves on the extradition arrangements that we had previously. I recognise that there have been concerns about it, but we have legislated on those concerns here in this Parliament.

I was describing the Prüm system, which is about the easy, efficient and effective comparison of data when appropriate. We have been clear that we cannot rejoin that on 1 December and would not seek to do so. However, in order for the House to consider the matter carefully, the Government will produce a business and implementation case and run a small-scale pilot with all the necessary safeguards in place. We will publish that by way of a Command Paper and bring the issue back to Parliament so that it can be debated in an informed way. We are working towards doing so by the end of next year. However, the decision on whether to rejoin Prüm would be one for Parliament. Unlike the Labour Government, who signed us up to that measure in the first place without any idea how much it would cost or how it would be implemented, the Government will ensure that Parliament has the full facts to inform its decision.

On another subject, I know that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary will want to address the probation situation in his closing remarks—that is another measure we have successfully resisted rejoining.

The Government propose to rejoin other measures in the national interest. We wish to rejoin the European supervision order, which allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK rather than spending months abroad awaiting trial. That will stand alongside the reforms we have made to the European arrest warrant, and make it easier for people such as Mr Symeou to be bailed back to the UK and prevent such injustices from occurring in future.

We are also seeking to rejoin the prisoner transfer framework decision, a measure that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary considers important. The framework helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails—prisoners such as Ainars Zvirgzds, a Latvian national convicted of controlling prostitution, assault, and firearms and drug offences. In April 2012, he was sentenced to 13 and a half years imprisonment in the UK. Last month, he was transferred out of this country to a prison in Latvia, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence. Had it not been for the prison transfer measure, he would have remained in a British prison, at a cost to the British taxpayer of more than £100,000.

We wish to rejoin the measure providing for joint investigation teams, so that we can continue to participate in cross-border operations such as Operation Birkhill. That collaboration with Hungary, funded by Eurojust and assisted by Europol, led to five criminals being sentenced at Croydon Crown court last month to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment for their involvement in trafficking more than 120 women into the United Kingdom from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. One of those convicted, Vishal Chaudhary, lived in a luxury Canary Wharf penthouse and drove a flashy sports car bought from the money he made selling those women for sex. Chaudhary and his gang managed their operation from a semi-detached house on a suburban street in Hendon, and operated more than 40 brothels across London, including in Enfield and Brent. Their victims were threatened with abuse if they tried to contact their families. Some were forced to have sex with up to 20 clients a day. These are the victims of crime that the measures we are debating today help. Joint investigation teams are a vital tool in the fight against modern slavery, a crime this House so passionately demonstrated earlier this week it wants to see tackled. I hope the House will support rejoining the measures that will help us to do that.

[Keith Vaz]

I support everything the Home Secretary has said in respect of these policing issues. However, why have we not rejoined the European criminal information system, which would have provided us with information on those who come into this country and already have criminal convictions?

[Mrs May]

We discussed the measure the right hon. Gentleman refers to in front of his Committee and other Committees. There are a number ways in which we deal with these matters in terms of exchanging information. I want to be sure that I am looking at the measures to which he is referring and I think that they are Council framework decisions 2009/315/JHA and 2009/316/JHA. They require member states to inform each other about convictions of EU nationals and are an important tool for sharing data. The reason I am hesitating here is that we were certainly discussing the possibility of rejoining this particular measure. [Interruption.] It is in the 35. Yes, that is why I was hesitating. The right hon. Gentleman said we were not in it and I thought it was in the 35 measures we are rejoining, precisely because it gives us the opportunity to share this information.

We also wish to rejoin the Naples II convention, the principal tool for customs co-operation. Operation Stoplamp, which used this measure to exchange vital information with our partners, resulted in the seizure of 1.2 tonnes of cocaine with a street value of about £300 million—again, an outcome I am sure everyone in this House will welcome. We are also seeking to rejoin Europol, which played a key role in helping our law enforcement agencies to fight those criminals who tried to exploit British customers by adulterating our food with horsemeat. It is doing excellent work under the leadership of its British director, Rob Wainwright.

Those are just a handful of examples that illustrate why our participation in these measures is in our national interest. Today’s debate is not about the flawed treaty to which the previous Labour Government signed us up; it is about the decisions we must take now to protect the public and keep the British people safe. The Government’s policy is clear: we have exercised the opt-out and negotiated a deal to rejoin a limited number of measures that we believe it is in the national interest for us to remain part of.

I look forward with interest to the speech from the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as it would be helpful to know the Opposition’s position on these various measures. Every time we debate them, we see a slightly different position coming forward. I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary is not here to tell us herself, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether they would have exercised the opt-out that they negotiated. Would they have remained bound by all 130-plus measures, rather than negotiating a limited number in the national interest? Would they have changed the law to protect British citizens, as we have done in relation to the European arrest warrant? Would they have risked infraction proceedings by rejoining Prüm without fully considering the facts?

The evidence suggests that the Opposition do not share the determination of this party and this Government to reduce the control Brussels has on our criminal justice system. Their position has always been to say one thing and do another. There was a manifesto promise for a vote on the Lisbon treaty, but they refused to hold a referendum. They said they would protect British red lines, but they gave up our veto in policing and criminal justice matters. They negotiated an opt-out and then voted against using it. That contrasts with the position taken by this Government. We support, and have exercised, the United Kingdom’s opt-out. We support the return of powers from Brussels to the UK. We support acting in the national interest by rejoining a limited number of measures to protect British citizens and the victims of crime. This is consistent with our approach to the Europe Union as a whole.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I notice that the title of the debate actually refers to opt-outs. Apart from Prüm, can the Home Secretary name one thing that they are not opting into that will make a significant difference in repatriating competence to the UK—one single issue apart from Prüm?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

It is not that we are opting back into Prüm. We did not join Prüm in the first place, so that is rather different from the measures in the 35. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has spoken in front of Select Committees on a number of occasions on the importance of not opting into those minimum standards measures in relation to the justice system. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at those.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly taken tough action to stand up for Britain in Europe by cutting the EU budget, saving British taxpayers more than £8 billion, vetoing a new EU fiscal treaty that did not guarantee a level playing field for British businesses and refusing to spend British taxes on bailing out the euro. It is under this Prime Minister that Britain did not budge on the principle that it should be for the elected Heads of national Governments, not the European Parliament, to propose the President of the European Commission. What I have outlined today is another example of this Government standing up for the United Kingdom’s best interests, bringing powers back home while doing all we can to keep the British people safe. That is the sort of leadership in Europe that this country needs.

National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body

Theresa May Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Written Statements

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

The first report of the National Crime Agency (NCA) remuneration review body was published today. In line with my letter setting the body’s remit, it has made recommendations on pay and allowances for NCA officers designated with operational powers. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the review body for their careful consideration of the evidence.

Following an independent review of the evidence supplied by the NCA, the Home Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the relevant trade unions, the NCA remuneration review body has recommended various pay increases with an average annual award increase of approximately 1%. This is in line with the Government’s policy that public sector annual awards should average 1% for each of the two years following the public sector pay freeze. Additionally, in response to the NCA’s proposed amendments to its London weighting allowance, the review body has recommended that the NCA should conduct a full review of the allowance’s design, purpose and value. I accept these recommendations in full.

Copies of the NCA remuneration review body’s first report are available in the Vote Office and on www.gov.uk

Communications Data and Interception

Theresa May Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the use of communications data and interception; the difficulties faced by the police, law enforcement agencies, and the security and intelligence agencies in utilising those capabilities; and the steps the Government plan to take to address those difficulties.

Before I do so, I would like to make something very clear. What I want to propose in my statement today is a narrow and limited response to a set of specific challenges we face. I am not proposing the introduction of the Communications Data Bill, which was considered in draft by a Joint Committee of both Houses last year. I believe that the measures contained in that Bill are necessary, and so does the Prime Minister, but there is no coalition consensus for those proposals and we will have to return to them at the general election.

The House will know that communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—and interception, which provides the legal power to acquire the content of a communication, are vital for combating crime and fighting terrorism. Without them, we would be unable to bring criminals and terrorists to justice and we would not be able to keep the public safe. For example, the majority of the Security Service’s top priority counter-terror investigations use interception capabilities in some form to identify, understand and disrupt the plots of terrorists. Communications data have played a significant role in every Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the last decade. They have been used as evidence in 95% of all serious organised crime cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service and they have played a significant role in the investigation of many of the most serious crimes in recent times, including the Oxford and Rochdale child grooming cases, the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the murder of Rhys Jones. Communications data can prove or disprove alibis, identify associations between potential criminals and tie suspects and victims to a crime scene.

I have talked before about the decline in our ability to obtain the communications data we need, which is caused by changes in the way people communicate and the technology behind those forms of communication. That is why I continue to support the measures in the draft Communications Data Bill. However, in addition to that decline, we now face two significant and urgent problems relating to both communications data and interception: first, the recent judgment by the European Court of Justice, which calls into question the legal basis upon which we require communication service providers in the UK to retain communications data; and, secondly, the increasingly pressing need to put beyond doubt the application of our laws on interception, so that communication service providers have to comply with their legal obligations irrespective of where they are based. So I can tell the House that today the Government are announcing the introduction of fast-track legislation, through the data retention and investigatory powers Bill, to deal with those two problems.

I want to deal with communications data first, because we must respond to the ruling by the European Court of Justice that the data retention directive is invalid. This directive was the legal basis upon which the Governments of EU member states were required to compel communication service providers to retain certain communications data where they do not otherwise require them for their own business purposes. Indeed, the ruling provides us with such a problem precisely because very strong data protection laws mean that, in the absence of a legal duty to retain specific data, companies must delete data that are not required beyond their strict business uses. That means that if we do not clarify the legal position, we risk losing access to all such communications data and, with it, the ability to protect the public and keep our country safe.

The ECJ ruling said that the data retention directive does not contain the necessary safeguards in relation to access to the data, but it did not take into account the stringent controls and safeguards provided by domestic laws, in particular the UK’s communications data access regime, which is governed primarily by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. RIPA was, and remains, designed to comply with the European convention on human rights. It ensures that access to communications data can take place only where it is necessary and proportionate for a specific investigation. It therefore provides many of the safeguards that the European Court of Justice said were missing from the data retention directive.

The ECJ judgment clearly has implications not just for the United Kingdom, but for other EU member states, and we are in close contact with other European Governments. Other countries, such as Ireland and Denmark, implemented the data retention directive through primary legislation, which means they have retained a clear legal basis for their data retention policies, unless a separate, successful legal challenge to their legislation is made. The UK does not have that luxury, because here the data retention directive was implemented through secondary legislation. While we are confident that our regulations remain in force, the Government must act now to remove any doubt about their legal basis and give effect to the ECJ judgment. The legislation I am publishing today and the draft regulations that accompany it will not only do that; they will enhance the UK’s existing legal safeguards and, in so doing, address the criticisms of the European Court.

The House will understand that I want to be clear, as I said earlier, that this legislation will merely maintain the status quo. It will not tackle the wider problem of declining communications data capability, to which we must return in the next Parliament, but it will ensure—for now, at least—that the police and other law enforcement agencies can investigate some of the criminality that is planned and takes place online. Without this legislation, we face the very prospect of losing access to this data overnight, with the consequence that police investigations would suddenly go dark and criminals would escape justice. We cannot allow that to happen.

I want to turn now to interception, because there is growing uncertainty among communication service providers about our interception powers. With technology developing rapidly and with the way in which we communicate changing all the time, the communication service providers that serve the UK but are based overseas need legal clarity about what we can access.

The House will understand that I cannot comment in detail on our operational capabilities when it comes to intercept, but I have briefed the Opposition on Privy Council terms and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have heard first hand from the security and intelligence agencies, and it is clear that we have reached a dangerous tipping point. We need to make sure that major communication service providers co-operate with the UK’s security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies when they need access to suspects’ communications. Otherwise, we would immediately see a major loss of the powers and capabilities that are used every day to counter the threats we face from terrorists and organised criminals.

The Bill I am publishing today will therefore put beyond doubt the fact that the existing legal framework, which requires companies to co-operate with UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies, also extends to companies that are based overseas, but provide services to people here in the UK. I will make copies of the draft Bill available in the Vote Office, and I will also make available the regulatory impact assessments and the draft regulations to be made under the Bill, in order to allow the opportunity for the House to scrutinise these proposals in full.

The parliamentary timetable for this legislation is inevitably very tight. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just provided details of the prospective timetable for the Bill’s consideration, but it is crucial that we have Royal Assent by the summer recess. The Government have therefore sought to keep this Bill as short as possible. It is also subject to a sunset clause, which means that the legislation will cease to have effect from the end of 2016. The Bill thus solves the immediate problems at hand and gives us enough time to review not just the full powers and capabilities we need, but the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated, before Parliament can consider new, and more wide-ranging, legislation after the general election.

It is right to balance the need to prevent criminal exploitation of communications networks with safeguards to protect ordinary citizens from intrusions upon their privacy. That is why, alongside the legislation I am publishing today, the Government will also introduce a package of measures to reassure the public that their rights to security and privacy are equally protected. We will reduce the number of public authorities able to access communications data. We will publish an annual transparency report, giving as much detail as possible—within obvious parameters—about the use of these sensitive powers. We will appoint a former senior diplomat—I am sorry, I mean a senior former diplomat; for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat, a senior former diplomat!—to lead discussions with other Governments to consider how we share data for law enforcement and intelligence purposes.

We will establish a privacy and civil liberties board, based on the US model, which will build on the role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and the board will consider the balance between security and privacy and liberty in the full context of the threat we face from terrorism.

We will review the interception and communications data powers we need, as well as the way in which those powers and capabilities are regulated, in the full context of the threats we face. The Government are discussing with the usual channels the precise form this review might take, but I hope that an initial report will be published before the next election.

I have said many times before that it is not possible to debate the correct balance between security and privacy—and, more specifically, the rights and wrongs of powers and capabilities such as access to communications data and interception—without understanding the threats that we face as a country. Those threats remain considerable. They include the threat from terrorism—from overseas and from here in the UK—but also the threat from industrial, military and state espionage practised by other states and foreign businesses; the threat from organised criminal gangs; and the threat from all sorts of criminals whose work is made easier by cyber-technology.

In the face of such a diverse range of threats, the Government would be negligent if they did not make sure the people and the organisations that keep us safe—the police, other law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies—have the legal powers to utilise the capabilities they need. They are clear that we need to act immediately. If we do not, criminals and terrorists will go about their work unimpeded, and innocent lives will be lost. That is why I commend this statement, and this Bill, to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs May]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Is it not important for the House to take into account that the European Court made it clear that it recognises that there may indeed be a need for such a European directive but that it is concerned that the current directive is not consistent with Human Rights Act requirements and so forth? In so far as the Government have given a clear pledge that the Bill will be drafted to meet those concerns about safeguards and human rights considerations, the Intelligence and Security Committee warmly welcomes the proposal. So far as the other measures in the Bill are concerned, the Committee will be taking evidence from the intelligence agencies on the interception warrant issues and related matters, and we hope to be in a position to advise the House when it considers the Bill on Second Reading next week.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that the Court made it clear in its judgment that retaining those data could be necessary. The question was about the regulatory framework in which the data are retained and whether the methods and various aspects of access to the data were proportionate. I am grateful to him and to all members of the ISC for the work they continue to do on these issues. It is worth noting that the work of the ISC is important for the House and for the wider public, albeit that much of that work, by definition, is never seen or heard because of the matters that it addresses. The Committee plays an important role.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the criticisms raised in the ECJ judgment, and there were four key areas of criticism, on scope, duration, access and storage. We are addressing all those criticisms, in so far as it is necessary to do so over and above the regulations that we have in place. As I indicated in my statement, our current framework already addresses some of the issues that the ECJ raised.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I support the Home Secretary’s statement and the legislation. Does she agree that restoring the status quo is necessary but not sufficient? She has told us that this information has been vital to uncovering every single terrorist plot against this country over the past 14 years, and she has told us that there are gaps in that information. Is it not a paradox that we are rushing through legislation in seven days to restore the status quo when we have wasted five years in which we could have addressed the gaps, thus leaving the security services less able to protect the citizens of this country?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me indicate in my statement that legislation of the type proposed by the Government is necessary. Indeed, when he was in government prior to the 2010 election, the Government considered the future capabilities that were necessary. That issue needs to be addressed, and I stand by the draft Communications Data Bill that I published and that was considered by a Joint Committee. Future capabilities will be for the House and the Government to discuss after the election. Today, we are faced with the very real necessity to act now in order to maintain our capabilities; future capabilities will be part of the review and subsequent action.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

In my judgment, this legislation is essential if we are to protect our citizens from criminals and terrorists. The annulled directive required the retention of traffic and location data but not the content of the communications, and it was therefore different from lawful interception, which requires a warrant. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that principle remains unaltered?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely can. In the Bill we are addressing the two issues of communications data and lawful intercept, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for recognising and drawing a distinction between them. It is important that people understand that distinction. Access to lawful intercept will continue in the way that it always has—under warrant. One of the roles of the Home Secretary and, in some areas, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is to sign warrants and to consider their necessity and proportionality. A great strength of our system is that those ultimate decisions are made by people who are democratically accountable.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposals on data retention, which are absolutely essential to enable our security agencies to carry out their duty to protect our citizens, but I am concerned about the proposals to assert the extraterritoriality of our intercept powers, which, as she will know, is a matter of contention for some communications service providers. If some of them choose not to comply, what actions can she take to ensure uniformity of compliance with the legislation? That is a real challenge for her. I am also concerned about the mutual legal assistance treaty. It can provide a framework to enable us to get data from other jurisdictions, but it is so slow and cumbersome that it can take months. When we are in a fast-moving terrorist situation, we need to be able to get those data quickly. I think that reform of that treaty is a high priority.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She raises two issues. First, she is absolutely right that there have been questions about the extraterritoriality of the current provisions in RIPA. We have asserted, as I believe the previous Government did, that the extraterritorial jurisdiction was there, but we have chosen to make it absolutely clear in the Bill that it is possible to exercise a warrant extraterritorially. That is part of the purpose of that part of the legislation. Secondly, we have already had discussions with the United States on the mutual legal assistance arrangements, and it is precisely that sort of issue that I think the senior former diplomat will be able to address in discussions with other Governments, particularly the American Government, because the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that currently the processes are very slow and do not address the issue as we need them to.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Since it is not surprising that this is a difficult issue on which to achieve coalition consensus, I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has agreed with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on a whole series of safeguards that are absent from previous legislation. I suggest that as part of the fundamental review that now needs to take place of this essential but temporary legislation we should consider whether some authority beyond that of Ministers, perhaps of a judicial kind, might be needed, certainly for the highest level of intrusion into privacy.

[Mrs May]

I note my right hon. Friend’s point. Of course, the question of whether some form of legal or judicial authority—a magistrates court, perhaps—should look at access to communications data was considered by the Joint Scrutiny Committee. It looked at the processes that are in place today and accepted that they were absolutely appropriate and suited the requirements.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing the start of her statement. I welcome the briefing that she and the Prime Minister gave to me and other Select Committee Chairs yesterday. I support these proposals. Keith Bristow has said that it is vital that we retain this information in order to protect the public. On scrutiny, she is due to appear before the Home Affairs Committee next week. I hope that that will be part of the scrutiny process for the Bill. Will she reassure the House that David Anderson will be given the resources he needs, because at the moment he is doing a very important job, but he needs the resources to do it even more effectively?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I look forward to my appearance before the Home Affairs Committee, as I always do. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance on that. As I indicated earlier, this review will set the scene for legislation that will operate for some years to come, so it is essential that we get it right. We must see it in the context of the threats we face, look at the powers we need and then consider the right regulatory framework for those powers. I am clear that David Anderson will be given the resources he needs.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has justified rushing this Bill through the House on the basis of an emergency. However, the case was put to the ECJ some time ago, and it took some time to reach its conclusion on 8 April, so if there is an emergency, it was a predicable one on 8 April. There has since been plenty of time to look at the 12 clauses that relate to data retention, so why is there an emergency now and not then?

[Mrs May]

As I said in an earlier response, there was always going to be a need for fast-track legislation. There was never going to be any possibility of taking the Bill through the House in the normal time scale, because of the potential timetable within which we would be losing access to this data. I also say to my right hon. Friend that of course the case was going through the European Court of Justice, but until it had given its determination, no one was absolutely certain what the result would be and what aspects it would raise. There was always the possibility that even if it did decide to strike down the data retention directive it would stay that decision for a period to give an opportunity for other legislative frameworks to be put in place by member states. In the event, it chose not to do that. It chose to strike down the directive immediately. As I said, we are clear that our data retention regulations stand, but we need to put it absolutely beyond doubt and ensure that we do not lose these important capabilities.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary will know that she has the full support of all law-abiding citizens in Northern Ireland for legislation that defends the realm and ensures that terrorists are dealt with appropriately. Indeed, legislation such as this has been used to jail some 300 people for serious terrorist offences, and to protect our citizens. With that in mind, the Secretary of State mentioned the sunset clause. Come 2016, I am sure that this legislation will still be required. Will she assure us that by then we will have something more permanent in place, or have a proper debate about what should be in place to ensure that legislation such as this is operational?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of this emergency legislation. He recognises only too well the importance of ensuring that we have the capabilities that we need to deal with both terrorists and serious criminals. On the timetable, the intention is that the review will report before the general election, so that after the election it will be possible for the Government to take it forward and to look at the legislation that is required in sufficient time to get it on the statute book before the sunset clause kicks in at the end of 2016.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome these proposals. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of her predecessors as Home Secretary, Sir Robert Peel, faced strong opposition in this House to the creation of a modern police force on civil liberties grounds? Peel replied that liberty does not consist in having our home raided by an organised gang of thieves. Does not any responsible Government now have to recognise that technology, while enabling the fight against crime, has also presented serious criminals and terrorists with new opportunities to commit crime and we must respond to that?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to be able to respond to that challenge if we are to continue to fulfil one of the absolutely fundamental roles of Government, which is keeping the public safe and secure. Sometimes people describe the debate between liberty and security as a sort of binary process; we can have only one or the other. I do not see it as that. We can only enjoy our liberty if we have our security.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Although I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject, I remind the House that short questions and answers will mean that everyone has a chance to contribute to this statement.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I sympathise with the Home Secretary’s quandary, but I rather sympathise, too, with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), because the only reason that this is an emergency that has to be dealt with in a single day in the House of Commons is that the Government have spent three months making up their mind, and they have decided that we are going on holiday in 10 days’ time. Does it not make far more sense to enable proper consideration so that we do not have unintended consequences from this legislation? If the legislation was considered in this House on two separate days, we could table amendments after Second Reading.

[Mrs May]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. To ensure that we get this legislation through in the necessary time and that we have a space of time—I recognise that it is a short space of time—I am publishing the draft Bill today. I am not waiting until Monday to publish the formal introduction of the Bill, because I want Members to have some extra time to look at it. It is important for this House to proceed through this matter in a timely way such that we can ensure that we do not lose the capabilities, and that we get the legislation on the statute book before the recess.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Like many Members, I am instinctively uncomfortable about rushed emergency legislation, and also a little uncomfortable if there is too much consensus among those on all the Front Benches on any piece of legislation. However, I welcome what the Home Secretary has said today. She is right—it is a narrow and limited Bill that is only a precursor to other legislation. In my role as a junior member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, may I take this opportunity to assure all Members of the House that we take incredibly seriously our responsibilities to make sure that our security services act only in a legal and a necessary and proportionate manner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I sometimes think that on some issues we cannot win in terms of the length of time available. The important point is that the Bill is not about extending powers or about new powers; it is confirmation of existing powers and of a legislative framework around them. The debate about extension of powers or any change of powers will come after the review and after the election.

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

Given the real intention and agenda, is this not just the snoopers’ charter—the prequel? Although there have been all sorts of arrangements and discussions among those on all the Front Benches and even with Select Committee Chairs, there has been none with the Scottish Government, even though we are responsible for policing arrangements and for justice? I asked the Scottish Government this morning what detailed discussions the Home Secretary has had with them. There was none. Does she think that is good enough?

[Mrs May]

I am very sorry about the tone that the hon. Gentleman has taken. We are, of course, making the Scottish Government aware of this, and discussions will take place with the Scottish Government. We are facing a situation where we could see the loss of capabilities that lead to dangerous criminals, paedophiles and terrorists being apprehended and brought to justice. I should have thought that every Member of the House, in all parts of the House, wanted to ensure that we maintain those capabilities, and I am very sorry if the hon. Gentleman takes a different view.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

As a member of the Joint Scrutiny Committee that for six months considered similar matters, and as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, may I commend the Home Secretary for her statement? Will she confirm that the Bill maintains modern policing effectively to deal with modern criminality? It represents the status quo and it does not focus just on anti-terrorism. It would focus also on child protection and serious criminality of all types, and it is crucial that it is maintained.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right and, as he says, he has the experience of membership of the Home Affairs Committee and of sitting on the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill. We are maintaining a capability, and as I indicated in reference to cases in my statement, and as the shadow Home Secretary indicated in reference to cases in her response, we have seen murders and serious crimes where the access to communications data has been vital in order to solve those and bring the perpetrators to justice.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite what she has said, there are great misgivings, which I share, about the legislation being rushed through next week? I will not support it, and I think it is quite wrong that such important legislation affecting criminality, terrorism and civil liberties should be rushed through in a single day. Those on the Front Benches agree, but that does not mean that all of us have to agree as well. Does she accept—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must move on. We have to get everybody in. I think the Home Secretary has enough to go on.

[Mrs May]

In the interests of brevity, let me say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Surely most members of the public would congratulate the Government and the former Labour Government for being so robust on these matters. In the context of the wider debate, will the Home Secretary resist the advice given to her by the Liberal party that we should have further legal impediments? For the public, if there is a choice between their children being blown up on the tube or those people’s conversations being listened to, it is a no-brainer.

[Mrs May]

Yes, I believe the public do want to see our police, our law enforcement agencies and our security and intelligence agencies have access to the capabilities they need to keep people safe. The legislation is about ensuring that we maintain those capabilities.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will get her Bill through next week, but the price will be a perception that it is the result of a last-minute deal between elites with little scrutiny by Parliament or civic society and that the rushed legislation might unravel. We have an honourable tradition in this country of policing by consent in which I know the Home Secretary also believes passionately. Does she agree that we should seek the same standards from our intelligence services? British people are not stupid and they are not ideological when it comes to this kind of thing. Why can they not have time to discuss it with their elected representatives?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, we are ensuring that we confirm and maintain capabilities that have already been put in place—capabilities that were put in place in legislation passed by the previous Labour Government. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members, including one of my right hon. Friends, have suggested that when those on the Front Benches agree on something that is somehow a conspiracy that needs to be resisted at all costs. The fact that all parties in this House, the coalition Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition are supporting the measure shows the serious nature of the issues we face and the importance of dealing with them.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I, too, was late into the Chamber, which is why I have waited until now to seek to intervene. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for that. I commend her for her ability to strike a proper balance on incredibly sensitive issues, but may I remind her that there is a precedent established by her distinguished predecessor, Roy Jenkins, who at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland put significant and important anti-terrorist legislation through the House according to almost the same kind of timetable?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks of support for this legislation and for the useful historical precedent that he has brought to my attention, which I might quote in future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has quite rightly mentioned close co-operation with Europe and has mentioned countries such as Denmark and Ireland where no action is needed. Will she elaborate on what action she will be taking to ensure that when action is needed by countries, it is taken so that no EU state is left as a safe haven for communications by criminals, which, in this day and age, could easily be used by anyone?

[Mrs May]

I do, of course, talk about these issues with my opposite numbers in the EU member states. I have been talking with them about how they will address the issue, and I will continue to do so. We want to ensure that we have the maximum ability to deal with terrorists and criminals and that we do not leave any safe haven available for them.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend spell out the implications for the safety of people in this country if we do not proceed with the legislation as she proposes, with the commendable support of the Opposition?

[Mrs May]

The risk is very clear. The risk is that we will lose access to communications data and to our ability to access intercept material. As I have said, those capabilities have been used in every major terrorist investigation by the Security Service. In 95% of the serious criminal cases dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service, communications data were used and were necessary. In many of those cases, such data were an important and vital part of getting a prosecution—not just in investigating but in prosecuting criminals. Failure to have access to that data will mean the criminals will go unimpeded and will not be brought to justice. I think that, sadly, as a result of that, innocent lives will be lost.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am not entirely sure that the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 provides an example of best practice. May I ask the Home Secretary whether she believes that any aspect of this proposed legislation should have a specific individual significance for Northern Ireland, and if so will a separate statement be made?

[Mrs May]

Our proposals have broad application and there will be no separate statement in relation to Northern Ireland. I think that the statement I have made today stands.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the principles of proportionality set out in the ECJ judgment will be adhered to in the draft legislation, and will the new privacy and civil liberties board be able, among other things, to consider the need for a properly codified law of privacy and data protection in this country?

[Mrs May]

On the second point, we are still looking at the exact form that that board will take and its terms of reference. It would be premature for me to suggest that it went down a particular route on an issue that it was looking at.

On the question of proportionality raised in the ECJ judgment, we have addressed that in two regards. One of its arguments was that the scope of the data retention directive was too broad, so we are explicitly limiting data retention to a strict list of data types—those that were specified in our data retention regulations of 2009. It also raised the issue of an absolute period of time for which data needed were retained and the possibility that no consideration was being given to whether all data needed to be retained for the same length of time. The new Bill therefore makes the data retention period not 12 months but a maximum of 12 months to provide for some flexibility if appropriate.

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

When I look back to the start of this Parliament, I cannot help thinking that the Home Secretary is changing from the protection of freedoms queen into Mrs Snoop. Is not the real reason we have an emergency that it has taken three months for the coalition partners to agree a deal on this security measure?

[Mrs May]

No. Proper government is about looking at these judgments properly and giving them full consideration to ensure that we give the right and appropriate response. This coalition Government have been very clear, from day one, that we are looking at the balance between security and civil liberties. That is why when we came into office we took decisions to make certain changes such as changing the pre-charge detention period from 28 days to 14 days. We are doing what is right and appropriate to ensure that people’s privacy and liberties are protected while, at the same time, our agencies have the capabilities they need to keep people safe.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for the Government’s laser-like focus on keeping British families safe while ensuring that the legal framework is robust. Does she agree that our intelligence services have been subject to much unfair criticism of late—unfair because they operate within the law, because they are unable to speak fully for themselves, and because they are among the best intelligence services in the world?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are very fortunate in the quality of people we have in our security and intelligence agencies. They do a job that they have to do day by day, relentlessly, in the pursuit of terrorists and those who would seek to do this country harm in a variety of ways, and they do that job very well. This House should never shrink from commending them for the work that they do and thanking them, on behalf of the public, for that work.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Prior to 8 April, did the Home Secretary receive legal advice that asserted that existing legislation was deficient and that remedial action through a legislative route would be necessary?

[Mrs May]

First, Ministers do not refer at the Dispatch Box to legal advice that they have received. As I said earlier, the European Court of Justice case was going through the European Court of Justice, and a number of outcomes could have resulted. Until it made its determination, nobody knew the precise nature of it and the issues that would need to be addressed.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has set out and the measured way in which she put them before the House. On protecting individuals’ rights to privacy, will she consider, in the long term, establishing a British internet Bill of rights to codify the things that she set out and give the public a framework whereby they know that their rights will be protected?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion that slightly echoes that made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) about privacy and the rights and responsibilities that people have on the internet. I would expect the whole question of privacy around the internet to be part of what the review looks at in terms of the powers and capabilities that we need and how we regulate those in an appropriate way that makes sure that we have the right balance.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this measured, responsible statement and the response by the shadow Home Secretary. The Home Secretary referred to the position with regard to Denmark and Ireland, which use implementations from primary legislation. Will she give us more information about other European countries? Is it possible that other countries with coalition Governments will have already made the necessary changes and that others might take a lot longer than this, leaving a hole in European security?

[Mrs May]

Other countries are having to address this in terms of their own legislative frameworks. For some, the timetable will be different from the timetable we are adopting, purely because of their situation and what they need to do. We would expect that, in due course, the European Commission will look at the issue of the EU data retention directive that has been struck down and whether it and member states will wish to come together to put in place a further directive. However, that will not be for some time, hence the need to take action in the interim.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Is not this a replacement of pre-existing powers to ensure that criminals do not slip through the net and escape justice?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and puts it extremely well.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said that “the Government will also introduce a package of measures to reassure the public that their rights to security and privacy are equally protected.” What will the key parts of that package be?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I did refer to that. We are going to ensure that we have more transparency from Government through the information that we will publish in an annual transparency report, within parameters. We will also reduce the number of bodies that are able to have access to the communications data, establish a privacy and civil liberties board based on the US model, have a review of the capabilities and powers that are necessary against the threats we face and the ways in which those are regulated, and lead discussions with other Governments on how we deal with these matters of sharing data across borders.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

While thanking the Home Secretary for her statement and praising her role in wishing to protect the civil liberties of those of us who do not want to be blown up, is not the truth of the matter that the reason for the three-month delay between the European Court judgment and today’s announcement of legislation is that the Lib Dem part of the coalition has been umming and aahing over this issue for far too long? I see that no Lib Dems are on the Front Bench to support her while she speaks.

[Mrs May]

I have to point out to my hon. Friend that the Minister for Crime Prevention was present when I made my statement and for the early part of these questions. As I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, other Ministers were present on the Front Bench for the statement and the shadow Home Secretary’s response but have had to go to undertake other business. In fact, over this period we have been making sure that we are responding to the judgment from the European Court in a way that is appropriate and maintains the capabilities that we need in the UK.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend expand on the legal protections to prevent improper use of the data collected so that the only people who will have something to fear from this legislation are criminals, and the ordinary public will be protected?

[Mrs May]

A wide range of protections regarding access to communications data already exists within the legislation in relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, access to interception, and the communications data retention regulations. As I said earlier, the whole question of access to communications data was scrutinised by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which, having looked at these processes, concluded that they were entirely appropriate. However, we will ensure that access to retained communications data will be limited to access that is considered to be necessary and proportionate through the RIPA process, court orders, or any further mechanisms specifically approved by Parliament.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that this legislation will be an important and vital tool in the police’s battle against child abusers and those who seek to perpetrate paedophile acts?

[Mrs May]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Communications data in particular are an absolutely vital tool in investigations and in bringing criminals to justice. They have been a particularly important tool in recent cases of child abuse, and they are also important with regard to the serious crimes I mentioned earlier, including murder. It is vital that we have access to this tool, in order to be able to keep people safe and bring perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, the hon. and gallant Gentleman Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe we have a duty to pass this fast-track legislation quickly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we do so, the police and the security services will not have the powers that may stop innocent citizens of this country dying?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been clear in my responses that I fear that, if we do not ensure that we maintain these capabilities, not only will we see criminals going about their business without the police being able to deal with them appropriately and bring them to justice, but we could see innocent lives being lost.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry

Theresa May Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Written Statements

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

In my statement to the House on 7 July I announced that I was establishing an independent inquiry panel of experts in the law and child protection to consider whether public bodies—and other, non-state, institutions—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. I undertook to report back when the inquiry panel chairman and terms of reference for the review have been agreed. I wish to inform the House that I have now appointed the right hon. Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE to chair the independent inquiry panel. Baroness Butler-Sloss brings with her many years of experience in the field of child protection and law, and I am confident that she will deliver the thorough, robust and independent review that I have promised.

To ensure that the terms of reference for the inquiry are sufficient to deliver the robust review which is required I have asked that Lady Butler-Sloss agree the final terms of reference with the full panel, when appointed. The inquiry will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of other members of the panel and I shall provide a further update in due course.

Modern Slavery Bill

Theresa May Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

In few other crimes are human beings used as commodities for the personal gain of others as they are in the appalling crime of modern slavery. Men, women and children, British and foreign nationals of all ages are forced, tricked and coerced into a horrendous life of servitude and abuse: women forced into prostitution, raped repeatedly, and denied their liberty; children groomed and sexually exploited for profit; vulnerable men conned into brutal and inhumane work in fields, in factories and on fishing vessels; people forced into a life of crime; and some people even made to work as servants in people’s homes. Throughout, there are accounts of sexual violence, beatings, humiliation, hunger and mental torture.

This crime is taking place, hidden from view, across Britain today. That it is taking place is an affront not just to those it affects, but to the collective human dignity of all of us. Modern slavery has no place in Britain, and like many people in this House and beyond, I want to see it consigned to history. But if we are to stamp it out, we must ensure that the police and the courts have the powers they need to bring the perpetrators to justice. More arrests and more prosecutions will mean more traffickers and slave drivers behind bars, but importantly, it will also mean more victims released from slavery and more prevented from ever entering it in the first place.

The Bill, the first of its kind in Europe, will ensure that we can effectively prosecute perpetrators, properly punish offenders and help prevent more crimes from taking place. Most crucially, it will enhance protection and support for the victims of these dreadful crimes. Tackling modern slavery will require more than legislation alone. I have always been clear that it will take a determined and focused law enforcement response, greater awareness among front-line professionals, co-ordinated police action internationally, close working with business and support from communities, charities and all faiths. But by passing a Modern Slavery Bill in this Parliament, we can take an important step along this road.

I will turn shortly to the specifics of the Bill, but in introducing it I want to pay tribute to all those who have campaigned tirelessly to bring this largely hidden crime out into the light. I want to thank the Centre for Social Justice, whose authoritative report “It Happens Here”, laid bare the plight of modern slavery victims in the UK. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have helped bring forward evidence to support action, whether through the all-party parliamentary group or the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee or by asking questions in the House. I am enormously grateful for their valuable contribution. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for his unsparing dedication to the issue.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I am 100% behind the right hon. Lady. We talk about preventing the exploitation of workers, and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which I brought in through a private Member’s Bill, has done an excellent job and proved itself. Does she have any intention of extending the GLA to other sectors of industry?

[Mrs May]

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has indeed done a very good job and I want to see how we can build on the work that it has done. As a first step, we have brought the GLA from the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the Home Office to work alongside those who are working on the issue of modern slavery. We will be looking at a number of aspects of enforcement which relate to modern slavery, and looking at the GLA will be part of the work that we are doing.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Of course, I support the Bill, but I want to ask the Home Secretary about a specific instance, which over the past 20 or 30 years has provided some of the worst cases of slavery in this country—namely, people who have come to this country as a domestic employee with an international employer. That is why we introduced the domestic workers visa, which the Government have abolished. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider? That gave a tiny chink of freedom—an opportunity for people to get out of slavery and go to work for another employer.

[Mrs May]

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

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

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

[Mrs May]

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

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

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that between 2,000 and 5,000 people a year are trafficked into this country. I understand that the Home Office is doing a review. Can she guarantee that the review will be published and acted upon?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman mentions some figures. The difficulty in all this is that we do not know the figure. The work that was done by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and others suggested that it might be 10,000. Fewer than 2,000 have been referred to the national referral mechanism, which is the only firm statistical measure, but we are all pretty clear that the figure is larger than that. I am reviewing the national referral mechanism, and the work of that review will be taken into account when I publish the Government’s strategy later this year. As I have said, this is not just about legislation. Other actions that do not form part of a Bill need to be taken to help the victims and pursue the perpetrators.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the review of the NRM will be published before the Committee stage of the Bill?

[Mrs May]

The current intention is that an interim report will be published, which should be available before the Committee stage is completed, but the final review will be published in the autumn alongside the Government’s strategy.

We have listened carefully to the findings of the pre-legislative Committee and, where practicable, we have addressed its key concerns. We can all play a part in tackling this scourge. As Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said at the modern slavery conference at the Vatican in April:

“We need to make combating human trafficking part of everyone’s consciousness. As with our fight against terrorism, prevention is better than cure. … Much misery and distress can be prevented if more of us pay attention to something that does not look or feel right, then care enough to do something about it.”

The Modern Slavery Bill will help ensure that we can tackle slavery in its modern form. With cross-party support, we have an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of today’s victims.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has published a Bill that goes in the right direction, but she appears to have ignored the fact that slavery that we benefit from happens outwith this country. In the supply chains of the goods that we buy, people are enslaved on a daily basis. We know about some of those people because of disasters that have occurred, but the slavery still goes on. The Secretary of State appears to have ignored those people, so she has cut off the greatest power that the Bill could have to reach out and stop them being enslaved on our behalf.

[Mrs May]

I am sorry about the tone in which the hon. Gentleman puts his question. The issue of supply chains has been raised by many people. We have not ignored the issue. I and other Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have had a round table meeting with businesses and business—

[Michael Connarty]

It is not in the Bill.

[Mrs May]

Just because something—

[Michael Connarty]

Why won’t the Home Secretary answer?

[Mrs May]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like to listen to my answer. Not everything that we think we can do to tackle modern slavery will be in the legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything, but we recognise the issue of supply chains. We have been working with businesses. Many big businesses already take this responsibility seriously and make every effort to ensure that they do not see slavery in their supply chains.

I was asked about supply chains in Home Office questions yesterday, and I made the point that companies have a social responsibility. Companies should consider their reputation as well as potential victims of slavery. We have held a round table with business. We are talking to businesses about the action that they can take to address the issue.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

As we know, the Home Secretary wants measures on supply chains in the Bill, but No. 10 opposes them. Might she wish luck to those of us who intend to table amendments in this place and the other place so that on this occasion at least her will should prevail?

[Mrs May]

That is the sort of intervention that I had probably best pass over. We have already legislated to recognise the social responsibility of companies in relation to human rights in supply chains, even though this Bill does not contain a specific reference to supply chains.

[Mr Field]

If we table an amendment to clarify the responsibility of companies to recognise modern slavery as well as human rights, we may be able to persuade No. 10 on that, may we not?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that it is open to Back Benchers to table amendments, and when they are discussed the Government will take a position on them.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary share my hope that the Bill will help Governments around the world to do something to tackle modern slavery in their own countries? As Opposition Members have said, this is a global business and if Britain can lead the way and help other countries to deal with it, that would be worth while.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. One of the things that pleased me about the conference at the Vatican was that I could meet people from other countries—both those countries that are more naturally destination countries and those that are source countries—to talk about the work that can be done to deal with this problem. We have to deal with it internationally. That is why I am pleased that at the conference we set up the Santa Marta group, an international group of senior law enforcement officers who will meet again towards the end of this year in London, to share best practice to ensure that we do all we can to deal with this issue.

[Michael Connarty]

Has the Home Secretary received, as I have, a copy of the letter from the Ethical Trading Initiative, to which we spoke just before the last mini recess? It says that it wishes to have legislation on supply chains. That is a major change in attitude since I introduced my private Member’s Bill. It wants to see all the good companies supported by legislation so that the poor companies do not get away with undermining them.

[Mrs May]

The group to which the hon. Gentleman refers was part of the round table that I attended with businesses. It sits on the working group led by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Lady is generous with her time. Just a few weeks ago, a lady in Northern Ireland discovered a cry for help letter sewn into a pair of trousers, which were made in China, from a leading high street chain. The letter detailed the atrocious working conditions in the prison where the garment was made. With longer and more complex supply chains, does the Secretary of State agree that the Bill needs to ensure greater transparency and accountability so that the products of slavery and forced labour do not find themselves on our high street shelves?

[Mrs May]

Across the House, we all share the same intention and desire to stamp out modern slavery, wherever it occurs. We all recognise that companies have a responsibility to look at what is happening in their supply chains. The hon. Lady talks about the increasing length and complexity of supply chains, which is one of the precise difficulties faced by companies today when it comes to any responsibility they have for looking at every aspect of their supply chain and ensuring that it is not involved in modern slavery. That is why we are sitting down with business to talk about the issue and how we can best address it. There is not a blanket approach of saying, “The only way to do this is X.” We are saying, “Let’s sit down with companies and talk to them about the issues that they are facing.”

In answer to the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), of course we need to work internationally to address modern slavery. This House, and this Parliament, will take an important step by passing this Bill in the United Kingdom. The Bill will be an important sign, but the work will go on, and sadly I suspect that the work will have to go on for some years, to ensure that we stamp out modern slavery. That work is wide-ranging and is not just limited to what we may say or do in this House.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In the wake of the recent controversies, particularly the reports about the Thai fishing industry, the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson said that it is up to consumers whether they buy goods associated with slavery. That is clearly not good enough because consumers are not in a position to know that. Surely the Government need to go further. Will the Home Secretary dissociate herself from those remarks?

[Mrs May]

A wide range of actions need to be taken if we are to deal with modern slavery, but the hon. Lady should not underestimate the power of the consumer in some of these matters. The consumer’s approach to fair trade, for example, has sent an important message to companies about how they deal with certain issues. The consumer can certainly play a part in addressing such things.

I have taken a number of interventions, and I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Part 1 addresses offences, sentences, reparation and maritime powers. Traffickers and slave drivers must know that their crimes will not be tolerated and that they will not get away with them. They must know that they will be caught and sent to prison for a very long time. The Bill provides law enforcement with the powers it needs to take robust action. First, the Bill consolidates existing slavery and human trafficking offences, which are currently held in three different Acts of Parliament. That will make it easier for prosecutors and the police to understand the available modern slavery offences when investigating such crimes.

We will have two clear and distinct offences: one for slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour; and one that covers all types of human trafficking. Those are focused offences that build on tried and tested concepts that the police and prosecutors understand. Part 1 of the Bill is not simply a consolidation, however; it contains specific action to improve existing offences by making it clearer that the slavery, servitude and forced labour offence can be effectively prosecuted where the victim is vulnerable, for example a child. Part 1 also includes wording based on international definitions of trafficking, such as the Palermo Protocol, thus ensuring that it reflects internationally defined best practice.

Punishments will now fit the crime. Offences committed in connection with modern slavery are some of the most serious that can be committed, so the Bill extends the maximum available sentence to life imprisonment. That will ensure that the worst perpetrators can receive the lengthy custodial sentences that they deserve. Tough sentences will also act as a powerful deterrent to others.

Criminals and organised groups who trade in human beings do so for profit, and we were reminded of that only last week, when the gang leader of a criminal outfit was jailed along with his accomplices for trafficking more than 100 women to London. While he lived a luxury lifestyle, the women who were lured here on false promises of employment were forced into prostitution, held against their will and subjected to horrific treatment. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the illicit gains made from trading in human misery are seized. Both the Modern Slavery Bill and the Serious Crime Bill will strengthen our powers to recover assets. The Modern Slavery Bill makes both slavery and trafficking offences criminal lifestyle offences for the purposes of criminal confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which means that convicted slavers and traffickers will be subjected to the toughest confiscation regime possible.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary assure me that, through reparation from the proceeds of such crime, there will be long-term support for the profound and enduring health consequences experienced by women subject to such exploitation, abuse and degradation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend must be psychic. I was about to say that the treatment meted out to victims by traffickers and slave drivers is inhumane, degrading and often disturbing, and there can be no better use of the assets seized from a perpetrator than to provide reparation to their victims. Courts currently have the power to order convicted traffickers to pay compensation to their victims and can use money collected under a confiscation order to ensure that such compensation is paid in full. It is therefore unacceptable that in the past 11 years there have been only three such cases in which a criminal convicted of a principal offence of human trafficking has been ordered to pay compensation in that way. The Bill seeks to remedy that by creating a bespoke order for modern slavery offences so that, where a perpetrator has assets available, the court must consider making an order to provide reparation to the victim and give reasons if it does not do so.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that successful prosecutions of cases involving children are very low. One of the reasons for that is encapsulated in a problem with the Bill, which is the omission of a specific definition of child trafficking. As she will know, children cannot consent to their own exploitation. I draw her attention to clause 39, which states:

“A person is not guilty of an offence if…the person is compelled to do that act.”

Children cannot consent to their own exploitation, and therefore that defence is no use to children. That is why I hope she will join me and many other Members on both sides of the House in supporting the inclusion of a specific definition of children trafficking in the Bill.

[Mrs May]

We have looked at that issue, which was one of the issues raised in the various discussions, including in the Joint Committee. We have not included a specific child trafficking offence because of the difficulties that that could lead to in a prosecution, such as arguments about whether an individual should be prosecuted for the specific child offence or for the more general offence. That is why we have taken a different approach. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should let me finish my response. That is why we have left it with a general offence, but we make it absolutely clear—this specifically addresses the point that she raises—that the slavery, servitude and forced labour offence can be effectively prosecuted where the victim is vulnerable, for example a child. We are aware of the issues that she raises about whether it could be argued that a child is not able to give consent, and therefore whether they are able not to give consent, but that is explicitly covered in the arrangements in the Bill. There are very good arguments why there would be considerable difficulties in dealing with a specific child offence. Another issue that would be raised is that an individual’s age often cannot be proved. If we did not have a general offence, it would make a prosecution more difficult.

[Mr Frank Field]

Is there not a case, therefore, for inserting the age of 18 into the Bill? Where there is a dispute in court about someone’s age, for the purpose of prosecution they are assumed to be a young person. Would it not give us an even harder cutting edge if, at a later stage, the Home Secretary accepted “18” to go alongside the definition of “young person”?

[Mrs May]

We will consider the definition of “young person,” but that is slightly different from having a separate offence in relation to a child. We are considering the definition of “young person.”

[Lisa Nandy]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way once more. I am conscious that other people wish to speak.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and I do not want to take up other people’s time, but this point is incredibly important. I worked with child trafficking victims for nearly a decade before I came to this place, so I know, and the Home Secretary knows, that children go through a gruelling process. They are often told by their trafficker to say certain things. They say things in interviews because they have been told what to say, or they say what they think the interviewer wants to hear. They often cannot cope with the processes that they are put through, so having a specific child trafficking offence in the Bill would ensure that those children are seen and recognised as what they are, which is children. They are not trafficking victims, immigrants or children who have been moved for the purposes of exploitation; they are children who have been abused. Including such an offence would send a powerful message that we need to get those processes right.

[Mrs May]

I absolutely appreciate the passion with which the hon. Lady makes that point, and the experience on which she draws in doing so, but we have taken evidence from a number of areas and heard a number of people point out quite forcefully the difficulty of a child-specific offence where age is uncertain. For example, in evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, Riel Karmy-Jones, a barrister who deals with trafficking offences, said that

“problems arise over separate offences that pertain specifically to children—for example, when the age of the child is not easily determined and you end up relying on age assessments, which I have done in some of the Nigerian trafficking cases.”

In those circumstances, if we did not know the age of the child, we would end up in court arguing about whether the specific offence was right, rather than being able to rely on the general offence.

Similarly, Detective Inspector Roberts, when asked whether a child-specific offence would help, replied:

“Not as a separate offence. The legislation perfectly encompasses it, but I would share Mr Sumner’s view—

another police officer—

“about the sentencing guidelines certainly around children and it being an aggravated offence… I think wholly different legislation would be unnecessary and complicated.”

We want to ensure that prosecutors and the police can deal with this as sensibly and easily as possible so that we get more prosecutions, but the evidence indicates that trying to introduce a child-specific offence might complicate prosecutions rather than make them easier.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way, but then I will have to make some progress.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), but will she consider giving herself the flexibility in the Bill to be able to bring forward regulations introducing a child-specific offence at a later date, rather than having to go through the process of introducing another piece of primary legislation?

[Mrs May]

That is a legislative device—I do not use the term in a negative sense—that we are using elsewhere in the Bill, but I say to hon. Members who have raised the matter that this is not just a belligerent point from the Government. We genuinely believe from the evidence we have seen, having talked with lawyers, prosecutors and the police, that the general offence will lead to more prosecutions, with the caveat I mentioned earlier about accepting when a victim is vulnerable—for example a child, as it is recognised that they might not have been in a position to have actively given consent and therefore should not be assumed to have given that consent—and that is being dealt with.

I will now attempt to make some progress on other points. The Bill also closes a gap in existing legislation whereby law enforcement officers are not always able to stop boats around the UK and on the high seas when they suspect that individuals are being trafficked or forced to work. There have been seven such occasions over the past two years. The Bill will provide law enforcement officers with clear powers to stop boats and arrest those responsible.

Tough sentences, seizing assets and closing loopholes are only part of the answer. The police and other law enforcement agencies must ensure the effective and relentless targeting and disruption of the organised crime groups that lie behind the vast majority of the modern-day slave trade. I have made tackling modern slavery a priority for the National Crime Agency, and work is under way to ensure that the law enforcement response at the local, regional and national level, and at our borders, is strong, effective and collaborative.

We are developing our capabilities to detect, investigate and prosecute modern slavery through better intelligence, better sharing of intelligence and more work upstream. For example, specialist safeguarding and trafficking teams are being rolled out at all major ports so that trained officers can help identify victims being trafficked across our borders, disrupt organised criminal groups, collect intelligence and provide a point of expertise and guidance for front-line officers.

We must ensure that law enforcement agencies have a range of effective policing tools, so I propose to take further action in the Bill. Part 2 introduces vital new tools, modelled on existing powers to stop sexual harm, to prevent modern slavery offences. Slavery and trafficking prevention orders will target convicted traffickers and slave drivers and can be used to prevent further modern slavery offences taking place—for example, by stopping an offender working with children, acting as a gangmaster or travelling to specific countries. Slavery and trafficking risk orders will restrict the activity of individuals suspected of being complicit in modern slavery offences. For example, they could be used to stop activity where there is insufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution now but there is clear evidence of the risk of future trafficking or slavery offences being commissioned.

Modern slavery is a complex and multifaceted crime. To tackle it effectively, we need not only new legal powers but effective co-operation across law enforcement, borders and immigration, and local services. In the past, the number of prosecutions and convictions for those specific offences has not reflected the scale and seriousness of the problem. In 2013, for example, there were only 68 convictions. That is not good enough. We need a senior figure dedicated to the UK’s fight against modern slavery to strengthen law enforcement efforts in the UK and ensure that victims are identified and get effective support. That is why the Bill includes an anti-slavery commissioner to encourage good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery cases. The Bill extends the role outlined in the draft Bill published in December so that the commissioner can work internationally to encourage co-operation against modern slavery and oversee the identification of victims.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am being very generous in taking interventions and know that many Members wish to make speeches.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

I appreciate the Home Secretary’s generosity. It is essential that we have a cross-Government approach to tackling human trafficking, so will she explain why the anti-slavery commissioner will not be independent, as the children’s commissioner is, and will be situated in the Home Office?

[Mrs May]

The question of which physical office the commissioner will be situated in is still to be determined, but their role will be set out in a way that is similar to that of other commissioners. They will be independent and their annual reports will be laid before Parliament.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Home Secretary, but the House might find it helpful to know that the independent commissioners in Finland and the Netherlands report to one Government Department, because ultimately they need a departmental head to argue their case for funding with their Treasuries, even though they roam across Government.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification. Some people say that the way the commissioner will be appointed means that they cannot be independent, but if they look at the people we have in other roles who are appointed in a similar way, such as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and the chief inspector of constabulary, they will see that they are fiercely independent, regardless of the method of their appointment.

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

The Home Secretary is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. Moving away from the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner and looking instead at their focus, she mentioned the problem of securing prosecutions, and one of the reasons for that must be the extraordinary vulnerability of trafficking victims. I wonder whether one of the core focuses of the commissioner in their first months might be to look at how we could better protect those witnesses when they go into our adversarial courts system.

[Mrs May]

If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will comment on the protection of victims later in my speech. I think that it is important that the anti-slavery commissioner encourages good practice in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery cases as well as any work that is done to protect victims.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern-day slavery.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

If the commissioner is to help increase prosecutions, they need to help to provide witnesses, who are the evidence givers in those prosecutions. I therefore support the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) in her plea to give the commissioner some responsibility for victims, which will assist the Home Secretary greatly in her ambition to increase the number of prosecutions.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady and I have discussed this important matter before, and I will talk about what we can do to protect victims. The strategy that the Government will publish as the Bill progresses through Parliament will be important, because not everything is about legislation; many issues relating to the protection of victims are about some of the other ways we can ensure that support is provided. Yes, of course we need victims to be willing to come forward in order to prosecute, but one of the areas that I do not think has been given sufficient attention in the past is the question of law enforcement, prosecution and the need to ensure that the police and prosecutors are sufficiently aware of these crimes and have a sensible legislative framework and offences framework that means they will be more likely to bring perpetrators to justice. The more perpetrators who are brought to justice, the fewer victims there will be in future.

[Michael Connarty]

As a vice-chair of the all-party group I am very happy to play a supportive role to the group’s chair. The question raised by subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 35 is about the Home Secretary’s ability to call for the commissioner to omit from the report anything the Home Secretary does not agree with. Given that people will base decisions on what she says in this House, can she give us a categorical assurance that, even if the commissioner criticises the Government’s performance, there will be no question of the Home Secretary being able to ask for anything to be omitted from her or his reports?

[Mrs May]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reread the Bill. The intention is not that the Home Secretary will be able to prevent the printing of something with which they do not agree, but that nothing that is published could be a national security concern or jeopardise ongoing criminal investigations. I would have hoped that every Member accepts the importance of that. There may be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to publish certain information because of the impact it would have on an individual. Those are matters that will be discussed with the anti-slavery commissioner in their reports, but certainly we should ensure that their reports do not jeopardise criminal investigations, because we should all want to see more perpetrators being brought to justice.

Modern slavery is a crime that inflicts immense suffering and misery. At the heart of the Bill and all our work is the desire to ensure that victims receive the protection and support they deserve, as well as help to recover from their traumatic ordeal. We must also ensure that victims, who have already suffered so much, do not suffer again through the criminal justice system.

Victims of modern slavery are sometimes forced by organised criminals to commit crimes such as cannabis cultivation. Fear of prosecution can deter victims from coming forward to help the police with investigations and from acting as witnesses in court. It is vital that we give them the confidence to come forward without the fear of prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service already has guidance in place to prevent the prosecution of victims who have been forced to commit crime, but I think we can, and should, go further.

That is why the Bill includes a statutory defence for victims. The defence includes substantial safeguards against abuse and it will not apply to a number of serious offences—mainly violent and sexual offences—which are set out in the Bill. However, even in cases where the defence does not apply, prosecutors will still need to look carefully at all the circumstances to see whether it is in the public interest to prosecute victims.

Helping more victims to testify in court is crucial in our fight against the perpetrators. We need to give victims—who can face threats and intimidation—greater assurance that they can access special measures, such as giving evidence by video link or behind a screen. The Bill therefore extends to all modern slavery victims existing provisions that help trafficking victims gain access to special measures.

Whether victims appear in court or not, we need to identify them so that they can receive help and support. As I said in response to earlier interventions, I have set in motion a review of the national referral mechanism, to ensure that the care and support provided is effective and that all agencies work together in the best interests of victims. The review will issue its final report in the autumn. In addition, the Bill includes a provision for statutory guidance for the identification and support of victims, to ensure a consistent and effective approach.

Modern slavery crushes lives and causes immeasurable damage to victims of all ages. One of the most heinous aspects of this crime is the exploitation and enslavement of children—robbing them of their childhood and casting a long shadow over their future. Child trafficking victims are exceptionally vulnerable and require specialist support and care. We are therefore putting in place trial schemes of child trafficking advocates, who will ensure that the child victims’ voices are heard and that they receive the support and assistance they need in relation to the social care, immigration and criminal justice systems. The Bill includes a power to place these advocates on a statutory footing, once the trials have established how we can best give trafficked children the support they need.

The Bill also ensures that where the age of a trafficking victim is uncertain and there are reasons to believe that they are a child, public authorities will presume that victim to be a child for the purposes of providing assistance and support.

Finally, we need to ensure that law enforcement has good data on this largely hidden crime, so that we can develop an effective, strategic response. We are therefore placing a legal duty on public bodies to report suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking to the National Crime Agency. Safeguards will be put in place to ensure there is no adverse effect on victims. Adult victims will remain anonymous unless they consent to having their personal details shared. Non-governmental organisations will not be part of the statutory duty.

Modern slavery is an evil against which this Government are determined to take a stand. This Bill provides a comprehensive range of measures to punish effectively the criminals and organised gangs behind this appalling crime, to ensure victims receive the protection and support that they deserve, and to help prevent other vulnerable people from becoming victims.

As I indicated earlier, however, I am under no illusion about the scale of the task ahead. Stamping out modern slavery will not happen overnight. I have made tackling this crime a priority for the National Crime Agency, and, as I also said earlier, we are working with international law enforcement agencies to target organised criminal gangs. The Santa Marta group is being led by the United Kingdom, and that will strengthen our response to modern slavery globally. This autumn I will publish a comprehensive strategy that will include cross-Government and law enforcement action to tackle modern slavery and set out how we will continue to support and protect victims.

Today I urge Members on both sides of the House to work together so that we can pass the Modern Slavery Bill in this short Session. We have a rare moment of consensus on the principle that action needs to be taken. We must not—for any reason—repeat the mistakes of those Parliaments that were asked to tackle the historic evil of slavery but found reasons to put off the issue. It took William Wilberforce almost 18 years to pass his Bill to abolish the slave trade, and another 26 years passed before Parliament agreed to abolish all slavery in the British empire.

We must not delay. Let us act now—together—and send a powerful message to all traffickers and slave drivers that they will not get away with their crimes: we will track them down, prosecute, and lock them up, and ensure that the victims of their appalling crimes are returned to freedom. I commend this Bill to the House.

Modern Slavery

Theresa May Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Written Statements

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

Modern slavery affects people from all over the world, including here in the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to stamping out this abhorrent crime, building on the UK’s strong track record in supporting victims and tackling the perpetrators. That is why we have introduced the Modern Slavery Bill, which will have its Second Reading in the House of Commons later today. The Bill will give law enforcement the tools to tackle modern slavery, ensure that perpetrators can receive suitably severe sentences for these appalling crimes, and enhance support and protection for victims. However, we recognise that legislation is only one part of the solution. The Government are also taking forward a comprehensive programme of activity, which includes:

trialling child trafficking advocates;

establishing safeguarding and trafficking teams at the border;

working with the private sector to address modern slavery in supply chains; and

reviewing the national referral mechanism.

This programme of activity will be set out in a new modern slavery strategy which will be published in the autumn.

Today we have published a document setting out our activity on modern slavery, which is available on the gov.uk website, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office.

G6 (Barcelona)

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Written Statements

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

The informal G6 group of Interior Ministers from the six largest European Union countries, plus representatives from the United States of America, the European Commission and Frontex, held its most recent meeting in Barcelona on 25 and 26 June 2014.

The summit was chaired by the Spanish Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz and I represented the United Kingdom. The other participating states were represented by Thomas De Maizière (Germany), Angelino Alfano (Italy), and Bernard Cazeneuve (France). Poland was represented at official level. James Cole (the Deputy US Attorney-General), Alejandro Mayorkas (US Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security), Cecilia Malmstrom (European Commissioner for Home Affairs) and Gil Arias (Executive Director of Frontex) attended as guests.

The first formal session (attended by the G6 members only) was an analysis of the evolution of G6. It was agreed to keep the G6 in its present shape and format.

The second formal session concerned the fight against jihadist terrorism and radicalisation with a focus on co-operation with northern Africa, the Sahel and middle eastern countries. Discussion centred on the problems caused by conflicts in these regions and the issues caused by foreign fighters travelling to join these conflicts then returning to EU member states. Delegates noted the evolution of the terrorist threat and how it had been shaped by these factors. The importance of information sharing and the role of the EU passenger name record (PNR) directive in this was agreed by all. I stressed the need for the wording of the draft directive to be robust and it was agreed that bilateral co-operation was essential in the interim.

The third formal session related to the fight against drug trafficking in the Atlantic. The presidency noted that while this was a problem for the western hemisphere generally, it was a particular concern for Spain. A number of delegates stressed the point that the use and classification of development funds must be considered to address these problems at their root. The US said they were working with a number of countries on this issue and were happy to continue to do so and to share the experience and knowledge they have. I raised the point that the money generated by the international drug trade helped to support terrorism and that practical co-operation to address this was therefore essential.

The discussion at the formal dinner on 25 June focused on the fight against irregular immigration in Europe. I stressed the need for action in the countries of origin and for member states to fulfil their responsibilities for effective asylum processing and border controls. Italy made the point that their Mare Nostrum programme could not remain in place indefinitely and gave their view that it should be replaced by a European equivalent. Concerns were voiced however that, while the programme had undoubted humanitarian benefits, it nevertheless acted as a pull factor for migrants to the region. Doubts were also expressed by some about the idea of Frontex undertaking a more operational role in the Mediterranean.

The formal lunch on 26 June was an opportunity to discuss relations between the EU and the US. The conversation was positive and members agreed the need for the EU and US to co-operate closely in operational joint initiatives. Specific measures such as the PNR agreement, the agreement on processing and transfer of financial data messaging relating to the terrorist finance tracking programme (TFTP), and the Europol-US agreement were seen to be helpful tools to strengthen operational co-operation in common fields of interest.

The next G6 meeting will take place in France but the date has not yet been confirmed.

Home Department

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[James Brokenshire]

Between 1 January and 31 May 2014, HMPO received 3.3 million applications—350,000 more than the same period last year, and the highest volume of applications received for this period over the last 12 years. Indeed, in both March and May this year, HMPO recorded the highest level of applications received in any month over the last eight years.

Passport Applications

The following are extracts from speeches made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) during the debate on Passport Applications on 18 June 2014.

[Mrs May]

I have explained that HMPO is dealing with an unprecedented surge in demand for passports. HMPO has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

[Official Report, 18 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1136.]

[Mrs May]

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

[Official Report, 18 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1145.]

[James Brokenshire]

Her Majesty’s Passport Office issued 3.3 million passports in the first five months of the year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

[Official Report, 18 June 2014, Vol. 582, c. 1175.]

Letters of correction from Theresa May and James Brokenshire:

Errors have been identified in part of the speeches given during the debate on Passport Applications.

The correct response should have been:

Her Majesty’s Passport Office has received 3.3 million applications for passports in the first five months of this year, compared with 2.95 million in the same period last year.

Student Visas

The following is an extract from the Statement given by the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on Student Visas on 24 June 2014.

Child Abuse

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the sexual abuse of children, allegations that evidence of the sexual abuse of children was suppressed by people in positions of power, and the Government’s intended response.

I want to address two important public concerns: first, that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse; and, secondly, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. I also want to set out three important principles. First, we will do everything we can to allow the full investigation of child abuse and the prosecution of its perpetrators, and we will do nothing to jeopardise those aims. Secondly, where possible the Government will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. Thirdly, we will make sure that wherever individuals and institutions have failed to protect children from harm, we will expose those failures and learn the lessons.

Concern that the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child abuse in the 1980s relates mainly to information provided to the Department by the late Geoffrey Dickens, who was a Member of this House between 1979 and 1995. As the House will be aware, in February 2013, in response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Mark Sedwill, commissioned an investigation by an independent expert into information that the Home Office received in relation to child abuse allegations, including information provided by Mr Dickens. In order to be confident that all relevant information was included, the investigation reviewed all relevant papers available relating to child abuse between 1979 and 1999.

The investigation reported last year, and its executive summary was published on 1 August 2013. It concluded that there was no single “Dickens dossier”, but that there had been letters from Mr Dickens to several Home Secretaries over several years that contained allegations of sexual offences against children. Copies of the letters had not been kept, but the investigator found evidence that the information Mr Dickens had provided had been considered and matters requiring investigation had been referred to the police. In total, the investigator found 13 items of information about alleged child abuse. The police already knew about nine of those items, and the remaining four were passed by the Home Office to the police immediately. The investigation found that 114 potentially relevant files were not available. Those are presumed by the Home Office and the investigator to be destroyed, missing or not found, although the investigator made clear that he found no evidence to suggest that the files had been removed or destroyed inappropriately.

The investigation found no record of specific allegations by Mr Dickens of child sex abuse by prominent public figures. On completion of the investigation, the Home Office passed the full text of its interim report and final report, along with accompanying information and material, to the police for them to consider as part of their ongoing criminal investigations.

As Mark Sedwill has said, the investigator recorded that he had unrestricted access to Home Office records and he received full co-operation from Home Office officials. The investigator was satisfied that the Home Office passed all credible information about child abuse in the time period, from Mr Dickens and elsewhere, to the police so it could be investigated properly.

I believe that the permanent secretary, in listening to the allegations made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East and ordering an independent investigation, did all the right things. I am confident that the work he commissioned was carried out in good faith, but with such serious allegations the public need to have complete confidence in the integrity of the investigation’s findings. I have, therefore, today appointed Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, to lead a review not just of the investigation commissioned by Mark Sedwill, but of how the police and prosecutors handled any related information that was handed to them. Peter Wanless will be supported in this work by an appropriate senior legal figure, who will be appointed by the permanent secretary. Where the findings of the review relate to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it will report to the Attorney-General, as well as to me.

I will ask the review team to advise my officials on what redactions to the full investigation report might be needed in order that, in the interests of transparency, it can be published without jeopardising any future criminal investigations or trials. I expect the review to conclude within eight to 10 weeks, and I will place a copy of its terms of reference in the House Library today.

In addition to the allegations made by Geoffrey Dickens, there have also been allegations relating to an organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange, a paedophile campaign group that was disbanded in 1984. In response to another query from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East, the permanent secretary commissioned another independent investigation in January this year into whether the Home Office had ever directly or indirectly funded PIE. That investigation concluded that the Home Office had not done so, and I will place a copy of the investigation’s findings in the House Library today. To ensure complete public confidence in the work, however, I have also asked Peter Wanless to look at that investigation as part of his review.

I now turn to public concern that a variety of public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children. In recent years, we have seen appalling cases of organised and persistent child sex abuse, including abuse by celebrities such as Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris, as well as the systematic abuse of vulnerable girls in Derby, Rochdale, Oxford and other towns and cities. Some of those cases have exposed a failure by public bodies to take their duty of care seriously, and some have shown that the organisations responsible for protecting children from abuse—including the police, social services and schools—have failed to work together properly.

That is why, in April 2013, the Government established the national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which is led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention. That cross-Government group was established to learn the lessons from some of the cases I have mentioned and the resulting reviews and inquiries. As a result of its work, we now have better guidance for the police and prosecutors, new powers for the police to get information from hotels that are used for child sexual exploitation, and better identification of children at risk of exploitation through the use of local multi-agency safeguarding hubs. In the normal course of its work the group will publish further proposals to protect children from abuse.

I know that in recent months many Members of the House from all parties have campaigned for an independent, overarching inquiry into historical allegations of child abuse. In my correspondence with the seven Members of Parliament who wrote to me about the campaign—the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Wells (Tessa Munt), and for West Bromwich East—I made it clear that the Government did not rule out such an inquiry.

I can now tell the House that the Government will establish an independent inquiry panel of experts in the law and child protection to consider whether public bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The inquiry panel will be chaired by an appropriately senior and experienced figure. It will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman and other members of the panel. Given the scope of its work, it is not likely to report before the general election, but I will make sure that it provides an update on its progress to Parliament before May next year. I will report back to the House when the inquiry panel chairman has been appointed and the full terms of reference have been agreed.

The inquiry will, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel Morgan, be a non-statutory panel inquiry. That means that it can begin its work sooner and, because the basis of its early work will be a review of documentary evidence rather than interviews with witnesses who might themselves still be subject to criminal investigations, it will be less likely to prejudice those investigations. I want to be clear, however, that the inquiry panel will have access to all the Government papers, reviews and reports that it needs. Subject to the constraints imposed by any criminal investigations, it will be free to call witnesses from organisations in the public and private sectors, and in wider civil society. I want to make it clear that if the inquiry panel chairman deems it necessary, the Government are prepared to convert it into a full public inquiry, in line with the Inquiries Act 2005.

I began my statement by saying that I wanted to address dual concerns: the concern that, in the past, the Home Office failed to act on information it received, and more broadly the concern that public bodies and other institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. I believe that the measures that I have announced today address those concerns. I also said that I wanted the work that we are doing to reflect three principles. First, our priority must be the prosecution of the people behind these disgusting crimes. Secondly, wherever possible and consistent with the need to prosecute, we will adopt a presumption of maximum transparency. Thirdly, where there has been a failure to protect children from abuse, we will expose it and learn from it. I believe that the measures announced today reflect those important principles, and I commend this statement to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mrs May]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her setting up of the independent inquiry panel. She set out three clear principles. The most important of those principles is that the panel should do nothing that prevents these heinous crimes from being properly investigated and those who are guilty of them from being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Mrs May]

Although it is right that we look at the lessons that need to be learned, I am sure that the view shared across the whole House is that it is absolutely essential that we do nothing that could get in the way of prosecuting the perpetrators of these appalling crimes. That is why it is right to set this review up as an inquiry panel so that it can begin its work without jeopardising the criminal investigations taking place.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Frightened survivors of child abuse deserve the truth. I hope and think that they will welcome today’s statement, particularly the announcement that they will have access to all documentation. Will the inquiry team be able to see the files of the special branch, the intelligence services and any submissions made to previous Prime Ministers on people such as Sir Peter Hayman and others?

[Mrs May]

May I first commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done over a number of years on these issues? He and a number of other hon. Members and hon. Friends have been relentless in their pursuit of these issues and their determination to bring truth and justice for the victims. As I said in my statement, my intention is that the fullest possible access should be made to Government papers in relation to these matters. As I am sure he and others will recognise, where there are issues relating to who can have access to some files, we will need to have an appropriate means of ensuring that the information is available to the inquiry panel. However, as I have said, I am looking to appoint a very senior figure to chair the panel, so I expect it to be possible to ensure that all Government papers are available.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her swift and decisive action in this case. Having seen my constituent Mr Tom Perry suffer for years to bring his abusers at Caldicott school to justice, resulting in an eight-year custodial sentence at the beginning of this year for its former headmaster, Peter Wright, may I urge her to ensure that these investigations are expedited? As there is still no duty to report suspected abuse, will she ask the inquiries to look again at mandatory reporting of suspected abuse in regulated activities? I have already discussed that with the Secretary of State for Education and hope that the Home Secretary will take it up as well.

[Mrs May]

I commend my right hon. Friend for her comments. Obviously she has seen a very specific case and knows how long it has taken her constituent to find justice for the treatment that he received. I will indeed raise the specific issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, but it is exactly those sorts of issues that I expect the inquiry panel to look at: namely, are there any gaps in what we currently do that mean we are not properly protecting children and, if there are, what appropriate mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that those gaps are filled?

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

While welcoming today’s announcements by the Home Secretary and the observations by her shadow, may I press her on the issue of record keeping? When I became Home Secretary, it became very clear to me—I was asking for information in a quite unrelated area—that there had been a downgrading of the archiving and record-keeping functions of the Home Office. I say that in a non-partisan way, because this issue has continued and is made more complicated in the so-called digital age. Will the Home Secretary ensure that both panels look very carefully—taking advice, if necessary, from the head of the National Archives—at the adequacy or, I am sure, inadequacy of existing mechanisms and resources for ensuring that proper records are kept, particularly in areas such as this?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course the keeping of proper records is very important. Over the years that we are dealing with, there have been a number of approaches to record keeping within the Home Office and, indeed, within other Government Departments. In the 1980s, the system was changed to the so-called Grigg system. Subsequently, the National Archives has issued guidance to Government Departments on the approach that they should take to the keeping of records. Of course, that is exactly the sort of issue that I expect could be part of the inquiry’s work.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Whatever disagreements we may have, she has always been outspoken in confronting complacency and corruption wherever she finds it. When former public servants give evidence to the inquiry panel, will they be released from any obligations they may have under gagging clauses in severance agreements or, where necessary, the Official Secrets Act?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is my intention that people should have the ability to speak openly in giving evidence to the inquiry panel if they are called as witnesses, or in giving written evidence if they so wish. I will have to look at the legal issues around the Official Secrets Act, but it is intended that everybody should have the ability to speak openly. Only if people can speak openly will we get to the bottom of these matters.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to set up the various inquiries. Will she pass on my thanks to Mark Sedwill for the very full letter that he sent to me and the Home Affairs Committee? It is the first time that a Home Office letter has arrived before the deadline. As she knows, we will be examining Mr Sedwill tomorrow. In his letter, he said that the head of the inquiry would be an independent legal figure. The Home Secretary has just announced that it will be Mr Wanless, assisted by a legal figure. Is that correct? Has there been a change, then, since Saturday night? What steps did the Home Secretary take when she discovered that the 114 files were missing?

[Mrs May]

On the way in which the review is being set up, yes, we have decided on a slightly different approach. The permanent secretary will be appointing a senior legal figure, as he has said. I felt that it was appropriate to ask for somebody to lead the inquiry who was involved in child protection matters and who was independent in a different way, working with the senior legal figure. Peter Wanless will be leading it, but a senior legal figure will be appointed, and the permanent secretary will make the announcement in due course.

On the 114 files that have not been found, that figure was first given in a parliamentary answer last October, and it was repeated in the very full letter that Mark Sedwill gave to the right hon. Gentleman. The investigator was unable to say what had happened to those files—that is precisely one of the problems. There is no evidence as to whether the files were destroyed or have been mislaid. Obviously, the new review will be able to go back over the work that the investigator did to see whether any further evidence can be adduced.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Having sadly had to deal with a number of historic child sex abuse cases in my time as a Law Officer, may I assure the Home Secretary that the victims of these hideous crimes suffer from them well into their adulthood and often into middle and old age, so the need to bring to justice those who have committed these terrible crimes is surely uncontroversial. Will the Home Secretary make sure that those who have evidence to give or allegations to make can do so in the most convenient form possible—that is, to one central police force which masterminds the national investigation—rather than having a whole host of police forces collecting the information and giving it to the Crown Prosecution Service? At the moment, there seems to be a drip-feed of insinuation, which is causing a lot of distress to innocent people. What we need to see is the guilty prosecuted and brought to justice, rather than the innocent having their reputations trashed.

[Mrs May]

I take very seriously the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. In a sense, we are dealing with two types of allegations. The first are allegations that may be made in cases relating to the information given to the Home Office in the 1980s. There are also allegations about activities at children’s homes in different parts of the country. I will reflect on my hon. and learned Friend’s comment about the appropriate way in which those allegations can be made and properly investigated. I also echo his other point, because I think we have all seen, in interviews given by people who are well into their middle age or older and who were abused as children, that this is not a matter that goes away. It is not something that can be forgotten. It lasts with people for the rest of their lives and we owe it to them to give them truth and justice.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Survivors of child sex abuse are very brave in dealing with the horrific attacks that they have had to endure. How will the proposed inquiry engage with and thoroughly involve the victims of child sex abuse?

[Mrs May]

I think it would be most appropriate for the chairman and panel themselves to decide what to do on that matter, rather than Government trying to tell them what to do. Once the name of the chairman is announced, I am sure that Members of this House who have experience of dealing with these matters will wish to make their views known, but I think it is best to leave it to the chairman and panel to identify how they wish to work and take evidence and comments from people. May I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is another Member of this House who has done a great deal of work on this matter in trying to uncover the truth about those who have been victims?

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the overarching inquiry, which is important because if we wish to empower children to resist and report child sex abuse, we need to demonstrate that as adults we are prepared to talk openly about these things. Will she give her view on whether it is correct that no Government record should be destroyed without a record of its being destroyed being kept? If that is what has happened in these 114 cases, is she confident that it is not still happening, and is she satisfied that the Lord Chancellor’s code of practice on the management of records— to which I think the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred—is actually being complied with and, indeed, that it is adequate for the purpose?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated in response to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, the panel may well look at the question of record keeping. It is right that there are certain processes in place, as I also indicated in my earlier response. One of the issues we are dealing with is that, over the years and the time period we are looking at, a number of different approaches to record keeping were taken by Government Departments. It is, I think, best practice to identify what has happened to particular records when they are identified, but the practice of what is done has varied over time. That is one of the aspects that we will obviously need to consider.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I very much welcome the announcement of the panels of inquiry, but may I ask the right hon. Lady a specific question about a north Wales matter? Some 18 months ago, Mrs Justice Macur was appointed to look at the Waterhouse inquiry, specifically to see whether its remit was too narrow and whether there was evidence of wider sexual abuse. She completed her work in July last year; since then, there has been silence. Will the right hon. Lady look into that matter, and advise the House when the findings will be published?

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to do that, and to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the outcome of my inquiry. In relation to certain matters in north Wales, I am obviously aware that Operation Pallial, a criminal investigation, is also taking place. That may be affecting the issue, but I will certainly look into it.

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

I strongly welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of the inquiry. For too long, survivors of appalling abuse have been denied the transparency and justice they deserve, and in Oxford we know too well the long-term toll that that can take. For that reason, we must not raise false hopes today. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in addition to access to Government and police papers, transparency from local authorities will be essential to achieving a just and effective inquiry? How does she intend to achieve such transparency?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is also well placed to comment on these matters. She has done a considerable amount of work, particularly following the recent cases of child sexual exploitation and grooming in her constituency and elsewhere in Oxford, under the Thames Valley police. She is right: I intend the terms of reference for the panel of inquiry to be drawn quite widely, and they will therefore relate not just to central Government papers. I will publish the terms of reference in due course, when it has been possible to discuss them with the appointed chairman. She is also right that local authorities, with both their direct responsibilities for child protection and their responsibilities for placing children in care of various sorts, will be an important source of information.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Whatever investigations and inquiries take place in the coming months and possibly years, will the Home Secretary ensure that there is support for victims, including, crucially, counselling, which for many years has been far too difficult for both children and adults to access? Given the way in which child abuse is sometimes discussed publicly, will she work closely with ministerial colleagues to make sure that the child protection system and those working in child protection are not in any way undermined by inquiries into historical abuse?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman’s question about counselling support for victims is more appropriate for other Departments to consider, but I will certainly raise it with my colleagues. In relation to the way in which we discuss this issue, he is right that many people are working assiduously to protect and safeguard children, and I in no way wish to undermine the work that they are doing. It is important for us to look at a number of allegations and cases where people have been prosecuted for historical abuse, but we have of course seen more recent cases of abuse—I mentioned a number of areas in my statement—and it is important for us to learn from those cases to ensure that we have the best systems in place to provide the protection for children that we all want.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Does she not agree that the situation has dramatically improved since, say, 2003? The public attitude has improved, and legal changes have led to improvements; in fact, the authorities are now in a position to be proactive when they get the chance and when information is brought forward. Does she agree that agencies such as the police and social services should have a legal obligation to provide information to the inquiry on request, and to act in a positive manner towards it?

[Mrs May]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that all agencies should act constructively and positively in relation to the inquiry—I encourage them to do so—because that is how we can get to the truth. We have seen that in similar inquiry panels that have taken place. On his first point, I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done over many years in looking at the legislative structure, dealing with the issues and working with the police to ensure that the best possible support is given in relation to the activities of paedophiles. Most recently, we have of course seen the new offence of possessing paedophile manuals in the Serious Crime Bill.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary look at Operation Rose in Northumberland, which took place a few years ago? It is becoming more apparent that it was a whitewash as more victims come forward each day and each month.

[Mrs May]

I am happy to take away the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is precisely because I want to ensure that we cover all the cases that have come up that I think it is important that the terms of the inquiry panel are drawn quite widely. I will look into the matter that he raises.

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

The country will welcome the principles behind my right hon. Friend’s reviews and panel. Will she, along with other Departments, make it clear to all children, especially looked-after children, that if they have worries that they cannot communicate to the people who are looking after them, there is an outside place to which they can go with confidence to talk about their worries?

On archives, may I refer my right hon. Friend to the letter that she has received from Dr Richard Stone—I do not expect her to respond to it this afternoon—about the hidden stories of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry? As a member of the inquiry, he did not have access to the papers while trying to implement the recommendations. It seems to me to be important that we learn the lessons from that.

[Mrs May]

I will obviously look carefully at the letter to which my hon. Friend refers and at examples from other inquiries that have taken place.

It is important that young people who are victims of sexual abuse feel able to go somewhere to report it. As has been said by more than one Member today, I hope the fact that we are talking about this matter and our acknowledgement of what has happened to young people in the past and the importance of dealing with it will give victims greater confidence that if they come forward, they will be listened to and heard.

We have seen recent cases that have been taken forward by police forces. Sadly, I see the list of the operations that the police are taking forward to deal with child sexual exploitation and grooming up and down the country. Frankly, the number of cases is shocking. Again, as young people see those cases being dealt with, hopefully it will give them the confidence to come forward if they have been victims of abuse.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

As well as setting off these reviews by the great and the good, the so-called independent experts and the people that are known to the Government, would it not be more convincing if the Home Secretary had said, “I’m going to do something else. I’m going to make sure that all those cuts in the public sector and in local authorities are reversed, and that people who deal with child abuse every single day get a decent pay rise”? That is what the Government ought to do if they really mean it.

[Mrs May]

This Government have a record of being willing to deal with and address issues of child sexual exploitation. I particularly commend the work that was done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) as Minister for children on the strategy to deal with child exploitation, which is having an impact. Of course the Government must constantly look at whether we can do more. That is why it is important to have the panel to look at the lessons learned.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May I add my welcome for the measures that the Home Secretary has announced? They will offer great reassurance to the public. It is important that all public institutions, including Parliament and the NHS, are held to account. In that respect, will she confirm that the inquiry will have full access to information from quasi-public bodies, such as the BBC, as well as from institutions where we know significant child abuse has taken place, such as the Church?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

As I have said, the terms of reference will be published in due course. It is my intention that it should be a wide inquiry. It should therefore be possible for it to look not just at state institutions but at other bodies to see whether they have been protecting children appropriately or not, as the case may be.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

In the mid-1990s, a senior ex-Whip who had served in the 1970s told the BBC that the Whips Office routinely helped MPs with scandals, including those, in his own words, “involving small boys”, and that they did so to exert control over those individuals and prevent problems for the Government. That is just one powerful example of how personal and political interests can conspire to prevent justice from happening. May we have a full commitment that the inquiry will consider not just the police and social services but what happens at the heart of power, and that if those systems are found to exist today, they will be overturned, whether or not it makes life uncomfortable for political parties, Parliament or the Government?

[Mrs May]

It is not my intention that political parties be outside the scope of the inquiry. It has to be wide-ranging and it has to look at every area where it is possible that people have been guilty of abuse. We need to learn lessons to ensure that the systems we have in place are able to identify that and deal with it appropriately.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the reviews announced by the Home Secretary today. We want those reviews to be thorough, but we do not want another Chilcot—we do not want them to drag on interminably. May we be assured that there will be some form of time scale by which they will be expected to report? As far as the 114 missing files are concerned, they are either destroyed, missing or not found. It seems to me that somebody believes they may still be there. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that somebody is still looking for the files and that no stone will be left unturned until we know exactly where they are?

[Mrs May]

On the timetable, as I indicated, I would expect the inquiry panel work to go beyond the general election. It is necessary that it has sufficient time to do its job properly and comprehensively, but I undertake to have a progress update report presented to Parliament before May 2015. The deadline or final timetable is something that needs to be discussed with the chairman of the panel, because it will be partly determined by the way they intend to operate the work of the panel. It will also be determined by the progress of the criminal investigations, because we do not want to jeopardise them.

The investigator certainly did not find any evidence that the files were, in any shape or form, in existence, but I think what I am saying is that there is no categorical evidence that they had been destroyed, because that had not been recorded—hence the issues that have been raised about the recording of matters relating to records.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Sir Jimmy Savile was the honoured invited guest at 11 new year’s eve parties hosted by a Prime Minister. He was given the keys to two hospitals by Health Ministers. He was a trusted friend of royalty. Can we know whether the intelligence services had surveillance on this man? If they did put in reports, why was no action taken on them?

[Mrs May]

In response to an earlier question, I addressed the issue of my expectation of the panel being able to have as much access to Government papers as possible. On the wider issue the hon. Gentleman raises, this is precisely why we need to look back at these cases and ask why somebody who was serially abusing a large number of people—children and adults—over a period of time was able to do so while continuing to be feted by society at large.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Home Secretary was right to be cautious about an overarching inquiry. Is she now convinced that an inquiry that covers multiple decades and multiple institutions, in the public sector and outside, will be sufficiently focused and effective? The last thing we want is for the inquiry to fail to draw a line for those who have suffered such horrors in their early years.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is often a tension between ensuring that a report or an inquiry can look as widely as is necessary to get to the truth, while at the same time ensuring that it does not continue for so long that it ceases to have relevance when it reports. I will be discussing this matter with the chairman of the inquiry to ensure that it can be conducted in such a manner that lessons can be learned sufficiently swiftly for action to be taken to ensure we are protecting children today.

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

On behalf of nationalist Members, I welcome the inquiry and the other investigations that the Home Secretary has mentioned, but will she assure me that, where possible, she will keep the devolved Administrations informed of the progress of the inquests and work with them to ensure that we really get to the heart of the matter?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will talk to the devolved Administrations and work with them on the work of this inquiry. Some matters will cover England and Wales, and other matters are of a devolved nature, which makes it particularly important to work with the devolved Administrations.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I read the executive summary of the 2013 review, according to which 114 files were said to have been lost or destroyed. The investigator says, however, that he looked only at what he called the central Home Office database. What about files that might be held by the Security Service or other agencies? Will the Home Secretary confirm that files held by such bodies and those held on other databases will be incorporated in the review?

[Mrs May]

I certainly think it important for other databases to be interrogated and looked into. As I indicated in response to an earlier question from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), there are issues around access to certain matters that relate to secret and intelligence material. I am sure, however, that there are ways of ensuring that all appropriate material—whether it be appropriate for the review or for the inquiry panel—will be looked into.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

In the 1970s and ’80s, there was a confusion between sexual liberation and sexual exploitation, and that gave cover for the abuse of some children to escape challenge. Much progress has been made, but victims of child abuse are still being blamed for their own exploitation. Does the Home Secretary agree that if we are to make significant progress in protecting our children, the independent inquiry panel needs to look at current attitudes as well as understand historical attitudes?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the atmosphere and attitudes against which these abuses took place. We need to be very clear about what amounts to abuse today. That is why, in a related context, the Home Office has run a “This is Abuse” campaign for teenagers to help them identify when abuse is taking place. Sadly, some might have seen abusive relationships that were portrayed to them as normal. We need to ensure that everybody understands what abuse is, and understands their ability to say no.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Home Secretary mentioned political parties. On alleged child abuse by past or present Members of Parliament, will she confirm whether the inquiry will consider any allegations or evidence held by the Whips?

[Mrs May]

The intention of the inquiry panel is to be able to look as widely as possible at these issues. I should perhaps clarify a point: the inquiry panel will not be conducting investigations into specific allegations, which would properly be matters for criminal investigations. It is looking across the board at how these matters have been approached in the past and asking the question—I intend this to be drawn quite widely—whether the proper protections for children were in place, and if not, whether those gaps still exist today, and if so, what we need to do to fill those gaps. I expect as much information as possible to be given to the panel to enable it to achieve that.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In the course of doing constituency casework, every Member will come across vulnerable adults and children. Does the Home Secretary agree that Members of Parliament and caseworkers should undergo Criminal Records Bureau checks? We have legislated for everybody else in similar positions of responsibility to have those checks, so is it not time that we did so here, too?

[Mrs May]

There is, in a sense, a paradox here, in that a Member of Parliament can go into a school without a CRB check, but the inquiry panel will be considering how we can protect children, whether there are gaps anywhere, and whether we need to fill those gaps. I expect its report to identify areas in which the panel considers it necessary, potentially, to legislate further in order to protect children.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for—uniquely, it would seem—understanding the gravity of these never-ending revelations and the need for transparency and urgency in the investigation of them, and gently regretting the rather partisan approach taken by the shadow Home Secretary, which contrasts with the all-party spirit of the 141 Members who called for the inquiry.

Will the panel have the power to summon evidence and subpoena witnesses, will it be able to go where it needs to go, and, crucially, will it be able to trigger criminal investigations of anyone who is found to be responsible for covering up such acts, rather than just the perpetrators?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I also commend him for the work that he has done for many years, and not just as Minister for Children: I remember how assiduous he was during our time in opposition in trying to ensure that children were properly protected, and that issues such as the abuse and exploitation of children. and their lack of safety, were taken into account and dealt with properly.

If the panel found allegations that it believed would be dealt with more appropriately by the police through a criminal investigation, I would expect the allegations to be passed to the police for that purpose. The panel will be able to call witnesses. Its initial structure will not enable it to require witnesses to come before it, and it will have to consider whether calling a witness would in any way jeopardise or prejudice a criminal investigation that was taking place if that individual was involved in the investigation. However, as I have said, if the chairman decides to recommend that the inquiry panel be turned into a full statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005—which would, of course, have the right to require witnesses to come forward—we will make it absolutely clear that we will go down that route.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

In the early 1990s, I interviewed seven young men in my constituency, all of whom had been victims of child abuse at Bryn Estyn in north Wales. None of them asked for compensation, but all of them said “We want someone to say sorry.” That was uppermost in their minds: they wanted someone to admit that what he or she had done was wrong.

I had to bring parliamentary business to a halt two nights running on the Floor of the House in order to get the main allegations contained in the then secret Jillings report into the public eye. Shortly afterwards a public inquiry was set up, and all talk of that was shut down for three years. I have given evidence to Operation Pallial, one of the inquiries that have been taking place. Can the Home Secretary give any time frame for when it might report? In my view, this has dragged on for far too long.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Lady has raised an important point. I cannot give her a time frame for Operation Pallial, in relation to its termination. Obviously it is ongoing, and is dealing with individuals and matters as it comes across them and is able to deal with them. However, I will write to her about what it has been doing and how long it thinks the process might take.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The police are becoming increasingly successful at breaking up human trafficking rings. Adult victims of human trafficking are looked after in safe homes which are run safely and are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Unfortunately, however, children are given to local authorities to be looked after, and there is evidence that they are often re-trafficked and abused again. Will the Home Secretary consider installing for children a system similar to the one that we have for adults?

[Mrs May]

The purpose of the child advocate trials that we are introducing is precisely to find out how we can best ensure that child victims of human trafficking are given the support and help that they need. As my hon. Friend has said—and he recognises this through the work that he has done, particularly when he was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern day slavery—some youngsters sadly find themselves being trafficked again when in local authority care.

This is appalling. I am afraid that over the years this country can take no comfort at all from its record on children in local authority care, and we have seen many appalling cases as a result of that. I hope that the child advocate trials will show us where best practice is and how we can best support these children.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s report, and may I suggest that one of the things the inquiry panel might look at is the adequacy, or otherwise, of multiagency activity in pursuing the point she has just made? She has talked twice now about the investigator having determined that files had not been removed deliberately or inappropriately, but she has also said the record of housekeeping on this matter has been varied. Can she tell the House how the investigator determined that these files were not removed deliberately or inappropriately, and if she cannot tell the House that, will the inquiry look specifically into that issue?

[Mrs May]

The review that will be taking place under the direction of Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the NSPCC, with the support I indicated earlier, will precisely be looking at the investigator’s review to see whether it was conducted properly and whether the information was properly dealt with, and will look at what the Home Office did in relation to the files and so forth. So it is a matter that will be looked at by the review of the review.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her important and measured statement. With the apparent loss of in excess of about 100 Home Office documents that are relevant to this statement, current testimonies from past victims take on a greater importance. In view of that, is the Home Secretary satisfied that the police, and in particular the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, have the necessary powers to protect victims from ongoing blackmail? In particular, I gather that there are general concerns around the potential use of photographs and films from the 1970s and ’80s which have now been digitised in order to discourage victims from coming forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and, if I may, I will look into the specific issue he has raised about the films or videos from the 1970s which have been digitised. I am satisfied generally that CEOP does have the powers it needs, but he has raised a very specific issue and I will look into it and get back to him.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The three principles of justice for victims, transparency of process and learning the lessons are absolutely right and necessary, but does the Home Secretary not consider that they may not be sufficient unless there is a care package of support attached to the inquiry, because otherwise victims may still feel reluctant in coming forward? She referred earlier to it being for other Departments to look at that; I believe it is for hers.

[Mrs May]

It is, of course, right that the Home Office is establishing the inquiry panel, and we will be discussing with the inquiry panel what it considers will be necessary for it to be able to ensure it can undertake its investigations and review in the best possible way.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

As someone who called for an overarching review, may I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement? Does she agree that one of the possible causes of the seeming culture of impunity that existed in the ’70s and ’80s was the fact that the courts made no adjustment whatsoever for the evidence of children and young people and there was a statutory requirement that juries in England and Wales had to be warned about the absence of corroborative evidence in sexual complaints?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s experience of matters relating to the courts is, of course, greater than mine, but I think he is absolutely right that one of the things that has developed over the years has been a willingness of the criminal justice system as a whole to recognise the need to put in place more specific support for those vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they are able to bring their evidence forward. Of course justice requires that the evidence that people give is appropriately challenged, but it is important that over the years—not just in issues relating to child abuse, but in some other matters as well—the courts have recognised the need to make sure that witnesses are not put off coming forward by what is going to be their experience at trial.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am still a little unclear as to the scope of the Wanless review into the 114 missing files. The Home Secretary described it as a “review of the review”. Will it have the power to go further and take evidence from other people who may know something about the missing files that was not the subject of the original investigation in 2013?

[Mrs May]

I have put a copy of the terms of reference of the review in the Library, so it will be possible for the hon. Lady and others to see those. She described it as a review of the 114 files, but it is not a review of the 114 files; it is a review of all the work that was done by the investigator to see how the Home Office handled the letters from Geoffrey Dickens and other information that became known to it to ensure that it was handled appropriately. As I indicated, the review will be looking at other matters that relate to the police and prosecuting authorities. It will also look at whether further information is available in relation to the 114 files and whether the original review’s assessment of their significance was reasonable.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Whether in private homes or public institutions, child sex abuse is, sadly, all too prevalent in British society. Therefore, will the Home Secretary look again, for current cases, at the tariff for serious sexual crimes, given that the current tariffs and sentences are clearly not working as a deterrent?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. This is a matter more properly for the Justice Secretary to look at, and I will ensure that it is raised with him.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Operation Fernbridge has been given details of the blocked 1988 investigation into child prostitution, sex rings, prominent people and children’s homes in Lambeth. Can we be certain that it has sufficient resources to see whether those files still exist—and if not, where they have gone—and to prosecute if possible? In addition, this year in Bassetlaw six people have come forward and made allegations of historical child abuse, but there have been no prosecutions, Nottinghamshire police have lost files and Nottinghamshire social services have destroyed files. Will that be in the remit of one of these investigations now taking place?

[Mrs May]

On the resources available to Operation Fernbridge, it is an operational matter for the commissioner to determine what resources are appropriate for the level of investigation that is necessary. I am sure that we all want the same thing: to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. The whole point of the inquiry panel is to look at lessons learned as a result of these various reviews of historical allegations that have taken place. Obviously, I would expect it to be wide ranging in ensuring that it is indeed identifying all the lessons that need to be learned and the actions that need to be taken.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jason McCartney]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Much of Geoffrey Dickens’s former Huddersfield West seat was incorporated into my constituency, so there is much local interest in this in my part of the world. I very much welcome the announcement of today’s independent inquiry. Will the Home Secretary assure me that it will look into all the evidence and all the allegations, no matter how old?

[Mrs May]

The point is that the inquiry panel should be able to look at historical allegations and identify what lessons need to be learned. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, I think it is appropriate for me to make it clear again that it will not be for the inquiry panel to determine a particular allegation; if there is an allegation where a criminal investigation is more appropriate, it should be referred to the police for criminal investigation. It will, however, be looking across the board at these historical allegations and at why so many children in so many different environments—in the care of the state and in other areas—found themselves the victims of this abuse and apparently nothing was done to protect them properly.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), we know that special branch suppressed files alleging criminality in the Cyril Smith case. Allegations have been made that the intelligence services have been involved in the hushing up of police inquiries. Will the Home Secretary accept in terms, and tell the House today that she accepts completely, that without access to those records, including those of the intelligence services, this new inquiry will not be able to establish the truth?

[Mrs May]

I had hoped that I had made it clear to the House that it is my intention and expectation that all material, or Government papers, will be made available to the inquiry panel. The caveat that I put on that—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members will recognise this—is that if, when we are dealing with this material, intelligence matters are involved, certain care will have to be taken in the way in which that material is dealt with. I intend that, as far as possible, Government papers will be made available to the inquiry so that that inquiry can come to a proper determination.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

I welcome the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced. Much of the discussion that we have had today has been around historical cases. Is she confident that if such a bundle of documents were to be handed to her today, it would be treated in a much better manner?

[Mrs May]

I would hope that, if a similar bundle were handed in to the Home Office today, officials would ensure that those documents went to the police and were properly investigated. In the case of the material that came in to previous Home Secretaries, the evidence of the review was that material that should have been handed to the police was handed to the police, but we will be looking to ensure that that is what actually took place. Obviously, if such material were handed to the Home Office today, I would expect the Home Office to keep appropriate records and ensure that the police were taking those matters on board as appropriate.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

May I press the Home Secretary on the issue of intelligence files? Is she confirming to the House that all special branch files that are not connected to national security will be made available?

[Mrs May]

I have indicated to the House that I would expect Government papers to be made available to the inquiry. I remind Members of the House that, where information is currently being used in a criminal investigation, we do not want the inquiry’s work in any way to jeopardise or prejudice criminal investigations that are taking place. I used a phrase in my statement about Government “making all papers available” to the inquiry. Obviously, it is for the chairman and the panel to determine how they wish to conduct the inquiry, but the Government will be open to the inquiry.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Does she agree that although Mr Sedwill found no evidence that the 114 files that were not available had been removed or destroyed inappropriately, it does not in any way mean that it is not deeply concerning that those files have gone missing, nor does it in any way provide positive evidence that they were not inappropriately removed? It just means that no evidence was provided one way or the other.

[Mrs May]

The important point, as I understand it, is—I cannot find the exact phrase in my papers—whether those files were of significance. The reviewer looked at the issues in terms of the files being identified. Obviously, he was not able to look into the files themselves precisely because there does not appear to be a record of whether they had been destroyed, mislaid or simply not found. The purpose of having the review of the review is precisely so that it is possible to go back on those issues and to look at them again and see whether further information is available about those files—that is in the terms of reference of the review of the review—and whether the issue was dealt with properly by the investigator.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

On 23 May 2012 at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the issue of the abuse that took place at Medomsley detention centre. My constituent, John McCabe, was raped every day for nine months by guards and others inside and outside Medomsley. John has waived his anonymity and, because of his courage, 700 victims from the detention centre have come forward, and 70-plus detectives from County Durham police force are going through the evidence. What has always puzzled me is that much of the evidence that was available was already in the hands of the Home Office. Why did the Home Office not instigate the investigation? Does the Home Secretary not accept that the only way to get to the truth about the depths to which paedophile circles have infiltrated state systems is to cut to the chase and announce a public inquiry today?

[Mrs May]

We are absolutely clear that the way forward is to ensure that work can start soon and that we do not delay this work because of the impact it could have on the criminal investigations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that a significant number of police officers in the County Durham force were looking into the allegations of the abuse that took place at Medomsley detention centre, and I am sure that he would want to ensure that those criminal investigations could continue and that, where evidence that was suitable for charge and prosecution was found, those charges should be laid and those prosecutions should be taken forward. I want to ensure that the work that is now going to be done does not jeopardise the prosecution of perpetrators. That is why I have set this up today as an inquiry panel. As I made clear in my statement, if the chairman of the panel recommends that it would be preferable to move to a full statutory inquiry, that will be done.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. When the Sedwill review specifically established that the Dickens letters had not been kept, did it also try to establish who had authorised their disposal, and if not, why not?

[Mrs May]

The review looked at the way in which the information that had come in from Geoffrey Dickens—and, indeed, any other information—had been handled, to ensure that it was being handled appropriately. The evidence that it found was that matters that should have been handed over to the police for investigation were indeed handed to the police for investigation. As I have said, four pieces of information have subsequently been passed to the police because it was felt that it was now appropriate to do so. The review will look at the whole question of what the investigator did and what evidence they found. It will ensure that that investigation was done properly and that the handling of those matters was entirely appropriate, in order to give greater confidence precisely because questions have been raised.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

In the early 1980s, I was working in child protection in south Wales, and rumours such as those that have been circulating this weekend were also circulating then. Many of the people who were working in child protection in the 1980s have now retired. Will there be a confidential access line to enable such people to come forward and reveal what they saw happening at the time? Such material might not be suitable for a police inquiry, but it might well help to build a picture of what was prevalent then and of what engagement took place between the police and other authorities and those who had concerns about children being picked up at the end of the lane in large cars but found that they could get nowhere with those concerns.

[Mrs May]

It is precisely in order to learn the lessons that we need to know what was going on, and the inquiry is obviously going to have to look quite widely in order to find that out. It will have to look at the documentary evidence from the reviews that have taken place. I do not want to dictate to the inquiry what it should do or how it should undertake its work, but I am sure that the chairman and the panel will be alive to the fact that, in order to get to the truth, they will need to hear from those who have felt unable to speak out in the past.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. May I press her on the point about the missing 114 files and ask how the investigator could have concluded, without having had sight of them, that they had not been “removed or destroyed inappropriately”? Did the Home Secretary ask that question herself?

[Mrs May]

I made it absolutely clear earlier that that review was initiated by the permanent secretary, and that it reported to the permanent secretary. The review itself has been passed to the police, together with any appropriate evidence that it was felt right to pass to the police. Obviously, the review looked at a large number of files and put together evidence as to how these matters were dealt with. The whole question of how it looked at the judgments that were made by the investigator when he undertook the review is one of the issues that will be looked at by the review of the review.

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

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. One consequence of her establishing an inquiry such as the one that she has announced today might be that victims hitherto unknown to the authorities will come forward with new or additional evidence on existing cases. Will she ensure that, as part of the terms of reference for the inquiry, a sensitive and confidential procedure will be put in place to allow victims, including new victims, to come forward and present their evidence in a confidential and sensitive manner and, when necessary, for that information to be shared not just with the inquiry but with criminal investigators?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), I would expect the inquiry to recognise the need to have appropriate measures in place to enable evidence to come forward from those who might otherwise find it difficult to give evidence or who have been put off from giving it in the past for fear of the consequences.