Migration Advisory Committee (Triennial Review)

Theresa May Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Written Statements

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

On 27 March 2012 I announced in Parliament, through a written ministerial statement—Official Report, column 128WS—the commencement of the triennial review of the Migration Advisory Committee. I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.

The Migration Advisory Committee provides independent and evidence-based advice to Government on migration issues.

The review concludes that the functions performed by the Migration Advisory Committee are still required and that it should be retained as a non-departmental public body. The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the body in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes some recommendations in this respect; these will be implemented shortly.



The full report of the review of the Migration Advisory Committee can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the House Library.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

1. What her projected time scale is for implementing all the border systems programme aims.

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

Keeping the UK’s border secure is our priority. By the end of this Parliament, we will develop replacement primary border security systems, deliver exit checks, improve resilience of all current business-critical systems, increase advance passenger information coverage, and complete implementation of second-generation e-gates.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s answer. However, what progress has been made in the procurement process for the e-borders contract given that the UK industry was first approached in early 2013 and nations such as Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico have been able to complete similar procurements and implementations in as little as six months?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the procurement process. We have done two things in the Home Office: first, we have looked to make absolutely sure that we have identified the right technology that is necessary; and secondly, we have changed the approach we take to procurement to move away from the mega-monolithic contracts that tended to be entered into by the previous Government so as to be able to parcel the contracts up into smaller packages that mean we are more flexible and that a greater range of companies is able to bid for those contracts.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is right: the process has been slow. The e-borders programme has been a disaster costing the taxpayer millions of pounds, with four years of unresolved negotiations with the original providers. In his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Sir Charles Montgomery said that 5 million people leave this country without providing advance passenger information. How many of the 14 core services that were due to be provided by e-borders will be provided by the end of this Parliament?

[Mrs May]

I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) what we will have completed by the end of this Parliament. I am happy to repeat the list that I read earlier. We will have delivered exit checks, increased advance passenger information coverage, introduced second-generation e-gates, developed primary border security systems, and improved the resilience of all our current business-critical systems.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is clearly very important to have exit checks back, because without them it is hard to have a sensible immigration policy. Sir Charles Montgomery from Border Force told the Select Committee that full e-borders capability would not be provided by the time of the general election. What is not going to be in place, and do we need it?

[Mrs May]

I have already established twice in my answers what is going to be completed during this Parliament by the time of the next general election. My hon. Friend is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and has obviously heard Sir Charles Montgomery, the director general of Border Force, give evidence on a number of occasions. One of the points Sir Charles has made in his evidence is that we have been increasing the amount of advance passenger information available to us so that we now have 80% coverage in all transport and more than 90% coverage in aviation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The official Opposition and I support exit checks. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has read what the Deputy Prime Minister has said:

“I have for some time been concerned with the urgency with which the Home Office is seeking to implement the coalition agreement commitment that I personally insisted on, that exit checks should be restored…Do I think, given what I know now, that new exit checks will be in all exit places by 2015? I think that is unlikely”.

For once, I agree with Nick—does the Home Secretary?

[Mrs May]

I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s concern to ensure that we are able to provide for the commitment that we made in the coalition agreement that we would introduce exit checks. By April 2015 we will have enabled exit checks to take place for those who are leaving the UK by scheduled international travel by air, sea and rail services.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Whatever entry or exit checks we deploy, my constituents are concerned that we should not grant asylum to people who come to our shores through other safe countries. What use is being made of the Dublin convention whereby we send back such people to the last safe country they left?

[Mrs May]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Lucas. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to stop human trafficking.

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

I am determined to tackle human trafficking and modern slavery. Later this year we will introduce a Modern Slavery Bill, to ensure that our laws properly protect victims and bring perpetrators to justice, together with an action plan, to galvanise those involved in stamping out this horrific crime. In addition, we are reviewing the identification and provision of care for victims. Earlier this month at the Vatican, I launched the Santa Marta group, which will bring together senior law enforcement chiefs from around the world and play a critical role in taking practical steps to end modern slavery.

[Stuart Andrew]

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she is also working with other countries to stop people being trafficked into the United Kingdom, to stop criminals targeting vulnerable people and, primarily, to protect our communities from those criminals?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, because working internationally and co-operating across borders is a key part of our being able to deal with this issue and tackle modern slavery and the human trafficking that often lies behind it. The action plan, to which I have referred and which I intend to publish later this year, will set out very clearly how we will undertake a range of activities with source countries. It will include the work of British embassies to prioritise the issue of trafficking, encouraging greater use of joint investigation teams and providing support to victims who want to return home. Of course, there is always more to do and I am always keen to explore any further efforts we can make.

[John Glen]

I welcome what the Home Secretary has said, but does she agree with my constituent, Jane Launchbury, that this is also a key opportunity to introduce a system of legal guardianship to ensure that the most vulnerable children can be supported through the numerous interactions they will have with officialdom? Will the Home Secretary outline which steps the Bill will take to ensure that victims of child trafficking will be protected?

[Mrs May]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to make sure that we provide properly for all victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, and, obviously, we all have particular concerns about child victims. The Modern Slavery Bill will enable us to strengthen our response to human trafficking and modern slavery, for both adult and child victims. We are taking some important steps. I announced in January our intention to trial specialist independent advocates for victims of child trafficking. They would support and guide the child through the immigration, criminal justice and care systems, ensuring that the child’s voice is heard and that they receive the best form of support and protection they need. Of course, we have to consider that matter following the passing in the Lords of an amendment to the Immigration Bill that has put on hold our proposals for those pilots.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the initiative she has taken on this front. The Joint Committee of both Houses has reported to her. Does she know yet when she may able to respond?

[Mrs May]

I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman a date as to when I will be able to respond, but we are grateful to the Joint Committee for the detailed work it did and the commitment it showed in looking at this issue. That is why I want to look at it and to make absolutely sure that we respond to all the points the Committee raised.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I, too, had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee, which concluded unanimously, across all the parties, that key to prevention of human trafficking is improved protection of its victims. In view of the 47% increase in the number of victims identified, can the Home Secretary assure us that she knows what happens to them when they leave shelters, often after 45 days, and whether there is continuing support and protection available to victims beyond that which is automatically provided?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady refers to the Committee’s report and she is right to say that we want to ensure the protection of victims. Part of that is ensuring that the perpetrators can be caught, because if the victims have support and protection, they are more likely and willing to come forward to give evidence. In dealing with modern slavery and human trafficking, we must never take our focus away from dealing with the perpetrators. The Modern Slavery Bill will give us an enhanced ability to deal with those who are perpetrating this abhorrent crime.

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Many people will leave the refuge or protection they have been in after 45 days, but in many cases they will be able to go into a further form of protection that will have been discussed, and the charitable and voluntary sectors are working very well on that.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

I commend the Home Secretary for her lead on this issue. I am sure that she realises that the Modern Slavery Bill could be a world leader. A lot of countries are looking at us with regard to the Bill. I just want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that although it is absolutely right to go after the perpetrators and give them the strongest possible sentences, it is incredibly important that we support the victims in order to get those convictions.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am grateful to him for the work that he has done on the particular issue of modern slavery and human trafficking. We will follow a twin-track approach: the legislation will obviously enable us to strengthen our law enforcement ability, particularly to deal with those perpetrating this crime, and it will also of course set up the anti-slavery commissioner. The action plan that I intend to publish will focus very clearly on the support that we can give victims. We want to ensure that victims are supported and we want people to give evidence against the perpetrators, because if we can reduce the number of perpetrators, we will reduce the number of victims.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary refers to having limited voluntary pilots, which is all very well, but numerous charities, the cross-party Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill and the other place all support having independent guardians or advocates to protect trafficked children and support putting this on a full statutory basis. Will she say whether she will attempt to overturn the new clause—clause 65 of the Immigration Bill—and if so, why?

[Mrs May]

We, of course, want to ensure that we provide that support for child victims and, as I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), that is why we have brought forward the trials of independent advocates. They align almost entirely with the role of child trafficking guardians, but with some exceptions: our advocates support all child victims of trafficking, whether trafficked into the UK or within the UK, and obviously focus on the needs of children, not on those of adults. We are trialling them because the support currently given is inconsistent—some local authority areas give better support than others—and we want to ensure that the system introduced is the one that will work and provide the best level of support.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

4. What recent progress she has made on tackling violence against women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

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

The Home Office continues its work to reform the police and cut crime. Under this Government, crime has fallen by more than 10% according to both the independent crime survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime, and the latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics last week show that England and Wales are safer than they have been for decades, with crime at its lowest level since the crime survey began in 1981. The Government are taking decisive action to cut crime and protect the public. We are tackling underlying drivers of crime through our drugs and alcohol strategies and antisocial behaviour reforms, we have intensified our focus on issues such as modern slavery, violence against women and girls, gangs and sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, and we have improved our national crime-fighting capability with the launch of the National Crime Agency. The evidence is clear: our police reforms are working and crime is falling.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The highly critical report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary raised troubling concerns about the police response to domestic violence when it comes to victims. When victims find the courage to contact the police, they need both to be believed and treated with respect. What further steps will the Home Secretary be taking to make sure that all front-line officers receive greater training in this area to make this a reality?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. The HMIC report was truly shocking and will have been of concern to all in this House who worry about the way in which domestic violence and the victims of domestic violence are treated by the police. I have written to chief constables making it absolutely clear that I expect them to bring their action plans for dealing with this issue forward by the autumn—by September or October of this year. I will be chairing a group that will be ensuring that action is taken, and we are of course working with the College of Policing, which this Government set up, to look at the training that is available to police officers.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T3. In the light of the Care Quality Commission’s recent mental health review, will the Secretary of State outline what action she is taking to eliminate the use of police stations as section 136 places of safety? What representations is she making to ensure that properly resourced and fully staffed places are provided in mental health units?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am clear that people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 should be taken to police stations only in truly exceptional circumstances. I am pleased to say that the work we have been doing with the Department of Health and the triage pilots involving health workers going out with police officers in certain parts of the country are already bearing fruit, with fewer people being taken to police cells as a place of safety. The Health Secretary and I have already commissioned a review of the operation of sections 135 and 136 because we want to ensure that appropriate support and provision are available for people who are experiencing mental health problems, and to ensure that they are dealt with in an appropriate way.

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

New figures show that in the past 15 months there has been a 7% drop in the number of sex offences being taken to court, at a time when the number of such offences being reported to the police has gone up by 16%. Over the past 12 months, there has been a 9% drop in convictions for violent crime, even though the number of recorded violent crimes fell by only 1.5%. The Home Secretary has said that her police reforms and policies are working. Why, then, are more criminals getting away with it on her watch?

[Mrs May]

I challenge the right hon. Lady’s comments. The basic issue here is that the overall number of crimes has been falling, which is why some of the figures relating to the number of people being taken to court are falling. When concerns are raised in relation to how the police are dealing with domestic and sexual violence, of course we take action to look into the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims said earlier, we have seen good movement in the figures relating to the way in which rape is being dealt with, particularly in relation to the number of successful prosecutions.

[Yvette Cooper]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have an answer.

[Mrs May]

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

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T4. With crime down by more than 10% since 2010, and by 11% in Warwickshire, will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the hard-working officers of the Warwickshire police force for their contribution to that? Does he agree that the Opposition were wrong to suggest that crime would rise as we started to deal with the legacy of deficit and debt that Labour left behind?

Countering Terrorism

Theresa May Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Written Statements

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

Protecting the safety of the UK and our interests overseas is the primary duty of Government. Terrorism remains the greatest threat to the security of this country.

I have today published the annual report for the Government’s strategy for countering terrorism, Contest (Cm 8848). It covers the progress made during 2013 towards implementing the strategy we published in July 2011. Copies of the report will be made available in the Vote Office.

The principal threat to the UK continues to be from militant Islamist terrorists and many of the threats we face continue to have significant overseas connections, highlighting the importance of our work with international partners. The most significant development in connection with terrorism during 2013 has been the growing threat from terrorist groups in Syria. Several factions of al-Qaeda are active in Syria, supported by rapidly increasing numbers of foreign fighters, including numbers in the low hundreds from this country and thousands from elsewhere.

2013 saw two terrorist murders, the first in Great Britain since 2005. There were also attempted terrorist attacks against mosques in the west midlands and 13 British nationals were killed in terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda linked groups overseas, the highest number since 2005.

Significant resources and capabilities have been put in place to deal with the threat. The number of successful prosecutions and plots foiled over the past year demonstrates the skill and professionalism of the police and security and intelligence agencies, as well as the strength of the systems and structures developed for our counter-terrorist work over many years. In the 12 months to September 2013, there were 257 terrorism-related arrests in Great Britain; 48 people were charged with terrorism offences and 73 with other offences. These figures are comparable to any other 12-month period since 2001.

The wide range of activity under Contest is appropriate for the threats we face and the strategy has been proven over many years. But aspects of our strategy have to evolve to respond to changing threats. During 2013 the Government have continued to provide the police and security and intelligence agencies with the powers and capabilities they need to do their job. These powers are necessary, proportionate and subject to close oversight and scrutiny. We have a sustained cross-Government effort to deal with the new and wider range of terrorist threats we now face overseas. We have increased the pace and range of our prevent work. We are making our border and our aviation sector even more secure. And we are reshaping our emergency response to deal with new terrorist methods and techniques.

The UK’s counter-terrorism response is widely regarded as among the most effective in the world. We will continue to do everything we can to stay ahead of the threat and to protect the public.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 7th April 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 2014 justice and home affairs opt-out decision.

We return once more to the important issue of the United Kingdom’s opt-out decision in relation to justice and home affairs matters under the Lisbon treaty—an issue that not only raises important questions about the protection of individual rights, but directly affects our law enforcement agencies’ ability to work with their EU counterparts to keep British citizens safe. It is an issue in which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have taken a keen interest, and the Government are grateful to them for their work in this area so far, not least the Select Committees on Home Affairs and on Justice and the European Scrutiny Committee, before all of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I have appeared on a number of occasions.

Those Committees have produced many valuable reports on the 2014 opt-outs. Their most recent was a joint report that was published on 26 March, in which they expressed the view that the Government have not engaged properly with Parliament on this issue. We deeply regret that they take that view and respectfully disagree. The Government have strongly supported and, indeed, encouraged Parliament’s scrutiny of this important matter from the very start of the process. I made an initial statement in October 2012 because the Government considered it important to communicate their proposed direction of travel at an early stage to enable scrutiny of the position to take place. That was in line with standard practice on EU police and criminal justice matters.

Since then, the Government have invited the Committees to play their part in this important work and have supported them in doing so. Well over 12 hours of ministerial time have been committed to giving evidence before the Committees. The Government have also submitted written evidence to inquiries and corresponded with the Committees on a regular basis. In addition, we have answered more than 300 parliamentary questions on this matter.

None the less, we take the Committees’ disappointment seriously. In the light of their disappointment and the views of other right hon. and hon. Members, the Government have allocated time this afternoon for the House to debate this important issue once again.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is very unusual for three Committees of the House to agree on every single word of a joint report, which is what we did. The point that the three Committees made—the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee is here and he can make his own points on this—was that it was important for Parliament to deliberate on this matter before the package was put in place, rather than afterwards, which would give Parliament very little time for proper discussion. That is why we felt that it was important to deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for giving us this time.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for setting out the reason behind the joint report from the three Committees. I will go on to explain exactly where we are in the process. He talks about the package coming before the House before it is adopted. We have made it very clear that there will be another opportunity for Parliament to debate the matter and vote on it.

I should remind the House of the background and the stage in proceedings we have reached. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the Labour Government signed in 2007, the UK had a specific and limited period of time to opt out of roughly 130 justice and home affairs measures covered by the treaty. That opt-out—Labour negotiated it, but never made it clear whether it would use it—had to be exercised en bloc, and before 31 May this year. Last July, the Government informed the House that we intended to exercise the UK’s opt-out. After debates in both Houses, Parliament voted for us to do so.

Accordingly, on 24 July 2013, the Prime Minister wrote to the then President of the Council of Ministers, informing her that the UK had exercised its right to opt-out from all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. That decision is irreversible, and will come into effect on 1 December 2014.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Paragraph 85 of the Home Affairs Committee’s ninth report, which dealt with the matter, states:

“The Government should…be explicit on what would happen if the proposed opt-in could not be agreed”—

in other words, they should be explicit on what would happen if the negotiations failed. That did not get a substantive response. Will the Home Secretary be explicitly clear about what will happen if the Government fail to agree the opt-in terms?

[Mrs May]

I will refer to one or two specific measures in relation to that, but as I have just indicated to the House, the Government have exercised the block opt-out. It is open to us to seek to rejoin any of the individual measures covered by it. If we do not negotiate to rejoin those measures, we will no longer be part of them from 1 December 2014.

When I came to the House last July, I explained that my ministerial colleagues and I had concluded that a number of the measures subject to the opt-out decision added value in the fight against crime and the pursuit of justice, and that it would therefore be in our national interest to seek to rejoin them. We believe that there are only a limited number of such measures—we set those out in Command Paper 8671 for the House to see before it voted on our decision to exercise the opt-out.

They were always separate decisions, and the Government have always been clear that Parliament and its Committees should have adequate time to scrutinise both. To make that explicit, we listened to the concerns of hon. Members, and particularly to the Chairmen of the Committees to which I have referred, and amended the motion for last July’s debate to invite the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee to submit reports before the Government opened formal discussions with the European Commission, the Council and other member states.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I endorse what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said with one qualification. It is not just a question of whether Parliament is given the opportunity to deliberate before decisions are taken behind closed doors, but a question of whether Parliament is, in effect, being asked to rubber stamp something that has already been decided in negotiations behind those closed doors. The problem is one of the matter therefore being hidden from the searching gaze of the public and Parliament itself.

[Mrs May]

Of course, by definition, the Government’s role is negotiating with the parties I have just indicated—the Council, the Commission and the member states—on those measures to which they agree it is possible for us to opt back into. That process, which takes some time, has been put in motion. I will describe where we are a little later but, by definition, the process must be undertaken by the Government. We have been clear that we will come back to Parliament, which will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the package of measures.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is well aware, we have indicated the measures on which we wish to opt back in. The discussions are in place with the European Commission and the other member states as to their views—whether or not they wish the UK to opt back in—and any other matters they wish to discuss with us as part of that negotiation.

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

To ensure the fullest engagement with Parliament, ought not it to be the case that we vote on every individual measure and not on a package?

[Mrs May]

The Government have always seen this clearly as a number of measures, some of which interlink and relate to one another. Therefore, they are part of a package in relation to our ability better to protect the public and ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers that we consider they need.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In what precise form will any vote be taken? Would it have legislative effect if the House added or took away one of the measures?

[Mrs May]

The Government will not bring forward legislation to the House on this matter, because that is not necessary. We will put before the House a package of measures that, following discussions with the European Commission, we believe we should be rejoining.

We responded to the Select Committees when they submitted their reports. I am sure that their work will inform the speeches we will hear in today’s debate.

I said that I would indicate what progress we had made in the negotiations. Everybody will of course understand that the nature of a negotiation is such that it is a poor negotiating strategy to reveal one’s hand in public while a deal is still being done. Detailed and constructive discussions are taking place with the European Commission and other member states. There are a great many processes and technical matters to discuss, but we are all keen to avoid the operational gap for our law enforcement agencies that will ensue if we have not settled the matter before 1 December, when, as I indicated earlier, the UK’s opt-out takes full effect. Our aim is therefore to reach an “in principle” deal well ahead of that date, and, as I have already indicated, to return to Parliament for a further vote before formally seeking to rejoin measures in the national interest.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way a second time. Has she seen reference made to a note by the Greek presidency that was published by Statewatch—it was leaked; it was not published by the presidency—that the United Kingdom needs to have its re-opting list agreed by June 2014; in other words, before the parliamentary recess? Has she seen that note and is that the case? Do we have to get all our priorities ready by then?

[Mrs May]

I am aware of a number of reports in the press in relation to documents that, it is claimed, have been leaked as part of the discussions that have been taking place. The timetable I have set out is very clear. On 1 December, having exercised the opt-out, we will no longer be part of any of the roughly 130 measures covered by the opt-out protocol. If, before that date, we have not negotiated the package, had the parliamentary debate and vote, and been able to agree the formal terms for returning to those measures that we choose to opt back into, then we will be out of those measures. It is that date that sets an end-point for us on when we want to be able to ensure we can opt back in.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will be very generous to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

The Home Secretary is always very generous to me; I have never complained about her generosity and magnanimity. I just want to go back to the question I asked last time, because I do not think she understood fully what I meant. I understand that the motion before the House will not be legislation—it will not be an Act of Parliament or secondary legislation—so will it just be an amendable motion that the Government can then completely and utterly ignore?

[Mrs May]

It will be an opportunity for this House to debate on the basis of a motion that the Government will bring forward. By definition, we have not yet put that motion into place, so the hon. Gentleman may just have to wait and see the nature of the motion when it is brought before this House. The Government have been clear that Parliament should be able to exercise the opportunity to give its views on the discussions we have had with the European Commission and member states in relation to the measure that we choose to opt into. We have been clear throughout this process that Parliament will be given a vote on the final list of measures. I am happy to confirm, as I have done already on a number of occasions in the limited time that I have been speaking, that that will be the case.

While the negotiations continue, I realise that hon. Members want to debate and comment on some of the specific measures that the Government identified in Command paper 8671 as being in our national interest to rejoin. Chief among them is the European arrest warrant. I know that this measure arouses particular feeling in the House. We clearly need strong extradition arrangements in place to see criminals convicted and justice done, but when extradition arrangements are wrong, they can cause misery to suspects and their families, and risk miscarriages of justice.

The previous Labour Government had eight years to address the concerns that people raised in respect of the European arrest warrant, but they did nothing. Where they failed to act, this Government have legislated to implement new safeguards to increase the protection offered to those wanted for extradition, particularly British citizens. The concrete steps taken by the Government in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will tackle the operational deficiencies of the arrest warrant head on.

Our changes will protect the fundamental rights of British citizens by allowing arrest warrants that are issued for disproportionate offences to be refused; they will address the understandable concerns that many people had about lengthy pre-trial detention; they will help to ensure that British nationals will not be extradited when the prosecuting authorities are still investigating offences; and they will help to ensure that people cannot be extradited for conduct that takes place in the United Kingdom and is not against the law of this land.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for many of the changes that are being made, but, as she knows, I have specific knowledge as a result of the experience of my constituent Andrew Symeou, and I feel obliged to make a point that he made recently when being interviewed about the changes. Although steps have been taken to prevent people from being held for unnecessary periods when a case is not trial-ready, he is certain that the Greek authorities lied in his case, and that there is nothing to prevent them from doing so again.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s constituent has particular experience of the operation of the European arrest warrant, and my hon. Friend has been assiduous in drawing attention to that case and to the case for change. However, it will be possible for the process that determines whether a case is trial-ready to take place in the courts here in the United Kingdom, and for decisions to be made there. I am confident that proper consideration will be given to evidence given by the authorities in Greece or other member states concerning the preparedness of the case.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has set out the safeguards that will apply to the European arrest warrant, which, as she knows, is of huge concern to many people in this country. One of the fears that we all have is that all the measures into which she wishes to opt will be subject to the European Court of Justice. How certain can she be that those safeguards will be upheld by the Court?

[Mrs May]

It is true that the measures that we opt back into will be subject to the European Court of Justice, but I take some confidence from the fact that other member states have already introduced measures that are similar to a number of the measures that we are introducing in our own legislation. It is noticeable, for instance, that some member states are more able to deal with the proportionality issue than we have been so far. I think it a pity that the last Government did not introduce such measures, but we recognised the extent of the concern that was being expressed and the fact that it was possible for us to act, which we have done. We made changes to the way in which extradition works—in the face of some resistance—in order to protect British citizens in respect of extradition to the United States, and we have now legislated to change the operation of the European arrest warrant in the UK and enhance the protections that British citizens enjoy. The Labour Government dithered, but we have acted to protect British citizens from injustice at home and abroad.

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

Will the Home Secretary say a little more about the extradition of British citizens to the United States? What improvement has she made in that regard?

[Mrs May]

I have made a number of improvements. The most obvious one is the introduction of the forum bar. That was not entirely popular on either side of the Atlantic, but we did it because we felt that it was right. I believe that it is an important safeguard in relation to the extradition of British citizens outside the European Union.

I believe that our reforms will make an important difference to the European arrest warrant. It is, of course, in our national interest to have an effective extradition system, and no other extradition system would be as effective.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of proportionality, may I ask whether she has seen reports in today’s papers about a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which the French and Germans have indicated that they do not think that the proportionality test meets the requirements of European law?

[Mrs May]

I am aware of the report in today’s press, but I do not think that it referred to a Council of Ministers meeting. It may have referred to a document that possibly had been leaked from the European Commission. I say to my hon. Friend that, as I have made very clear, there are matters for discussion and matters for negotiation that we have to undertake as we go through this process, but other member states do have within their own systems a greater ability to deal with issues such as proportionality, and I think it is right that we have taken powers ourselves in our own legislation to do that.

Returning to my point, I think it is in our national interest to have an effective extradition system in place and no other extradition system would be as effective. We owe it to the victims of crime, and their families, to return the alleged perpetrators of serious crimes to this country and ensure that they face justice. There are many examples of that, of which I will cite only a few.

The arrest warrant recently helped the British authorities to secure the extradition and conviction of Francis Paul Cullen, a former priest who sexually assaulted seven children before spending more than two decades on the run in Spain. Thanks to the European arrest warrant, he will now swap the Spanish sun for a 15-year term in a British jail.

Our law enforcement agencies are clear that the arrest warrant has helped them to secure the return of dangerous criminals to face justice in the UK—criminals who under the old regime might not have been returned to answer for their crimes, including David Heiss from Germany and Florian Baboi from Romania.

David Heiss viciously murdered a British student, Matthew Pyke—originally from Stowmarket in Suffolk—in Nottingham in September 2008, stabbing him 86 times. Heiss was arrested on a European arrest warrant at his home in Germany a month after the offence and was surrendered to the UK the month after that. He has since been sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in prison. Before the European arrest warrant, Germany did not surrender its own nationals; indeed, there was a constitutional bar to its doing so, so it is clear that in this case the arrest warrant made a real difference.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

In how many of the recent cases is the European arrest warrant making extradition quicker, rather than facilitating it when it would not have happened under existing arrangements? The Home Secretary has given one very powerful case, but quantitatively how many cases are we talking about because the argument has been made that actually we would face a cliff edge and just not get fugitives back rather than get them back a little bit slower?

[Mrs May]

The argument I make in relation to the European arrest warrant is on both those aspects of its operation. I have just cited a case where there was an issue of whether an individual would have been able to be extradited back to the UK had we not had the European arrest warrant. There are other cases where it is a matter of fact that the European arrest warrant has been able to be exercised more quickly on average than extraditions were before the EAW was in place. So it is not just that there are people who would not come back unless we had the EAW; it is that it also smoothes the process and makes this quicker and brings people here to justice quicker.

[Mr Cash]

The Home Secretary has given us a number of indications of concerns that have arisen in some member states. Is she conscious of the fact that the French have said the UK requirements risk imposing an undue burden on other member states, that the Germans raise serious doubts about compatibility with European law, that Spain says the Legal Service should give its opinion and that the Dutch have said that there are a number of fundamental and practical problems? Is it not all rather running into the sand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

No it is not, and I have to say to my hon. Friend that he is not party to the discussions that we are party to, but I am interested that he mentions Germany because it is one of the countries that has a greater ability to deal with the proportionality issue than the United Kingdom. As I say, there are other member states who have themselves already, either automatically because of their constitution or because they have taken powers, taken steps to ensure they can deal with the very issues we are dealing with in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act I referred to earlier.

Florian Baboi is a Romanian national who was returned to the UK from Romania under an arrest warrant to stand trial for the murder of David McArthur in Birmingham in August 2011. He was found guilty in May 2012 and sentenced to life in prison. That is another case where the EAW has helped to bring dangerous offenders to justice.

So it is unsurprising that the Association of Chief Police Officers’ evidence to the Home Affairs Committee made clear its view that the arrest warrant is an “essential weapon” in the fight against serious criminality. This view was echoed by the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, who was clear that the streamlined process of the arrest warrant makes it easier to bring serious criminals back to face justice. I agree wholeheartedly with those assessments.

[Dr Huppert]

The Home Secretary is absolutely right to highlight the huge importance of the European arrest warrant. I am constantly surprised by people who are so fanatically anti-European that they would jeopardise our safety by trying to opt out of it. Is she aware that, last Friday, the Daily Mail wrote about a case involving Magdalena Ferkova, who was brought back to this country using the European arrest warrant? If even the Daily Mail is happy about it, there must be something to be said for it.

[Mrs May]

Today’s debate has probably generated a first in parliamentary history: my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) praising the Daily Mail in a debate in the House of Commons.

I want to turn now to some of the other important measures that the Government are proposing that we should rejoin. We are seeking to rejoin the European supervision order, which allows British subjects to be bailed back to the UK rather than spending many months abroad awaiting trial. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) will be particularly aware of the benefits that this could have brought in the case of Andrew Symeou, to which he alluded earlier. I am sure that the whole House also wants to see foreign national offenders sent back to their own country. The prisoner transfer framework decision provides for non-consent-based transfers throughout the European Union, and the Government want to opt back into that measure and send criminals back home.

We also want our law enforcement agencies to be able to establish joint investigation teams with colleagues in other European countries. Hon. Members might ask why we want this to happen. I cite Operation Rico, the biggest-ever operation against so-called boiler-room fraud, which is precisely the kind of practical co-operation we want to encourage. Thanks to the excellent work of our National Crime Agency and its Spanish colleagues, there have been 83 arrests in Spain alone, and 18 in the UK. It is also quite clear that many other EU member states and their law enforcement agencies rely on measures of this sort to provide the necessary framework for practical co-operation in the fight against crime. In most instances, bilateral agreements would simply not work as effectively and our co-operation would suffer.

We therefore owe it to the victims of crime, both here and abroad, to ensure that such co-operation can continue unhindered. We owe it to the elderly who have been scammed out of their life savings, and to the hard-working people who have been conned into dodgy investments by fraudsters and had their hard-earned money shamefully spent on flashy watches, sharp suits and fast cars. I want to protect victims of crime, and I am determined to give our law enforcement the tools they need to do that.

The Government’s policy is clear. We have exercised the United Kingdom’s opt-out and are negotiating to rejoin a limited number of measures where we believe that it is in the national interest to do so.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I wonder whether the Home Secretary is going to mention any of the other 35 opt-in measures, including the European police college. Will she explain why it is necessary to have such a college when we have separate police forces in each of our sovereign states? What is the purpose behind it?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is referring to CEPOL, which has been based at Bramshill in the United Kingdom in recent years. CEPOL is an organisation that encourages and facilitates cross-border co-operation between police forces. The European Commission recently proposed a measure to enhance and increase the ability of CEPOL to operate in relation to the training of individual police forces. The United Kingdom resisted that measure, as did other member states, and it is no longer going ahead.

As I was saying, this Government are very clear about the measures that we wish to rejoin, just as we have been clear about the opt-outs that we have exercised. Sadly, however, we are no clearer about the position of the Labour party. Some have called the Opposition’s policy inconsistent and incoherent, but I think it could be more carefully described as involving confusion and chaos. Labour signed up to the Lisbon treaty without giving the people of Britain a vote and without giving this House a say, and we must recall that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), flew in alone and under the cover of darkness to sign it. That tells us a great deal about his belief in it. That treaty contained an opt-out, but Labour never explained whether it would use it.

All the evidence suggests that Labour does not share the determination of this Government to reduce the control Brussels has on our criminal justice system. Because even after negotiating their opt-out, the last Labour Government signed us up, by way of unanimity, to another 30 or so measures. In fact, virtually all the measures covered by the Lisbon treaty and this opt-out decision were agreed by unanimity by Labour during its time in office. So are we to assume that it would rather we had remained bound by all 130 of them than exercise our opt-out and seek to rejoin the limited number we have identified? If not, why did it agree to the measures in the first place? But if so, why did it negotiate an opt-out? As I say, it is confusion and chaos.

Sadly, the Opposition day debate Labour called in June last year did nothing to clear up the mystery of Labour’s position, because the motion highlighted only seven measures the UK should “remain” part of. It was not clear whether that meant Labour would have exercised the opt-out and left all the measures other than those seven, such as Eurojust, a measure that the police and prosecutors deem vital to continuing our co-operation with our EU partners. Another such measure is the prisoner transfer framework decision, to which I have referred and which allows us to pack foreign national offenders back off home. I suspect that the Labour party would rather we did not know, unless of course the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is going to reveal all in her response to this afternoon’s debate. Having negotiated an opt-out from all the measures the Labour Government signed our country up to in the first place, when this Government chose to exercise that opt-out, the right hon. Lady and her party voted against it—again, I say confusion and chaos.

I repeat that the position of this Government is clear: we have exercised the opt-out, we support the return of powers from Brussels to the UK and we support acting in the national interest by rejoining a limited number of measures that protect British citizens and the victims of crime. That is consistent with our approach to the European Union as a whole. The EU needs fundamental change, and under the Conservatives Britain is leading the way in delivering that change. At home, we have made the difficult decisions in the national interest to secure Britain’s economic future—now it is time to protect Britain’s interests in Europe. The Prime Minister has already taken tough action to stand up for Britain in Europe by cutting the EU budget, saving British taxpayers over £8 billion; vetoing a new EU fiscal treaty which did not guarantee a level playing field for British businesses; and refusing to spend British taxes on bailing out the euro.

Only the Conservatives have a credible plan to reshape Britain’s relationship with the European Union and to put this to the British people in an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady may laugh, but the Labour party opposes this plan and will not give the British people their say. Labour has no policies and no ideas, and that is not the sort of leadership the United Kingdom needs in Europe. The leadership it needs in Europe is the leadership we are giving it, with the clarity we are giving to return powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom, but to take other decisions to opt back into measures that are firmly and clearly in our national interest.

Annual Assessment of Policing (England and Wales)

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Written Statements

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

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary has today laid before Parliament his annual assessment of policing in England and Wales in accordance with section 54 of the Police Act 1996. Copies are available at: www.hmic.gov.uk and in the Vote Office.

Alcohol Licensing

Theresa May Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Written Statements

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

The Government have consulted on whether to relax licensing hours nationally for England matches with late kick-off times during the FIFA World cup in June and July 2014. Following this, the Government have decided to relax licensing hours nationally to mark England’s participation in the tournament.

The relaxation of licensing hours will relate to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of late night refreshment in licensed premises in England, at specified dates and times only.

Today I am publishing the Government response to the consultation.

A copy of the Government response to the consultation will be placed in the House Library. It is also available at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/world-cup-licensing-hours.

Domestic Violence and Abuse

Theresa May Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

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

Today, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has published the findings from its inspection of the police response to domestic violence and abuse. Domestic abuse is a truly appalling crime and I commissioned the HMIC inspection in September 2013 because I was concerned that the police response was not as good as it should be. HMIC has conducted a rigorous review and today’s report has exposed significant shortcomings in the police response to domestic abuse.

The report highlights that the current police response to domestic abuse is failing victims. There is a lack of visible leadership and direction set by senior officers. Poor management and supervision fails to reinforce the right behaviours, attitudes and actions of officers, and the report shows that officers lack the skills and knowledge necessary to engage confidently and competently with victims of domestic abuse. Alarmingly, the report also identifies unacceptable weaknesses in some core policing activity, including the collection of evidence by officers at the scene of domestic abuse incidents.

In line with the Government’s aim to end violence against women and girls, I will lead immediate action to ensure HMIC’s findings are addressed.

This Government are committed to tackling domestic violence and abuse and to delivering a better response for the victims of these appalling crimes. We have ring-fenced £40 million for victims’ services; piloted and rolled out Clare’s law and domestic violence protection orders; extended the definition of domestic abuse to cover controlling behaviour and teenage relationships; run two successful campaigns to challenge perceptions of abuse; and placed domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing to make sure lessons are learnt from individual tragedies.

The police now must take urgent action. The HMIC report shows that there needs to be a fundamental change in police culture. I have written today to chief constables and police force leads on domestic abuse, making it clear my expectation that, in line with HMIC’s recommendations, every police force will have an action plan in place by September to improve their response to domestic violence and abuse. I will also establish a national oversight group, which I will chair, to ensure progress is made against each of HMIC’s recommendations. I am already leading work to implement all the actions for the Home Office, including improving data standards, reviewing the domestic homicide review process, and sharing best practice on tackling perpetrators.

This Government have initiated a significant reform programme to professionalise policing, which has included establishing the College of Policing. I expect all chief constables and the college to prioritise the recommendations arising from this report. I will be overseeing their improvements on domestic violence and abuse through the national oversight group, and will report to Parliament again later in the year to update on progress.

I have placed a copy of HMIC’s report on domestic violence and abuse in the House Library.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Theresa May Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

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

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

FIFA World Cup 2014 (Licensing Hours)

Theresa May Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing a consultation on whether to make a national order to relax licensing hours during the FIFA World cup in June and July 2014 or whether to leave this as a local decision using the existing temporary event notice system. Any relaxation of licensing hours nationally during the FIFA World cup would relate to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the provision of late night refreshment in licensed premises at specified dates and times only.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of,

“exceptional international, national or local significance”.

A “licensing hours order” can be used to relax licensing hours in licensed premises—any premises authorised by a premises licence or club premises certificate to carry on licensable activities—during a period of up to four days. An order may apply to all licensed premises in England and Wales, or only to premises in one or more specified areas. It is also possible to set different licensing hours on different days during the relaxation period.

The Government are mindful of the need to strike a balance between the risks that late night drinking can lead to increased crime and disorder and public nuisance and reducing the burden on those wishing to celebrate the FIFA World cup. The consultation is therefore considering a number of issues, including the principle of relaxing licensing hours nationally during the World cup, the dates and geographical extent that any licensing hours order might cover.

A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Library of the House.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Theresa May Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Written Statements

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

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 3 and 4 March in Brussels. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, attended on behalf of the Scottish Administration. The following items were discussed.

The interior day began with a debate on the new Europol regulation. Member states welcomed the good progress made in the Europol negotiations, but agreed that the proposed merger between the European Police College (CEPOL) and Europol should not take place. The Commission (Malmström) defended its initial proposal to merge the two agencies, but acknowledged the importance that both the Council and European Parliament attached to keeping them separate.

Member states were asked whether the Commission should be invited to propose a new regulation to update CEPOL’s tasks and take account of the Lisbon treaty. The UK, while agreeing that CEPOL and Europol should not be merged, questioned whether there was a genuine need for further reform of CEPOL (other than agreement of the member state initiative currently being negotiated to approve its relocation to Budapest). Some other member states agreed that any reform should not be brought forward simply for the sake of new legislation. However, the majority agreed that a new regulation should be proposed, and the Commission undertook to do this in due course.

The Council then discussed the replacement for the Stockholm programme (the EU’s five-year JHA work programme, which is due to be replaced at the June European Council). The Commission stated that its forthcoming communication on the new programme, due to be published later this month, would contain provisions on facilitating migrants’ access to the labour market and the mutual recognition of asylum decisions.

Some member states argued for a “burden sharing” mechanism, under which asylum seekers would be relocated from member states whose systems were deemed to be under pressure, but others felt solidarity was best demonstrated through practical co-operation. Some member states called for the EU’s common visa policy to be strengthened, for the establishment of an EU electronic system for travel authorisation (ESTA), for more automated criminal record exchanges and for the Commission to maintain its focus on anti-corruption. While encouraging the programme to focus on practical co-operation, the UK welcomed the focus of the programme on strengthening the external border, trafficking in human beings and counter-radicalisation but called for it also to tackle the abuse of free movement. The UK noted that the Commission had accepted that the issue of abuse of free movement was within the scope of the JHA and that a number of member states had asked for it to be included in the programme. With the support of some other member states, the UK stressed the importance of an EU-wide passenger name records system. Finally, the UK emphasised the need for the Council to have a key role in determining the programme.

The presidency summarised the emerging areas of consensus as a preference for quality over quantity when considering legislation, an evidence-based evaluation process, increasing practical co-operation, coherence between the internal and external aspects of justice and home affairs and action to tackle trafficking in human beings, cyber-crime and terrorism, and to return those with no right to remain in the EU.

Before lunch, the mobility partnership with Tunisia was signed by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden and the UK.

A discussion took place over lunch on co-operation in the area of returns. The UK agreed that EU agreements could add value in some cases, but stressed that individual member states’ bilateral returns arrangements could be more effective in other cases, and that one size did not fit all. The UK agreed that it was important to share best practice and support approaches that had been shown to work, such as assisted voluntary returns programmes.

The Council then discussed migratory pressures, and in particular the Task Force Mediterranean measures that were agreed following last year’s tragedy in Lampedusa. Ministers received presentations from the European Asylum Support Office and Frontex on recent trends at the external borders, and asylum pressures, with a particular focus on developments in Syria.

The UK, supported by some other member states, called for clear time frames to be put in place for ensuring that the actions agreed under Task Force Mediterranean were carried out. The UK reiterated its commitment to support information campaigns in countries of origin or transit, to dissuade individuals from travelling illegally to the EU. Some other member states called for more assistance for member states facing migratory pressures.

Under AOB the Council briefly discussed the situation in Ukraine. The Commission outlined possible actions that would be taken, including the acceleration of dialogue on visas with the new Government and a possible mobility partnership.

The presidency gave legislative updates on the draft directives on intra-corporate transfers, seasonal workers and students and researchers (none of which the UK has opted in to), and on the draft regulations on Schengen visa policy, operational rules for Frontex maritime operations and on the smart borders package (from all of which the UK is excluded as they build on those parts of the Schengen acquis in which we do not take part).

Finally, during the AOB in the mixed committee, Switzerland gave a brief update on the legal implications of its recent referendum on migration by EU nationals.

The justice day, attended for the UK by the Justice Secretary, started with a lengthy state of play debate on the proposed general data protection regulation. The Commission reminded Ministers of the importance of the proposals, but the presidency accepted that further work is required at technical level before any text could be agreed. Ministers agreed that questions on international transfers of personal data, pseudonymisation of personal data, data portability and the relationship between “data controllers” and “data processors” should be referred back to the official-level experts’ group.

Next, the presidency sought views on three core questions regarding the proposal to create a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The UK has not opted in to this measure and believes the creation of the EPPO to be unnecessary. We did not intervene in the debate. The first question concerned structure: the clear majority of member states who intervened favoured including a college in some form, comprised of prosecutors appointed by the participating member states. Secondly, views were sought on the EPPO’s jurisdiction. The vast majority of intervening member states thought the EPPO should not have exclusive competence over minor cases of fraud against the Union’s financial interests, where it would often be more efficient and proportionate for these to be dealt with at national level. The final question, concerning the protection of individual rights in EPPO proceedings, had been added at the Commission’s request. While Ministers who intervened agreed with the proposition that individual rights merited the “highest standard of protection” there was a wide range of views on how to achieve this, with a number disagreeing that it was achieved by the Commission’s proposal. Vice-president Reding said she would ask the President of the European Council to add the EPPO to the Justice and Home Affairs matters which would be discussed at the June European Council. The presidency concluded that a clear majority favoured including a college in some form and that minor cases should primarily be dealt with at national level, but that more discussion was needed on procedural safeguards.

During lunch, Ministers exchanged views on the proposed regulation simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU. While there was support in principle to the idea of reducing bureaucratic burdens associated with the legalisation of documents in different member states, there was general consensus that the Commission’s proposal raised a number of practical implementation issues. In particular, the UK remains concerned about the possible costs of the proposal.

After lunch, the presidency asked the Council to consider various questions on the proposed directive on the rights of children in criminal proceedings. Options on the approach were presented and the Council gave opinions on which of the options were preferred, with the aim that these could be helpful to steer ongoing negotiations in Council. The first question asked whether the directive should still apply, in whole or in part, to persons who cease being minors during the course of proceedings. There was a difference of opinion on this question with a number of member states agreeing with the UK view that the directive should not apply at all after a suspect becomes an adult. The issue was remitted back to the technical level to be considered further. On the question of whether minors should be able to waive the right to a lawyer, the majority of member states seemed to favour the mandatory presence of a lawyer, although many thought there should be exceptions possible in minor cases. Again, this was remitted back for further technical level discussion. Finally, on the question of how the child’s right to privacy and the right to open justice should be balanced and specifically whether trials involving minors should be held in public or private, the majority view was that this should be decided by national law and this was agreed as the principle to guide further consideration of these aspects of the proposal.

Then the presidency summarised emerging areas of consensus on the future of justice policy in the EU in advance of the European Council adopting strategic guidelines in June. These included quality of legislation over quantity; ongoing evaluation of legislation; mutual recognition at the heart of the Union’s justice policy; and coherence between internal and external policies. Differing views remained on further approximation of criminal law, including via codification of existing instruments, and some further assessment was needed on the role of fundamental rights and the rule of law in specific areas. Commissioner Reding introduced the main thinking behind the forthcoming Commission communication on this matter, which centred on the objectives of trust by citizens in Government decision-making, mobility and growth. She said that codification of EU law should remain a guiding principle.

The UK, together with certain other member states issued a note of warning over further codification. The UK also reiterated its call for a strong Council ownership over eventual guidelines. The UK could not agree with some of the Commission’s proposals, including the reference to creating a common justice area by 2020. For the UK, the focus was on practical co-operation, implementation and evaluation. Specifically, implementation of existing EU measures to return prisoners to their countries of origin, and to exchange criminal records, were priorities for the UK.

Commissioner Reding then set out her plans to produce a 2014 justice scoreboard later this month. She explained that for 2014, the Commission would use the same indicators and scope as the 2013 scoreboard, while taking into account the comments of the European Parliament. Subsequently, in agreeing Council conclusions on civil and commercial justice systems, the Council set out the significant concerns of member states about the approach adopted by the Commission on the scoreboard and reiterating respect for independence of the judiciary.

The presidency provided updates on a number of legislative files, including counterfeiting the euro, the European account preservation order and the Brussels I (patent) amendment. These instruments should be approved by the European Parliament at plenary in April and subsequently adopted by the Council. Work on the insolvency regulation, supported strongly by the UK to support a rescue culture for businesses, would continue as a priority.