Oral Answers to Questions
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
1. What resources her Department is making available at a local level to help tackle the harmful effects on communities of excessive drinking.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government are providing direct support to 20 areas in England and Wales, including Greater Manchester, to tackle the harmful effects of excessive drinking, particularly alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. We have also overhauled the Licensing Act 2003, giving local areas the tools and powers they need to deal with problem premises, and to secure a financial contribution towards policing the night-time economy.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I thank the Home Secretary for that answer, and particularly for the work that will be done in Greater Manchester. May I draw her attention to the plea of the director of public health for Stockport, who is concerned that the action of the alcohol industry is, to some extent, holding licensing authorities to ransom? Will she include that in her consideration of this important matter?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and we want to ensure that licensing authorities can use the tools and powers that the Government have given them. We gave them those tools and powers for a very good reason and because of our concern on two counts relating to alcohol abuse and the problems that arise from it—the cost to the police and society generally of crime and disorder related to alcohol, and also the health costs that arise.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
19. A report by The Lancet estimated that there were more than 200,000 alcohol-related crimes in the north-east in just a year, and that a minimum unit price would save 860 lives a year and cut hospital admissions by 30,000. Is it time that the Secretary of State totally disregarded the drinks industry lobby and introduced a minimum unit price to help make people healthier and safer at home?
Mrs May
We are going to introduce a ban on the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT. That was a coalition agreement commitment, which will be introduced this April. We are also working with the industry and challenging it to ensure that it raises its game in dealing with problems related to excessive binge drinking and alcohol use, and we will watch what happens. Obviously Scotland is moving on the minimum unit price. There are legal issues and it will be interesting to see what evidence arises from that.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), some of us believe that the primary problem with alcohol is a health problem rather than one of disorder and crime. Is the Home Secretary working closely with the Department of Health to ensure that we deal with alcohol seriously?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
2. What steps she is taking to bring about a reduction in gross and net immigration to the UK.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Since 2010 we have reformed all routes to the UK, tightening areas where abuse was rife. In particular, around 700 colleges can no longer bring students into the UK, but at the same time, sponsored visa applications for university students increased by 7% in the past year. In the areas where we can exert control, our reforms are working and have cut non-EU migration to its lowest level since 1998.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. Most statistics are quoted as net migration figures, although most people are concerned about the number of people coming to this country. Is it important to assess gross immigration figures when talking about these issues?
Mrs May
Obviously it is important to consider all migration figures, and uncontrolled gross immigration does put pressure on our public services and infrastructure. As the immigration Minister pointed out, the people who suffer most from the impact of uncontrolled immigration are those at the lower end of the income scale. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said that the previous Labour Government used migration
“to introduce a covert 21st-century incomes policy.”
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Last Thursday the immigration Minister scolded the metropolitan elite, which included members of the Cabinet, for employing people who were born outside this country. Some 4.4 million people who were born outside this country are contributing to our economy, and what the immigration Minister said came dangerously close to endorsing the discredited slogan of “British jobs for British workers.” When the Minister speaks in Harrow next Wednesday, will the Home Secretary ask him to return to his normal sensible demeanour, and let us have a constructive debate on immigration, rather than relying on stereotypes and clichés?
Mrs May
A constructive debate on immigration was exactly what my hon. Friend was contributing to, and I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s description of his speech. As I said in answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the immigration Minister was pointing out that uncontrolled immigration has greatest impact on those at the lower end of the income scale. I would have thought that as a Labour Member of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman should care about that.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
23. Given that freedom of movement within the EU is the elephant in the room of the immigration issue, what plans do the Government have to reform that part of the EU strategy? It might have been suitable for the founding fathers, but given that there are now 28 member states with disparate economic cycles, it is past its sell-by date. Otherwise, we should stop talking about targets.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point about free movement. I have been party to discussions and have raised the issue, particularly on the question of the abuse of free movement, within the EU. Many other member states are concerned. We are taking action with them to cut out the problems of the abuse of free movement.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the disparity of incomes among accession countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in an article he wrote some weeks ago, suggested that a future approach might be not allowing full free movement rights until accession countries have reached a certain income level compared with the rest of the EU.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
When will we see an end to the persecution of Scottish fishing boats and their good foreign crews by the UK Border Agency? Boats from my constituency have been tied up and money is being lost because of the stupid obsession with immigrant numbers. The message should be that immigrants are good and we need them. Will the Home Secretary help Scottish fishing boats to work rather than cause them to waste their time and to be tied up?
Mrs May
My understanding is that there is a limit on the number of days that fishing boats can go out to fish, and that that is absolutely nothing to do with UK Visas and Immigration—if I might remind him, the UK Border Agency was abolished close to a year ago. I know that good work is being done—I saw this in Aberdeen recently—by UK Border Force, UK immigration enforcement, the National Crime Agency, Police Scotland and others to ensure that we get rid of the abuse that takes place in the fishing industry, particularly on issues such as trafficking.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
25. May I encourage the Home Secretary’s review of free movement within Europe, which is incredibly important? We would all like to hear more from her on how we take it forward
Mrs May
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s encouragement. As I have said, in the past nearly four years, I have seen growing concern on free movement among European Union member states. The UK has raised and pursued the matter. We are now working with other member states, particularly on the abuse of free movement, but we need to look ahead to future accession treaties, and the terms in which free movement is included in them.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that the Government would get net migration down to the tens of thousands by 2015, “no ifs, no buts”, and yet this month, the figure has risen to more than 212,000. The question is simple. Will the Government meet their net migration target—yes or no?
Mrs May
We are continuing to deal with net migration. [Interruption.] I fully accept that the most recent figures, which show an increase in migration from the EU, have made the task more difficult, but it ill behoves Labour Members to talk in those terms when they had an immigration policy that meant there was uncontrolled immigration throughout their period in office.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
A successful Wiltshire businesswoman who has created jobs for dozens of local people and paid her fair share of taxes faces her family being wrenched apart on account of her mother being denied leave to remain. How can we ensure that wealth creators—people who create jobs for our constituents —are not made to feel unwelcome here by changes to the family migration route?
Mrs May
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to raise individual cases with my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration. In overall terms, we have changed all routes of entry into the United Kingdom, which has had an impact on non-EU migration, which is at its lowest since 1998. The hon. Gentleman talks about wealth creators, and it is important that we differentiate in the system. We are cutting out abuse and ensuring that the brightest and the best can come to the UK.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What additional funding she has made available to the security agencies to cover costs associated with the ending of TPIMs.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
4. What steps she is taking to increase the number of people who are investigated and charged for carrying out female genital mutilation.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Government Ministers have signed a declaration which reaffirms our commitment to protecting current and future generations of girls from this abuse. We are working closely with the Director of Public Prosecutions to increase investigations for FGM and are considering suggestions for strengthening the criminal law. The Government are determined to do all we can to bring perpetrators to justice.
Karl Turner
I congratulate the Government on the work that they have done recently to deal with this shocking criminal offence, but will the Home Secretary commit to a national campaign to raise awareness of FGM and the fact that it is a serious criminal offence, similar to campaigns such as that on domestic violence?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in two ways for those who are potentially at risk of being victims of female genital mutilation. First, it is important that they understand their situation. Secondly, it is important that those who are aiming to undertake or arrange for others to undergo FGM know what the law is and where they stand in relation to it. The Government have indeed produced a campaign. We have launched a new communications campaign in relation to this issue. I also refer the hon. Gentleman to the “Statement opposing female genital mutilation”, which is a pocket-sized leaflet that sets out the law. About 41,000 statements have already been distributed across the UK in 11 languages.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
FGM by its nature is a secretive crime, often perpetrated by close relatives of the victims, too many of whom are very young and too frightened to seek help. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have the training and expertise necessary to take a proactive approach to identifying and protecting these very young victims, rather than simply hoping that they will come forward of their own volition?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend also makes important points about this issue. We are working with the victims that she mentions and, in particular, we are doing some work with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Everybody in the House is frustrated that there has not been a prosecution yet. We want to see prosecutions because that can make it clear to people what they are doing and what is at risk when they undertake this crime.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
17. The Education Secretary has agreed to write to all schools in England about FGM, following intense pressure from this side of the House and the brave campaign by Fahma Mohamed. Given that, what further discussions has the Home Secretary had with her colleagues in government in order to ensure that health staff, social workers and those working for other Departments and agencies report to the police any instances of FGM they have identified?
Mrs May
Ensuring that incidents are reported is important, and on 6 February the Department of Health announced that for the first time ever, from April, all NHS acute hospitals must provide information on patients who have undergone female genital mutilation. That will provide key information about the incidence and prevalence of FGM and will support social services and the police in their work by ensuring that they can target those areas where it is taking place.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The House is united in wanting to see people prosecuted for this appalling crime. Even more, we want to see it stamped out altogether. What is being done to ensure that those young women who are threatened—and their family members—have a confidential way to report the possibility that it will happen to them?
Mrs May
We are taking a genuine cross-Government approach to the issue. It is being co-ordinated by the Minister for Crime Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), but we are bringing in the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for International Development, which is putting in significant funds to try to deal with the problem at source overseas, both in those communities where the culture is strong—feeding back into diaspora communities in the UK—and where there are individuals performing this act on young girls, to ensure that we can eradicate it.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
One of the greatest challenges in tackling this issue—in terms of prosecutions and protecting the young women and, often, babies who are affected—is the level of awareness among social workers, police and other agencies. That challenge has been identified in Wales, and I suspect it is the same in England. What is the Home Secretary doing in Whitehall and on a cross-border basis with colleagues in Wales to ensure that we have a uniform approach to tackling the issue?
Mrs May
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that on issues of this sort—and on the violence against women and girls agenda generally—we work with the Welsh Government and others. We are always willing to look at experience and practice, as well as at what others have found useful in dealing with this appalling crime.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
May I warmly welcome the Government’s declaration on female genital mutilation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that political or cultural sensitivities should never get in the way of tackling what is an awful abuse and crime?
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
5. How many sponsor notifications of potentially bogus higher education students there have been since 2010; and how many have been actioned to date.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Since my statement last Thursday, hon. Members will have had the opportunity to read for themselves Mark Ellison’s report into the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, as well as that of Operation Herne into allegations of misconduct by the special demonstration squad. Both reports’ findings are deeply shocking. They will have an impact for the police, particularly the Metropolitan police, for years to come.
I have asked the chief inspector of constabulary to look at the anti-corruption capability of forces so that we can ensure that forces have all the capability that they need to pursue corruption. We must continue the programme of integrity and anti-corruption measures that I set out on Thursday.
Our reforms are changing the culture of the police through direct entry, a new code of ethics, greater transparency and professionalisation, and reform of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I am also, as I said on Thursday, tabling amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to introduce a new offence of police corruption.
From this autumn, the police will for the first time have the opportunity to bring in talented and experienced leaders from other walks of life to senior ranks, opening up policing culture. I believe that that is one of the most important reforms in shaping the police of the future.
Finally, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the family of Stephen Lawrence, who continue to live through experiences that the rest of us cannot imagine. They have done so with dignity and stoicism. They deserve truth and justice.
Alec Shelbrooke
I very much associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments. My constituents have raised with me the issue of scam sites dealing with passports and European health insurance cards, of which I, too, have been a victim. What pressure is she bringing to bear on search engines to stop that shoddy ripping off of hard-working people?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government are already taking action to tackle rogue websites which masquerade as legitimate Government services, exaggerating the nature of the services they provide or deliberately underplaying the services that people can get for free or at a lower cost from official sources. The Government Digital Service is leading a cross-government exercise with organisations such as the Advertising Standards Authority, the National Trading Standards Board, Which? and search engines to raise awareness of the issue and ensure that enforcement action is taken, where appropriate. Ministerial colleagues have also met Google to discuss the enforcement of its policies for advertising on its search results pages. Google will continue to support us by removing misleading adverts and by closing the accounts of repeat offenders.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) on his promotion and his ability to generate headlines in his new job, and welcome the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) to her post in the home affairs team.
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the Lawrence family, who have had to endure further betrayal with the information from the shocking Ellison review last week. Twenty-one years after the death of Stephen Lawrence, reforms are needed so that those failures do not continue to cast a long shadow over the vital and valiant work that so many police officers do each day and, in particular, so that we can build confidence among the black and ethnic minority communities. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that the Independent Police Complaints Commission should now be replaced with a new, stronger police watchdog? Will she tell me whether she agrees with the four proposals I made in my letter to her on reforming stop and search—on section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; on section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; on race discrimination; and on banning targets?
Mrs May
Of course it is important that we ensure that the IPCC is able to deal with the cases of complaints against police officers. I have been concerned for some time about the fact that the police have, in effect, been investigating serious and sensitive complaints against police officers themselves. That is why I am changing the arrangements for the IPCC, increasing its resources and ensuring that in future it will be taking on the serious and sensitive cases. It is also why we have provided a number of other new powers to the IPCC to ensure that it has the capability it needs. However, as I said on Thursday, I am of course continuing to look at this issue.
I assure the right hon. Lady that we do need to look at stop and search. I have consulted on it and the Government are now finalising the package we wish to put in place in response to that consultation.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Home Secretary for her answer, but given the seriousness of this, I urge her to go further and faster, both on the IPCC, which is simply not strong enough, and on stop and search. She and I agree that its targeted use is really important, but too many searches are simply not targeted at all. We have not heard anything from her since her statement in July; the critical Equality and Human Rights Commission was four years ago; and we are told now that reform is being blocked by regressive attitudes in No. 10. It turns out that the Prime Minister said before the election that he wanted to
“free the police to do far more stopping and far more searching.”
Does the Home Secretary agree with the Prime Minister or is she losing the argument within the Government?
Mrs May
What we all want is to ensure that stop and search, a particularly valuable tool for the police, is properly used by the police. The recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which I requested, found that the stop and search powers were not being used properly in far too high a percentage of cases—about a quarter of the cases it looked into. Stop and search is important and a very valuable tool; when it is used properly and well targeted, it has the right impact. I am pleased to say that the Metropolitan police have already started to make some changes in their operation of stop and search, which is having some impact.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
T3. Trading standards officers and local police have seized more than 189,000 illegal cigarettes and more than 16 kg of illicit tobacco from shops in my constituency in the past 12 months. All of that is untaxed and much of it is counterfeit, but the existing penalties do little to stem the flow of this harmful trade. Does the Home Secretary share my view that trading standards officers should be given the power to shut down these shops where all other enforcement methods have failed?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
T2. Two women a week die at the hands of their partners or former partners. In Oldham, between October 2012 and September 2013, more than 5,300 women were subject to abuse, a third of whom were abused in front of children. With 13% fewer domestic violence cases being prosecuted, what are the implications for justice for these women?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Last year, the figures showed that 76 women lost their lives at the hands of a partner, ex-partner or lover. That is lower than in previous years, but even one such case is one too many, and we are all agreed on that across the House. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention is doing work on such issues, looking at prosecutions and at ensuring that the right response is available so that women can indeed see justice when they have suffered at the hands of a partner or ex-partner.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
T4. The all-party parliamentary group on mental health, which I chair, recently launched an inquiry into crisis care. Will the Home Secretary outline what the Government are doing to ensure that when vulnerable people with mental health problems come into contact with the police, they get an appropriate level of care?
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary aware of the numbers of UK nationals who are subject to an overseas arrest warrant for serious offences such as murder and child sex crimes?
Mrs May
Of course I am aware that a number of UK nationals are subject to such warrants. Indeed I applaud the work that is done by the National Crime Agency, particularly in some of the areas that the hon. Gentleman has identified, in relation to working with other police forces across the world to ensure that whoever and wherever the perpetrators are, they are brought to justice.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware of how upset and repelled the community is that the self-same police force that was supposed to be finding Doreen and Neville’s son’s killers was actually engaged in spying on them to undermine their campaign. Inquiries are all very well, and reforms are all very well, but can we be given an assurance that we will know who authorised the spying on Doreen and Neville Lawrence?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I think that everybody in this House and across the country was shocked at the findings of the Ellison review, particularly at somebody from the special demonstration squad effectively being, in the terms that Mark Ellison put it, a spy in the camp around the Lawrence family. Every effort will be made to ensure that the truth comes out about that. If the hon. Lady has read the Ellison report, she will know that the record-keeping of the special demonstration squad was, to put it mildly, sadly lacking. However, every effort will be made. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has made it clear that they will want to ensure that they are providing every piece of evidence possible to the inquiries that are taking place.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that, with regard to the despicable crime of FGM, her announcement earlier about the involvement of hospitals in helping to bring people to justice will be widely welcomed? Does she also accept that, if it is not already being done, there is also surely a role for GPs in being able to report where they come across instances of this terrible crime?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which was a very particular scheme that ensured that people were brought across to do work in the agricultural sector. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made clear in his speech to the Oxford Farming Conference recently, we need to look at ensuring that people here in the United Kingdom are able to take on the jobs that are available to them, and at the moment we have no intention of reintroducing the seasonal agricultural workers scheme.
Ellison Review
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Mark Ellison review. In addition, I would like to update the House on work to improve standards of integrity in the police.
In July 2012, I commissioned Mark Ellison QC to conduct a review examining allegations of corruption surrounding the initial, deeply flawed, investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I also asked Mr Ellison to examine whether the Metropolitan police had evidence of corruption that it did not disclose to the Macpherson inquiry. In June last year, Peter Francis, a former special demonstration squad undercover officer, made a number of allegations about his previous role, including an allegation that he was deployed to gather evidence with which to “smear” the family of Stephen Lawrence. In response, I expanded the terms of reference of Mark Ellison’s review, encouraging him to go as far and wide as necessary to investigate the new claims.
The House will also be aware of Operation Herne, which was set up by the Metropolitan police in October 2011 to investigate allegations of misconduct by undercover police officers in its former special demonstration squad—the SDS. Operation Herne is led by Derbyshire’s chief constable, Mick Creedon, and particular elements are overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Mick Creedon’s investigation has worked closely with Mark Ellison and will publish its own report on the allegations made by Peter Francis later today.
I will now set out the key findings of the Ellison review. The full report has been published and is available in the Vote Office. The totality of what the report shows is deeply troubling, and I would like also to set out my response. I asked Mark Ellison to review and answer three key questions. First: was there evidence of corruption in the Metropolitan police during the Lawrence investigation? Secondly: was that evidence withheld from the Macpherson inquiry? And thirdly: was inappropriate undercover activity directed at the Lawrence family?
On corruption, Ellison finds that specific allegations of corruption were made against one of the officers who had worked on the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder—Detective Sergeant John Davidson. The allegations were made by a police officer to his superiors but were not brought to the attention of Macpherson. Ellison finds that this lack of disclosure was a “significant failure” by the Metropolitan police. Ellison has looked at the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s 2006 report into these allegations, as well as the Metropolitan police’s own review in 2012. He finds that both investigations were inadequate.
Ellison also finds the Metropolitan Police Service’s record-keeping on its own investigations into police corruption a cause of real concern. Key evidence was the subject of mass shredding in 2003, and a hard drive containing some of the relevant data was discovered only in November 2013, after more than a year of the MPS searching for it. As a result of this, Ellison has serious concerns that further relevant material that would show corruption has not been revealed because it cannot be found or has been destroyed.
The other question that Mark Ellison set out to answer was whether inappropriate undercover activity had been directed at the Lawrence family. Ellison finds that SDS officers were deployed into activist groups that sought to influence the Lawrence family. On Peter Francis’s allegation that he was tasked with “smearing” the Lawrence family, Ellison has found no surviving record that supports the claim. However, given the lack of written records from the era, and since such tasking would have been more likely to have been in oral, rather than written, form, Ellison says that he is “unable to reject” the claims Mr Francis has made.
Aside from the specific claims made by Mr Francis, Ellison reports on a separate and “wholly inappropriate” use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. Ellison finds that an officer, referred to as N81, had been deployed into one of the groups seeking to influence the Lawrence family campaign, while the Macpherson inquiry was ongoing. Ellison refers to N81 as
“an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS”.
As part of his deployment, N81 reported back to the SDS personal information about the Lawrence family, as well as what is described as “tactical intelligence” around the inquiry. In August 1998, the SDS arranged for N81 to meet Richard Walton, then a detective inspector involved in writing the Met’s submissions to the Macpherson inquiry. SDS files record that they had a “fascinating and valuable exchange”. Ellison finds that the opening of this channel of communication was “completely improper”. He finds no discernible public benefit to the meeting taking place, and says that had it been disclosed at the time of the inquiry
“it would have been seen as the MPS trying to achieve some secret advantage in the Inquiry from SDS undercover deployment.”
Ellison finds that if it had been made public in 1998,
“serious public disorder of the very kind so feared by the MPS might well have followed”.
In addition, Ellison has reported on the SDS more widely. He comments on the extraordinary level of secrecy observed about any disclosure that might risk exposing an undercover officer. That meant that the SDS operated as if exempt from the proper rules of disclosure in criminal cases, and that there is real potential for miscarriages of justices to have occurred. In particular, Ellison says that there is an inevitable potential for SDS officers to have been viewed by those they infiltrated as encouraging, and participating in, criminal behaviour. He refers to officers in criminal trials failing to reveal their true identities, meaning that crucial information that should have been disclosed was not given to the defence and the court; and he finds that undercover officers sometimes failed to correct evidence given in court which they knew was wrong. That means that there is a chance that people could have been convicted for offences when they should not have been. We must therefore establish if there have been miscarriages of justice.
The Ellison review has also investigated the way in which Duwayne Brooks was treated by the Metropolitan police. The House will recall that Mr Brooks was a close friend of Stephen Lawrence and was with him when he was murdered. Mark Ellison finds that the MPS’s handling of a 1993 prosecution against Mr Brooks was unsatisfactory, but he finds no evidence that this was a deliberate attempt to smear Mr Brooks. Ellison also finds evidence of inappropriate reporting on Mr Brooks from an SDS officer. This included intelligence on Mr Brooks’s relationship with the Lawrence family and on the way in which Mr Brooks intended to approach various legal proceedings, including civil action against the Met. Ellison says that that line of reporting “should have been terminated”, but instead continued from 1999 to 2001. Finally, Mark Ellison finds that the covert recording of Mr Brooks and his solicitor in a meeting with the MPS in May 2000, while not unlawful, was neither necessary nor justified.
The findings I have outlined today are profoundly shocking. They will be of grave concern to everyone in the House and beyond, and I would like now to set out what I believe needs to happen in response. The Ellison review makes a number of findings in relation to the issue of corruption. Ellison finds that there remain some outstanding lines of inquiry which could be investigated both in relation to alleged corruption by a specific officer, and possibly by other officers. That is of the utmost seriousness, and I have asked the director general of the National Crime Agency to consider quickly how best an investigation can be taken forward into this aspect of Mr Ellison’s findings and to report back to me. Ellison also refers to possible links between an allegedly corrupt officer involved in the Stephen Lawrence case—DS Davidson—and the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan. Ellison finds that the Daniel Morgan panel may therefore uncover material relevant to the question of corruption, and so it is key that the Daniel Morgan panel continues its important work.
Operation Herne has previously found that the Home Office was instrumental in the establishment of the SDS in 1968, in the aftermath of violence at the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in Grosvenor square. It has also previously found that the Home Office initially provided direct funding for the SDS. The Home Office was the police authority for the Metropolitan Police at that time, so the interests of transparency require that we all understand what role the Department played. My permanent secretary has therefore commissioned a forensic external review in order to establish the full extent of the Home Office’s knowledge of the SDS.
In identifying the possibility that SDS secrecy may have caused miscarriages of justice, Mark Ellison recommends a further review to identify the specific cases affected. I have accepted that recommendation and Mark Ellison will lead the work, working with the CPS and reporting to the Attorney-General. That will mean that proper consideration can be given to those cases and to any implications that may arise. In doing that work, Mark Ellison and the CPS will be provided with whatever access they judge necessary to relevant documentary evidence.
Operation Herne is a criminal investigation, and it is only through a criminal investigation that criminal or misconduct charges can be brought. It is vital that we allow Operation Herne to bring its current criminal investigations to a proper conclusion, which Chief Constable Creedon informs me should take around 12 months.
There are people inside and outside our country who seek to commit serious crimes and to harm our communities, our way of life, and our nation and who wish to harm our children. It is entirely right—and indeed it is a responsibility of Governments—to ensure that the police and other agencies have effective powers to tackle those threats, and to ensure that robust legal frameworks exist for the use of sometimes intrusive tactics.
Undercover officers, sometimes working in difficult and dangerous conditions, have helped bring criminals to justice. They have stopped bad things happening to our country. None the less, the Ellison review reveals very real and substantial failings. The picture that emerges about the SDS from this report, and from other material in the public domain, is of significant failings of judgment and of intrusive supervision and leadership over a sustained period. Mark Ellison has performed a commendable public duty in revealing these issues. His report lays bare issues of great seriousness in relation not only to Peter Francis, but to the SDS more widely.
When I asked Mark Ellison to consider the SDS within the scope of his review, I asked him to tell me in his report whether he felt that a public inquiry was needed to get to the full truth. Although Ellison does not go as far as recommending a public inquiry, he is clear that in respect of the SDS in general, and the Peter Francis allegations in particular, a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings.
I do not say this lightly, but the greatest possible scrutiny is now needed into what has taken place. Given the gravity of what has now been uncovered, I have decided that a public inquiry, led by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and the operation of the SDS. Only a public inquiry will be able to get to the full truth behind the matters of huge concern contained in Mark Ellison's report.
The House will understand that an inquiry cannot be set up immediately. It must wait for the conclusion of the criminal investigation and Ellison’s further work to identify possible miscarriages of justice. It is right and proper that those legal processes are allowed to conclude first. Ellison himself identifies his further review as a priority before any public inquiry can take place. That further work will also inform the inquiry’s precise terms of reference.
As I have said, the matters that I have announced today are deeply concerning. More broadly, it is imperative that public trust and confidence in the police is maintained. I do not believe corruption and misconduct to be endemic in the police, and it is clear that the majority of policemen and women conduct themselves honestly and with integrity.
In February last year, I announced to the House specific measures to address corruption and misconduct, to ensure greater transparency, to provide clearer rules on conduct, and to improve standards of professional behaviour. That work is on track. The College of Policing, which has a clear remit of enhancing police integrity, is delivering a package of measures that includes a new code of ethics. The code sets out clearly the high standards of behaviour expected from police officers.
In addition, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is being expanded and emboldened so that in future it will have responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. I can tell the House that I am reflecting on whether further proposals are needed.
I also want to ensure that those who want to report corruption and misconduct are encouraged to do so. I therefore want to strengthen protections for whistleblowers in the police and I will bring proposals to the House in due course.
We must also ensure that police forces have all the capability they need to pursue corruption, so I have today asked the chief inspector of constabulary to look specifically at the anti-corruption capability of forces, including professional standards departments.
Arrangements for undercover officer deployments are very different today from those in the early 1990s. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, all deployments must be authorised as both necessary and proportionate to the issue being investigated. This Government have introduced further safeguards. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners is now notified of all deployments and must approve those that last longer than 12 months. We have also increased the rank of the authorising officer so that all deployments must be authorised by an assistant chief constable, and those lasting longer than 12 months by a chief constable.
There also needs to be a change in culture and we need to continue the work we have already done to reform the police. From this autumn, the police will for the first time have the opportunity to bring in talented and experienced leaders from other walks of life to senior ranks. The College of Policing will provide those individuals with world-class training. Those coming in will bring a fresh perspective and approach and will open up policing culture. I believe that that is one of the most important reforms in shaping the police of the future.
I have committed to funding a cadre of new direct-entrant superintendents from this autumn until spring 2018, so I challenge all those forces that have not yet signed up to take that opportunity to do so. It is vital that the public know that policing is not a closed shop.
We are changing the culture of the police through direct entry, the code of ethics, greater transparency and professionalisation, and we are transforming the investigation of cases involving the police through reform of the IPCC, but I would like to do more. The current law on police corruption relies on the outdated common-law offence of misconduct in public office. It is untenable that we should be relying on such a legal basis to deal with serious issues of corruption in modern policing, so I shall table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to introduce a new offence of police corruption, supplementing the existing offence of misconduct in public office and focusing clearly on those who hold police powers.
In policing, as in other areas, the problems of the past have a danger of infecting the present and can lay traps for the future. Policing stands damaged today. Trust and confidence in the Metropolitan police and in policing more generally are vital and a public inquiry and the other work I have set out are part of the process of repairing the damage.
Stephen Lawrence was murdered more than 20 years ago and it is deplorable that his family have had to wait so many years for the truth to emerge. Indeed, it is still emerging. Understandably, many of us thought that the Macpherson inquiry had answered all the questions surrounding the investigation into Stephen’s death, but the findings I have set out today are profoundly disturbing. For the sake of Doreen Lawrence, Neville Lawrence, their family and the British public we must act now to address these wrongs. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement that the Home Secretary has made and the work of Mark Ellison in drawing up this extremely important but serious and disturbing review. The findings of the Ellison review are extremely troubling and the Home Secretary’s statement today is serious.
Nearly 21 years ago, a young man of 18 was killed by racist murderers. Stephen Lawrence and his family were denied justice then and it is clear that they have been denied justice ever since. The findings of the Ellison review are all the more serious because, in the 21 years since, repeated attempts have been made to get to the truth and to deliver justice but, despite all those attempts, that still has not happened. We in this House should show our support today for the Lawrence family in their continued determination to get to the truth and to justice, but we also know that no family should have to keep fighting in this way for so many decades.
Let me touch on some of the key findings that the Home Secretary has set out. First, she said that the Ellison review stated that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that one of the officers involved in the Lawrence investigation acted corruptly, but that has never been fully investigated. This is extremely serious and a full investigation is needed of the outstanding lines of inquiry identified by the Ellison review. I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation that this will now be looked at by the National Crime Agency, and also her confirmation that links with the Daniel Morgan inquiry will be pursued. Will she ensure—I am sure she will—that the House and the Lawrence family are kept updated with the timetable and course of this investigation?
Secondly, the Ellison review found that the full information about corruption and internal corruption investigations was not given to the Macpherson inquiry, and also that the Macpherson inquiry may have come to different conclusions as a result. It found also that the Metropolitan Police Service’s record keeping was a “cause of real concern” and that key evidence was the subject of “mass shredding” in 2003. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the NCA looks at whether information was wilfully withheld from the Macpherson inquiry or whether it was wilfully destroyed, and also looks at the wider issue of record keeping within the Metropolitan police?
The Home Secretary will be aware that we have asked before for an updated Macpherson-style review of progress since the original inquiry, because clearly a lot of changes were made as a result of the Macpherson inquiry. Does she not think this would be timely and that it would be an opportunity to look again at the conclusions of the review and whether they would have been different in the light of this further information?
Thirdly, the review found that undercover operations were carried out against those around the Lawrence family, and that information from those operations was given to those within the Metropolitan police who were involved in the legal case brought by the Lawrence family. It states:
“The reality was that N81 was, at the time, an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS.”
The review also found that the SDS, as the Home Secretary mentioned, was inappropriately and unjustifiably reporting on Duwayne Brooks. These findings are deeply disturbing. The Ellison review describes these operations as completely improper and wholly inappropriate, but the whole House will be shocked and we should condemn it in the strongest terms.
The Home Secretary is right: these revelations may mean that there have been miscarriages of justice. So I welcome her decision to instigate a public inquiry into the activities of the SDS. She will know that we have called for an inquiry into undercover policing, and it is right that there should be one. The Home Secretary is right to say that intelligence is a vital part of policing and the Ellison review says so, but it needs to be within a clear legal framework with proper safeguards in place. It is clear that that did not happen in these investigations and operations by the SDS against the Lawrence family and those linked to them at the time. We do not know how wide these miscarriages may go, but we cannot have a branch of policing that operated in this way, against the very ethos of policing and justice that it was charged with protecting and that the vast majority of police officers across the country have signed up to. Will the right hon. Lady discuss further not just with the family but with others on the Opposition Benches what form that public inquiry should take? We would welcome further discussions on that.
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to keep pursuing the truth. The Macpherson review was set up to get to the truth in the first place. It is important, too, that we should also keep pursuing justice. Will she ensure that in pursuing all these lines of inquiry, consideration is given to any lines that could lead to prosecutions of the further suspects in Stephen Lawrence’s murder?
Finally, I urge the Home Secretary to consider going further in the reforms that she talked about towards the end of her remarks. There is a serious question about whether the IPCC was able to investigate in the way that the Ellison review has done when it carried out an inquiry in 2006. The IPCC is the independent body charged with such investigations and should be able to get to the truth, but it was not able to do so. It is bad for justice and for policing not to have a credible body able to get to the truth the first time round.
I agree with the Home Secretary about the importance of force-level professional standards. She will know that forces have raised concerns that resources are being transferred from force-level professional standards in corruption investigations to the IPCC. Clearly, both need to be able to do that important job.
I also ask the Home Secretary to go further on the oversight of undercover policing. Clearly that will be considered in the public inquiry, but I urge her to look, in parallel, at further safeguards. As she will know, we have previously suggested additional safeguards, including on pre-authorisation for longer-term operations, because the current oversight regime has clearly not been effective enough in preventing some of the problems that have arisen.
I also ask the Home Secretary to look at the implications for the Hillsborough inquiry. As she will know, when we had the discussion three weeks ago, we also raised concerns about whether there was inappropriate surveillance or intercept against the Hillsborough families. It is hugely important that we get to the full truth about that and that it comes out at the earliest possible opportunity.
Twenty-one years later, no one should underestimate the gravity of the institutional failure two decades ago or the seriousness of the continued institutional failure to get to the truth. The Home Secretary has rightly said that we need to get to the truth. Police officers do a vital job, helping to keep the public safe every day. They need public trust and confidence, and we all need truth and justice. Three weeks ago she made the statement about the failure of the criminal justice system to get to the truth and to get justice for the families of Hillsborough victims decades ago, and today we have heard about that failure over the murder of Stephen Lawrence decades ago.
Families should never have to wait decades to get to the truth. Everyone must recognise that, unless we get to the truth and get justice, these tragedies will continue to cast a long shadow over the vital work that our criminal justice system and the police need to do. We owe it to the families, but we also owe it to confidence in the justice system.
Mrs May
I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady’s comments on the significance of the review. Of course, as she said, it is not alone in identifying problems with how cases have been treated; the Daniel Morgan case and the results of the Hillsborough Independent Panel also revealed failings that had taken place. As she said, it is absolutely imperative, in order to ensure that there is trust and confidence in the police, which is vital for us all, that we deal with these failings appropriately and get to the truth.
As the right hon. Lady and I have said, the results of the Ellison review are truly shocking. I suspect that it will take hon. Members some time to examine all the aspects that Mark Ellison has brought out, but the extent to which the report shows that a deep failure occurred at the time of the incidents and behaviours he examined is obvious from the remarks I have made today. It is therefore necessary that we follow that up by a number of different routes.
With regard to the timetable for the further investigation I have referred to the director-general of the National Crime Agency, I will of course be happy to keep the House informed of the results and how it will be taken forward. I would expect the director-general to look at the various issues the right hon. Lady referred to when considering how the investigation should take place and what is necessary to ensure that prosecutions, if they are required, can take place.
I do not think that it will be possible for us to discuss the form of the public inquiry properly until we have seen more of the next stage of Mark Ellison’s work, which is considering the wider issue and the question of miscarriages of justice. However, I will of course want to ensure that the public inquiry has the right terms of reference and that it is able to conduct the job that we want it to do and that the Lawrence family will obviously be concerned that it does. At the right time, I think that it will be appropriate to have discussions about the form of the public inquiry and its terms of reference.
On the IPCC, as the right hon. Lady said and as I said, Mark Ellison finds that its inquiries and work were not adequate and that it did not find the corruption that is alleged to have taken place. I have already given the IPCC more resources, more power and more of a task. The right hon. Lady referred to transferring resources from professional standards departments. That is a reflection of the fact that we are transferring work to the IPCC. One concern that people have always had is about the police themselves investigating serious complaints against them. That is why we are transferring that responsibility to the IPCC and the resources to undertake it.
On the safeguards on undercover policing, we have recently made changes to enhance them so that although longer-term deployments—anything over 12 months—must be authorised by a chief constable, undercover deployments can be authorised by an assistant chief constable. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners must be notified of all deployments, so the oversight framework is already stronger.
The right hon. Lady rightly raised the concern of Hillsborough families that they may have been subject to inappropriate surveillance. I understand that a formal complaint has been made to the IPCC about that, and that it is considering how best to investigate the concerns that have been raised.
There is much still to be done. Change has taken place over the years but sadly, what we have seen today is that it is necessary to continue the inquiries and investigations to ensure that, for the sake of the family particularly and for all of us and our trust in the police, we get to the truth.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I pay public tribute to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and John Walker for going to see the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), which led to the inquiry being set up, and to those who organised the meeting between the family and Nelson Mandela, which gave a profile and quiet dignity to reflect properly the way the family had reacted? I pay tribute to the family and those with them, including Baroness Howells, who managed to avoid any disturbance, and I add the name of John Philpott, the local Plumstead commander who, within 24 hours of the murderous attack on Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks, organised a community meeting at the town hall and said publicly that people knew that Stephen Lawrence was a good person, not a bad person. When the further inquiries take place, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ask that consideration be given to using Clive Driscoll, the police officer who helped to have one person convicted, as an adviser, if not a member, so that what the police have known for years can be added in?
In both this case and another six years later in Brighton, when constituents of mine, Michael and Jay Abatan were attacked, the first failing was that the police did not arrest the people who were thought to be suspects and hold them separately, or have proper surveillance and gather the evidence that was available at the time. We are now sweeping up mistakes that were made later. I pay tribute to all the police who do their job properly and find the evidence straightaway so that justice can be pursued in court.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we should never forget that there are police officers out there who do their job perfectly properly with honesty and integrity, and are bringing criminals to justice as a result of their work. We should not forget to pay tribute—he is right to do so—to those who have campaigned for many years alongside the family and in the House to ensure that those who were responsible are brought to justice and that we can get at the truth.
When the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) set up the Macpherson inquiry and when its results were received, everyone assumed that it had been able to look at all the evidence and to get to the truth. Sadly, as we now know, that was not the case, and certain matters that should have been referred to it were not.
My hon. Friend refers to a particular officer and the need to ensure that in further investigations police experience and knowledge of the case is not lost. That matter has been drawn to my attention, and I am giving proper consideration to it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that there is to be an inquiry into the goings-on within the SDS. However, we should not be sidetracked from the core issue that initiated the Ellison investigation and review, which is that corruption was an influence over the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and that evidence and information were withheld from the Macpherson inquiry. I would like the Secretary of State to confirm that that will be addressed in part of the public inquiry where people have to come and give evidence under oath.
In July 2006, there was a programme on TV called “The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence”. Deputy Commissioner John Yates went on that programme and said that Detective Sergeant John Davidson was a corrupt officer. I contacted the IPCC and the Metropolitan police and asked to know in what way his activities affected the inquiry. In a meeting with the Metropolitan police, I was told categorically that his corruption had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. We now know from the Ellison inquiry that the evidence on that was destroyed, so on what basis did the Metropolitan police tell me that? I also asked the IPCC to investigate what other crimes Detective Sergeant Davidson had been involved in that may have been corrupted by his illegal activities, and answer got I none.
All this information needs to be investigated thoroughly in a full public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the public inquiry will not just focus on the SDS but take in those wider issues, because nothing short of that will be satisfactory to the public or the family of Stephen Lawrence?
Mrs May
I recognise the role that the hon. Gentleman has played in relation to this matter, the concern that he has expressed over the years, and the efforts that he has made, as he has just evidenced to us, to ensure that the truth will be found in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
On the public inquiry, as I indicated earlier, we will be looking at the terms of reference once it is clearer that Mark Ellison has been able to do his work in relation to the question of the SDS in general and miscarriages of justice. It is specifically in respect of the SDS and the Peter Francis allegations that Mark Ellison identifies that a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings, and that is the background against which we will look at the inquiry’s terms of reference. In relation to some of the other aspects that he investigated, he has not highlighted the potential for a public inquiry to find further evidence and get to the truth behind certain allegations. As I said, the inquiry will look at undercover policing and the SDS, in particular, but we will set the terms of reference in due course when Mark Ellison has had an opportunity to conduct the further review that has been proposed in his report and that I have accepted as a recommendation.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I welcome the thoroughness of the Ellison inquiry and my right hon. Friend’s resolute response to it. Does she agree that undercover operations, although sometimes necessary, were wholly inappropriate and had no valid purpose when used against the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks, and that that underlines the need not only for effective accountability for such operations but an ethical framework within which they are conducted? Will she say any more about how she hopes to protect whistleblowers, whose lives and careers are often shattered when they serve the public and the vast majority of honest police officers by bringing corruption to public notice?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend. In fact, “wholly inappropriate” is precisely the wording that Mark Ellison uses in relation to the use of an undercover officer during the Macpherson inquiry. I think that many people will be absolutely shocked by the fact that there was an individual who was, in Mark Ellison’s words—I used the quote as did the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—
“an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp”
at a time when the family were in opposition to the MPS in judicial proceedings. I am sure that everybody recognises that that was wholly inappropriate and that this is not the behaviour that we expect from the police.
On the question on whistleblowing, my right hon. Friend makes a very valid and important point. It is crucial. The issue of whistleblowing in various aspects of the public sector has been raised in recent times. It is very important that police officers feel that they are able to raise matters of concern and that those matters of concern will be properly considered and properly dealt with. I have not quite finalised my proposals in this area, so I ask my right hon. Friend to have some patience. I will inform the House in due course of how we intend to improve the ability of police officers to be whistleblowers and to feel that they are able to do that and what they feel is absolutely right and of benefit to the vast majority of offers, who operate with integrity.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I first welcome the resolute determination the Home Secretary has shown in pursuing this issue and thank her for establishing the Ellison inquiry and for making this statement, which I have to say is one of the most shocking and serious statements I have heard by any Minister from any party over the whole of the 35 years I have been in this House?
As the Home Secretary and the police authority for London who established the Macpherson inquiry, I was struck, in the three months it took me to establish that inquiry and agree its terms of reference, by the reluctance of the Metropolitan Police Service to have any inquiry that focused forensically on the facts, as it had successfully resisted such calls for four years. I attributed that defensiveness to a bureaucratic unwillingness to accept scrutiny, but it is now clear that there was venality, probably at the highest level of the Metropolitan police, by which, against all rules, they refused to offer evidence, as they were required to do, to the full judicial inquiry of Sir William Macpherson. I have to say, given what the Home Secretary has now said, that had that evidence been offered, I think it is at least possible that Sir William Macpherson and his colleagues would have concluded not only, as they did, that there had been institutional racism, but that there had been institutional corruption as well.
I had a personal interest in the issue of the SDS and that organisation’s activities to go after subversives, because in 1974 the Security Service informed me of, and showed me, records that had been kept on my family and me from 1960 until 1971, when I finished as a student activist. When I went to the Home Office, I said that I did not want to see my file, but that I did want to know whether they were carrying on wasting money looking at subversives like myself, my family and successors. I was assured that that kind of activity was not going on, so I hope very much that this inquiry will get to the bottom of it.
May I also say—this is my last point—that I am very pleased that the permanent secretary is going to scrutinise what happened under the previous Government? I will give every possible co-operation to that inquiry, because, to my certain knowledge, I knew nothing whatever of these continuing activities, and had I done so, I would have stopped them immediately.
Mrs May
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, one of the things that comes through clearly in the Ellison review is that part of the ethos of the SDS was precisely that of secrecy, to the extent that very few people—this is one of the difficulties in establishing exactly who knew—within the Metropolitan police, let alone outside it, knew. This was kept very tight and close in terms of those who were even aware that the SDS was in existence, let alone of what it was doing.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the specific issue of corruption. Everybody will be appalled that there was an allegation of corruption by an individual police officer that was brought to the attention of superior officers in the Metropolitan police, yet it was not referred to the Macpherson inquiry.
One has to ask what the thinking was of somebody who thought that it was right not to refer the allegation to the Macpherson inquiry. I find it absolutely incredible that that further reference did not take place. As Mark Ellison says, it was a significant failure by the Metropolitan police.
I just want to comment on the issue of culture, which is part of this matter, and also goes back to the question about whistleblowing asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The culture of looking inward and protecting each other was rife at the time. One of the issues that can be looked at in the public inquiry is the whole question of Peter Francis’s allegations against that background and against what was actually going on in the SDS at the time.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
The findings could not be more serious, and they cannot help but undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. This is far from the first time that the competency of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been put in question. I welcome the steps that have been taken to strengthen the IPCC and the oversight of undercover operations, but I urge the Home Secretary to go further with the reforms so that the public can have confidence in the oversight mechanisms, and so that those mechanisms are sufficiently robust and sufficiently funded to root out police failings wherever they may be found, not just to put right past wrongs, but to prevent future wrongs.
Mrs May
As I have said, I am considering whether any further steps are necessary in relation to the IPCC. The step I am taking, which goes to the heart of what my hon. Friend says, is asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to look at the current capability of police forces to identify and deal with corruption inside their forces. Today, we are talking about events that took place in the past, but people need to know that they can have every confidence that the police will identify and root out corruption in the future.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Since the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993—as we know, he was murdered for only one reason: the colour of his skin; that is why he was put to death—is not the very strong and justified impression that much more time was spent investigating the Lawrence family and Mr Brooks than in bringing those responsible to justice? May I simply say that a society based on the rule of law should feel thoroughly ashamed of what has been revealed in the Ellison review and of what the Home Secretary has said today? A thorough investigation into undercover policing is absolutely essential, and I welcome the public inquiry.
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the public inquiry, and I note his other comments. It is of course the case that the initial investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder was deeply flawed. As we know, it is only recently that the family has seen any level of justice in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence. It is imperative that the investigations continue, and that as we bring forward various other measures, we make sure and keep our focus on ensuring that we get to the truth about the murder of Stephen Lawrence and, obviously, the behaviour of officers in the Metropolitan police and the way in which the investigation and other matters were conducted.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The allegations are extremely serious, indeed. Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has said about the general nature of policing, they show that there is a great need to change the culture of policing in this country. She has put a lot of faith in bringing in outside talent, but does she really think that that is enough?
Mrs May
Bringing in outside talent is a very important part of this process. It will bring different cultures, attitudes and experiences into the police, which will be a significant part of changing the culture. I also think that other steps we are taking—such as the code of ethics by the College of Policing, and the transfer of investigations of serious complaints against the police to the IPCC so that the police do not investigate themselves—are all part of the picture. I believe that opening up senior ranks to people from outside is an important part of bringing in a more diverse culture, experience and approach, which can only be of benefit.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
May I thank the Home Secretary both for the content of her statement and for the tone of what she has said? She mentioned the fact that allegations were made to officers in the Metropolitan police about corruption during the initial investigation. Will she confirm that none of the officers to whom those allegations were made is still employed by the Metropolitan police?
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
The review discloses breathtaking and monumental corruption, and it will take a monumental effort to begin to repair the damage that has been caused. Among other things, the report discloses that officers in criminal trials failed to reveal their true identities, and that they failed to correct evidence that they knew to be wrong. As a result, there will doubtless have been miscarriages of justice in other cases, which it will be extremely complicated and difficult to root out, but does the Home Secretary agree that that must happen? Does she also agree that the culture of policing needs to change considerably not just in relation to this matter, but generally? Will she look at the report of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into undercover policing, which has already taken place? Finally, may I suggest that what she said about adding an offence of police corruption is extremely important, because the current offence of misconduct in a public office is clearly insufficient?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the new offence, which I, too, think is important. He is absolutely right on the issue of miscarriages of justice: it is imperative to look into it, and I am grateful to Mark Ellison for undertaking that work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it clear that every effort will be made to ensure that this work can be completed properly and fully. We obviously do not yet know quite what the extent of that work will be, but with his experience of the work that he has already done, Mark Ellison is absolutely the right person to take it forward. As I have said, he will work with the CPS and report to the Attorney-General. If necessary, cases will of course be put to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary recall that when she began her programme of comprehensive police reform—it was then led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who was in the Chamber for her statement—many people questioned the need for it? I do not think that anyone will say that today, but does she agree that we owe it to the vast majority of police officers who carry out their duties with honesty and integrity to state that we know that police corruption is limited to a few immoral individuals?
Mrs May
I pay tribute to the work on police reform done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and which is being continued by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. I hope that everybody sees that it was important to embark on police reform and, as I have said, we are obviously taking forward further measures, which is important not just for public confidence in the police, but because, as my hon. Friend says, we owe it to the majority of police officers who work with honesty and integrity—day in, day out—to prevent crime, catch criminals and keep us safe.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My constituency has a majority BME—black and minority ethnic—population. Policing is by consent, and it is obviously crucial that the whole community has confidence in the chain of command, the policies enacted and operational decisions made on the ground. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree with me about the misuse and abuse of stop-and-search powers, which are often targeted at a particular section of the community and seem to be unfairly used?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is right that certain communities are subject to stop and search disproportionately. The Government, the Prime Minister and I are clear that we need changes to stop and search to ensure that people have confidence in it. It is an important tool, but people must have confidence in its use.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was an undercover military officer in 1978. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely right and proper that undercover operations are continued by the police, and that the men and women who are involved in those operations, who act with integrity and sometimes with great courage, should be applauded?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Undercover policing is an important tool. It is important that the police can use it. Many undercover police officers act very bravely and put themselves at great risk in the work that they do. Such work is important in catching criminals and in protecting the public. We need to ensure that all undercover officers operate with full honesty and integrity, and that there is a clear and appropriate legal and supervisory framework so that the boundaries of that activity are known. Sadly, it is clear from the Ellison review that, in relation to the SDS, there were rather fewer boundaries in that activity than there should have been.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for her work to root out corruption in the police. Does she agree that we must not only restore public confidence in the police force, but boost the morale of the very good officers who make up the vast majority of the police and ensure that they are seen to be doing a good job?
Mrs May
Absolutely. I hope that the majority of police officers, who operate with honesty and integrity day by day, will welcome our commitment to rooting out any corruption or misbehaviour within the police. We owe it to them to ensure that they see that happening and know that we value the work that they do. We want to ensure that all officers operate with honesty and integrity.
Violence Against Women and Girls
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On Saturday 8 March, to coincide with international women’s day, the Government are publishing an updated violence against women and girls action plan. A copy will be placed in the House Library.
Last year around 1.2 million women suffered domestic abuse and around 330,000 were sexually assaulted. This is wholly unacceptable. We are determined, not just to reduce, but to end violence against women and girls.
In November 2010, we set out our strategy to end violence against women and girls. Our key themes of prevention, provision of good-quality services, improved partnership working, better justice outcomes and risk reduction remain as relevant today as when we first agreed our approach.
This third revision of the action plan updates the efforts underpinning that strategy, and sets out significant progress since the last report was published a year ago. We are also aware of emerging issues and new challenges and the updated plan includes a renewed focus on early intervention, supporting effective local approaches, driving a culture change and measuring outcomes.
We are proud of the progress this Government have made in protecting the lives of women and girls, but there is still much more to do. This action plan confirms our ongoing commitment to stop the violence and abuse which blights the lives of too many women and girls.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council is due to be held on 3 and 4 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland is also due to attend on behalf of the Scottish Administration. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
The Interior day of the Council will start with a general state of play update from the presidency on the Europol negotiation. The presidency are also expected to seek agreement from the Council to remove the provisions in the Europol text relating to European Police College (CEPOL). This would secure formal agreement not to proceed with the Commission’s proposed merger of the two agencies. The UK will support this position and there is expected to be a strong overall consensus in favour of opposing the merger.
There will be a discussion on the EU’s future JHA programme, which will replace the current Stockholm programme. This exchange of views will focus on the Commission’s forthcoming communication, which will not be published until after Council. The UK will press for more clarity on the next steps towards developing a strong JHA Council contribution to the new programme, which should include key priorities such as a strong commitment to tackle free movement abuse and modern slavery.
The Council will be updated on current migratory pressures, with presentations from Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office. The pressures stemming from the Syrian crisis are of particular importance here, in particular the situation in Bulgaria, which has been under particular pressure in recent months. This item will be followed by discussion on the Task Force Mediterranean, which was convened by the Commission following the tragedy off Lampedusa last October. The UK participated in the taskforce meetings, which led to a set of coherent proposals for concrete action to prevent further migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. At this Council we understand that the Commission will set out an action plan for implementation, which will require the co-operation of the member states, European External Action Service and EU agencies. The UK will reiterate its support for this work; we are currently developing plans for our contribution in conjunction with other European partners.
Over lunch, practical co-operation on the area of returns will be discussed.
During the mixed committee there will be an update on the proposed data protection directive which covers areas of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and would replace the existing data protection framework decision 2008/977/JHA. The UK’s priority is to ensure the right of access to, and to erase, personal data does not prejudice or hinder criminal investigations or proceedings.
During AOB there will be an update by the Commission on the implementation of the new financial programmes for 2014-20 for home affairs. The presidency may also wish to discuss the draft directives on intra-corporate transfers and student researchers.
The justice day will begin with information from the presidency on a number of current proposals. First, the European account preservation order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters which the UK has not so far opted into, given our concerns about the adverse impact on debtors. The Council will then be updated on the regulation amending the “Brussels I” regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This is a technical amendment, fully supported by the UK, to set the rules governing jurisdiction for the Unified Patent Court. Finally the Council will receive an update on the proposal for a regulation amending the Council regulation on insolvency proceedings, which is a key measure for growth and the UK broadly supports the Commission’s proposal.
The presidency will next facilitate a state of play/orientation debate on the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Government continue to oppose this measure and agree with Parliament that the Commission has on this occasion breached the principle of subsidiarity.
This will be followed by an orientation debate on the recently published proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. The presidency is expected to try to establish some guidance to inform the expert-level negotiations. The Government have offered time in March for the House of Commons to debate the question of the UK’s opt-in regarding this proposal.
There will be a state of play/orientation debate on the proposal for a general data protection regulation. The UK continues to believe that this proposal is far from ready for a general agreement, and that no such agreement can occur until the text as a whole has been approved. The proposal remains burdensome on both public and private sector organisations and the Government would not want to see inflexible rules on transfers outside the European economic area which do not reflect the realities of the modern, interconnected world.
Over lunch there will be a discussion on the ways and means to promote the simplification and acceptance of public documents: expectations by the citizens and business.
On non-legislative activities, the Commission will present its 2014 anti-corruption report, which we broadly welcome, to the Council. There will then be a presentation of the Commission’s communication on the future development in the JHA area where the UK, as mentioned before, will push for a strong Council contribution, including a focus on better targeted legislation, consolidation where necessary, and ensuring that the EU prisoner transfer agreement is fully implemented by member states. The Council will then seek to adopt conclusions on justice systems in the European Union. The UK supports these conclusions which highlight the deficiencies of the justice scoreboard approach to monitoring national justice systems and suggest a more collaborative dialogue between member states. This will be followed by a presentation by the Commission on the 2014 justice scoreboard itself, expected for publication in March. Justice day will end with a presentation by the Commission on the 6th annual EU disability high-level group report on the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of person with disabilities.
G6 (Cracow)
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the six largest European Union countries, including representatives of the United States of America, held its most recent meeting in Cracow on 5 and 6 February 2014.
The summit was chaired by the Polish Interior Minister Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz and I represented the United Kingdom. The other participating states were represented by Thomas De Maizière (Germany), Angelino Alfano (Italy) and Jorge Fernández Diaz (Spain). France were represented at official level. Eric Holder (the US Attorney-General) and Jeh Johnson (US Secretary of Homeland Security) attended the second day.
The first formal session was on the development of EU justice and home affairs policy. There was general agreement on the need to focus on implementation of the existing agenda, rather than to develop new polices, concentrating on practical co-operation rather than new legislation. I said that it was important that member states drove the agenda. I stressed that tackling organised immigration crime remained an issue and highlighted the increasing problem of human trafficking, drawing attention to my intentions to bolster the UK approach through modern slavery legislation. I also raised the need for a renewed emphasis on effective measures against abuse of free movement and expressed concern at the emerging links between terrorism and organised crime.
The second formal session concerned Asian organised crime. Ministers exchanged their experiences and I set out action in the UK through the recent organised crime strategy and National Crime Agency. I further emphasised UK work to improve our intelligence picture of organised crime and to build capacity in Asian countries in order to tackle criminal activity upstream.
The third and fifth formal sessions related to the surveillance of EU citizens and protection of privacy. Ministers exchanged views on the need to find an effective balance between privacy and effective prevention of terrorism and crime. I called for a calm and measured approach and reiterated the importance of intelligence in the fight against terrorism. I welcomed the proposed additional protections proposed for non-US citizens in President Obama’s recent speech. The US set out its plans to tighten controls on access to bulk data, and provide enhanced Executive branch oversight. There would also be greater protection given to safeguarding the rights of non-US citizens. The US emphasised the benefits to the EU of US intelligence and co-operation.
The fourth formal session concerned the current challenges posed by terrorism. Ministers focused on the changing trends in terrorist activity and agreed on the need to intensify co-operation between member states in combating terrorism. I highlighted the dangers posed by foreign fighters in the Syria conflict and stressed the need for international co-operation to tackle this issue. I further set out the need to focus on co-operation with Turkey as a priority, given that it represents the key entry point for many European nationals travelling to fight in Syria. Finally, I stressed the importance of effective sharing of intra-EU passenger name records data in tackling the challenges posed by terrorists.
At the formal dinner on 5 February, I reminded Ministers of the need to seek improvements in the exchange of criminal records for child sex offenders. I also updated Ministers on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. The Polish Minister raised the issue of the situation in Ukraine.
The next G6 meeting will take place in Spain in June.
Police Officers and Staff (Remuneration and Conditions of Service)
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
This statement is about police pay and conditions. It provides the Government’s response to the police arbitration tribunal’s findings on six recommendations in the final report of Tom Winsor’s independent review of police officer and staff remuneration and conditions.
On 15 January last year, Official Report, column 31WS, I laid a statement to respond to the police arbitration tribunal’s findings on all recommendations in the final report of Tom Winsor’s independent review of police officer and staff remuneration and conditions. The tribunal had not been able to reach a conclusion on measures to introduce compulsory severance, and I therefore referred the matter back to the Police Negotiating Board. The Police Negotiating Board was not able to reach agreement on compulsory severance, nor on the management of officers on restricted duties and these matters were referred to the police arbitration tribunal in November 2013.
The tribunal has now provided its recommendation and reasons, which I received on 20 December. The tribunal considered six recommendations from the Winsor review’s final report. The tribunal rejected the three recommendations which relate to compulsory severance and accepted the three relating to restricted duties. I have today placed a copy of the police arbitration tribunal report in the Library of the House.
I am grateful to the tribunal for its consideration of these important issues. Having considered the tribunal’s report thoroughly, I have decided to accept its recommendation on restricted duties and will implement the reforms it has put forward. I have decided to accept the tribunal’s recommendation not to implement measures to introduce compulsory severance at this time. However, this remains a reform that I believe government and the police should continue to consider. I have written to the Police Negotiating Board to explain my decision in further detail.
These reforms build on the changes we have already implemented following the two reports of the Winsor review. They continue our programme to modernise police pay and conditions so that they are fair to both officers and other taxpayers, to retarget pay to reward contribution, and increase local flexibility.
We remain committed to the review’s principles and objectives, in particular linking pay and skills, and modernising management practices. These will be important considerations in further discussions in the Police Negotiating Board and in the related work that is being taken forward by the College of Policing.
The police must be able to make use of these reforms to the management of officers on restricted duty as soon as possible. I will therefore begin the process of amending the police regulations and determinations to implement the tribunal’s award, including making any necessary consequential and ancillary changes.
Points of Order
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It is open to the Home Secretary to respond to that point of order if she wishes to do so.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
If I may, Mr Speaker, I will provide clarification. I apologise if my language was loosely used earlier, as it should not have been. It is the accepted policy that we do not deny or confirm whether somebody has been subject to interception, which I understood was potentially part of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), but I have noted the concern that has been raised in this House and I will take that matter away.
Hillsborough
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Hillsborough stadium tragedy.
It is over a year now since Parliament last debated Hillsborough and the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I hope the House will join me again in expressing my thanks and gratitude to the panel’s chairman, Bishop James Jones, and all his colleagues for their remarkable work. The contents of the panel’s report were truly shocking, and on the day it was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families of the 96 for what he described as a “double injustice”. The first injustice, he said, was the appalling events; the second was the treatment of victims by the press.
I would like to pay tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and all those who have campaigned on their behalf. As Home Secretary, I have met a number of the bereaved families, and I have always been impressed by the dignified way they and their supporters have continued their search for truth and justice. I would also like to pay tribute to those in the House who have campaigned on behalf of the families, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).
So significant were the conclusions of the panel’s report that its publication on 12 September 2012 set in train a number of important events. By the end of that year, this had resulted in the High Court’s quashing of the original inquest verdicts and the ordering of fresh inquests, and the establishment of two major investigations. In a debate in the House following publication of the panel’s report, I said that
“after the truth must come justice; and after the apology, accountability.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 721.]
As lead Minister, it is my responsibility to ensure that the various processes of Government and the criminal justice system are working effectively and are properly resourced to ensure that justice can be done, not only for those who died, but, just as importantly, for their families and all those who have campaigned on their behalf ever since.
Today, I would like to update the House on the progress made in respect of the new inquests and the new investigations. First, I shall deal with the inquests. Last year, and within two months of the decision by the High Court, Lord Justice Goldring was appointed as coroner to conduct the fresh inquests. A number of pre-inquest hearings have already been held. The police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigations are working in support of the coroner to a timetable determined by him, and the Government welcome the fact that Lord Justice Goldring has made it clear that the fresh inquests will start on 31 March.
I have always made it clear that the Government will support the families in their quest for justice and, as part of that commitment, we are funding a comprehensive legal representation scheme. Work began on this immediately after the original inquest verdicts were quashed, and the scheme that is now in place will ensure that the families are properly represented and supported at the inquests.
In addition to the inquests, there is the investigative process, to which there are two elements. The first is led by the IPCC. This is its biggest-ever investigation, and its principal focus is on police involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough. It is worth reminding the House that this includes not just the role and actions of the South Yorkshire police, the force responsible for policing the match, but the West Midlands police, who played a significant role in the aftermath, providing support to Lord Taylor’s inquiry, producing the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and assisting the then South Yorkshire West coroner, Dr Stefan Popper. I can therefore confirm that the experience of survivors, again brought to public attention in the last week, is part of the ongoing IPCC investigation.
The second element is a criminal investigation—Operation Resolve—led by Jon Stoddart, the former chief constable of Durham. He was appointed by me in December 2012 and his key role is to investigate the deaths at Hillsborough. Working alongside both investigations is a discrete Crown Prosecution Service team, through which lawyers from the CPS provide ongoing advice.
When he was the Bishop of Liverpool and sitting in another place, Bishop James Jones said that justice was about process as well as outcomes. The unique, complex and wide-ranging circumstances of Hillsborough meant that two major and large-scale investigations had to be created from scratch, and both had to have firm foundations. Suitable premises had to be found, acquired and fitted out. This has been done. Suitably skilled and appropriate staff had to be identified and recruited. This has also been done. It was inevitable that this would take time but the investigations are now located together on one site in Warrington—close to the source of the investigation—and are making good progress.
Like a number of the bereaved families and a number of those in this House, I have been to Warrington to see both investigations for myself. I have met some of the staff from the IPCC and Operation Resolve investigations and I was struck by their dedication and professionalism. I welcome the fact that the IPCC and Operation Resolve want their investigations to be open and transparent and both investigations have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate to families the work they are doing.
I would like now to set out to the House some of the progress being made; first, in respect of the IPCC. Over 1,600 people have now responded to the IPCC’s witness appeal. This includes over 250 people who have never given accounts before. The IPCC is conducting detailed analysis of every response and is following up the evidence provided. Separately around 400 witnesses have made requests to the IPCC to see their original statements and the IPCC is helping people to access those statements.
In addition, the IPCC has recovered around 2,500 police pocket notebooks. These pocket books had not been made available to previous investigations and are now being analysed by IPCC investigators.
The IPCC has also conducted further analysis of the 242 police accounts now believed to have been amended. In this context, it has completed more than 160 interviews and these interviews continue. Alongside the IPCC investigation, the police investigation—Operation Resolve—has, first, worked to the coroner’s priorities and timetable, meeting all the deadlines set by him; secondly, has worked in parallel on other aspects of the criminal investigation that are complementary to the work being done for the coroner; thirdly, has obtained access to the best quality audio-visual material and carried out extensive analysis and, in doing so, has drawn on advances in digital imagery and forensic technology not available to previous investigative teams; and fourthly, has now completed more than 1,000 interviews of witnesses.
The work being done by Operation Resolve is aimed at providing the fullest possible picture of what happened at Hillsborough, both to ensure that the inquest is able to answer the questions that the bereaved families still have and in support of the criminal investigation.
As Jon Stoddart has said,
“If we find there were health and safety breaches or evidence of wilful neglect, we will seek to ensure the appropriate action is taken against those responsible. If we find that, with the benefit of hindsight, there are lessons to be learned, we will endeavour to ensure that they are addressed. And if we find evidence of criminal behaviour, including manslaughter through neglect, we will seek to lay charges and put people and organisations before the courts.”
As I have said, this new phase of work on Hillsborough began with the publication of the independent panel’s report. One particularly important aspect of the way in which the panel approached its work was its consultation with the bereaved families and I was keen to learn from and build on that dialogue. So I was pleased when Bishop James Jones agreed to act as my adviser on Hillsborough, bringing with him his knowledge and experience from his time as chair of the independent panel.
Operation Resolve and the IPCC have invested significant effort engaging with families, including by offering the opportunity for families to visit their offices in Warrington. “Family forums”, proposed by Bishop James Jones and building on work done by the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service and Operation Resolve, are now taking place regularly. The forums provide a regular and structured opportunity for bereaved families to have face-to-face discussions with those conducting and advising the investigations, and they provide an important opportunity for the families to probe and ask questions.
Bishop James Jones, in recent conversations with me, has described the families’ position as being “encouraged” but not “persuaded.” Mr Speaker, this is a sentiment I can understand. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the tragedy, it is the sentiment that underlies my continuing commitment to do everything I can to ensure that the process of disclosing the truth, started by the panel, is followed by the process of justice.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the shadow Home Secretary and then other colleagues, it might be helpful if I emphasised to the House that the special inquest has not yet formally opened. I think there have been pre-hearings, but the hearing itself has not opened. Therefore, the matter is not sub judice. However, colleagues might think it wise to exercise a degree of restraint and to weigh their words carefully if they seek to express opinions on matters that plainly fall to be determined by the inquest. That is not in any sense intended to chill; it is simply to make the point to colleagues, who will exercise their own judgment as to how to proceed in this matter.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome the points she has made updating the House on the progress made in getting justice for the families of the 96 people who lost their lives at Hillsborough.
This year we approach 25 years since that dreadful day. I pay tribute, alongside the Home Secretary, to the Hillsborough Family Support Group, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Hope for Hillsborough, which have shown such determination in their campaign for their loved ones. None of us should underestimate the strength they have shown and what they have endured over the last quarter of a century, or how difficult it is still for them as the inquest approaches—something that no family would ever want to go through. We should show them our respect and our support in their pursuit of justice.
In October 2012, when the Home Secretary last addressed the House on the disaster, we all welcomed the independent panel report and paid tribute to the panel, led by Bishop James Jones. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the work he did to establish it, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know spoke to her about giving today’s statement, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), and colleagues in all parts of the House who continue to support their constituents in the pursuit of justice.
The list of failures exposed by the panel at that time was extensive, shocking and deeply distressing—the failure to improve the safety of the ground in the years before Hillsborough; the holding of the game at a ground without a safety certificate just four years after the Bradford fire; the failure to organise crowd safety; the failure to close the tunnel; the failure to help fans speedily; and also the failure to be honest about what happened and to investigate, and the falsehoods that were perpetuated afterwards. This House came together to make clear our view that it was a betrayal of victims and their families.
Since the panel’s report, I welcome the overturning of the original coroner’s verdict, at the instigation of the Attorney-General, and the plans to reopen the inquest next month. I welcome the Home Secretary’s agreement to our proposal for more powers for the IPCC and her decision to provide more resources for such a substantial investigation. I welcome the work by the Stoddart and IPCC inquiries and the substantial investigations that are under way. She is right to highlight the importance of support, including information and legal support for the families, but let me ask her some further questions about developments.
The Home Secretary will obviously know the importance of the inquest to everyone and the concern at how long everything takes. Can she assure the House, first, that the inquest will start on 31 March and that every effort is being made to ensure that all evidence and papers are in place, and that there are no further delays? Secondly, will she tell the House what more she is doing to ensure that every police force organisation and agency provides full disclosure to the Stoddart investigation and the IPCC, and does not simply wait to be asked for information? She will know the distress it has already caused to find that important and shocking information was never revealed to the independent panel—the pocket books she referred to—but also that far more police and witness statements were altered.
We have heard, for example, the disturbing testimony of one witness, who was a teenage student at the time. He told the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme that he was threatened with prosecution for complaining about failings by South Yorkshire police, saying:
“I’m a 19-year-old boy, three weeks out of Hillsborough, traumatised, and he’s threatening me that he’s going to put together a case for wasting police time because he didn’t like my evidence”.
I know that the Home Secretary would agree with me that it is a matter of deep concern that full information was not given to the panel at the time and would welcome the work done by the investigations to get more evidence since, but will she give a direction to all forces to provide all information related to the Hillsborough disaster to the two investigations?
The Home Secretary will also be aware of concern among the families about surveillance operations against families in the aftermath of the tragedy. I understand that the IPCC is not currently investigating those claims or concerns. Will the Home Secretary commit today to ordering the release of any material on surveillance, including intercept surveillance, of Hillsborough families in the aftermath of the disaster to the IPCC?
Thirdly, will she update us on the progress that has been made on the wider investigations that go beyond the inquest and on decisions on prosecutions? Clearly, the main focus of the investigations has been preparing information for the inquest, but what progress has been made in investigating criminal wrongdoing? According to what timetable does she believe files will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service from the IPCC and the Stoddart investigation?
Finally, will the Home Secretary reassure us that the IPCC will have the resources it needs and that she will ensure that the inquiries work effectively alongside each other? She will know that concerns have previously been raised about co-ordination between the inquiries. Will she keep that under review to ensure that the investigations are fully co-ordinated?
The last quarter century has been immensely difficult for the families of the 96, and they know that the coming months will be very hard, too. The House should pay tribute to them and to their faith and determination over a quarter of a century, as well as to those who have stood by them, particularly the people of Liverpool. We should strain every sinew to ensure that they get justice now.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and echo her point about how difficult it will be for the families when the inquest starts to have to relive the tragedy yet again. None of us can fully appreciate how difficult and traumatic that will be for the families and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.
As for the date of the inquest, as I said in my statement, Lord Justice Goldring has said that the fresh inquest will start on 31 March. That is obviously a matter for him and not for me as Home Secretary, but I am sure from the way he has conducted matters so far that he will recognise the significance of the inquest over which he will preside and the importance of ensuring that it goes ahead according to an appropriate timetable.
The right hon. Lady asked about disclosure, what information is available to the two investigations and what information was not made available to the panel. The panel saw some 450,000 documents from more than 80 organisations, so it did an extremely good job and, having seen all that evidence, it was able to come up with its shocking results about what had happened at Hillsborough. However, everybody has been perhaps not surprised but disappointed that further documents have emerged as a result of the two investigations, particularly the police pocket notebooks and other such documents. I have written to both Dame Anne Owers, as chairman of the IPCC, and Jon Stoddart—they are in charge of the investigations and it is up to them to amass the information they need—to ask whether they were having any problems getting material and whether it would be helpful for me to write to the chief constables of all police forces to ask them to look for any material that they might have.
The right hon. Lady asked about possible undercover operations and although no formal complaint or allegation has been made to the IPCC, it is aware of the concerns and is considering how best to address them. It is reviewing the material on Hillsborough so if it discovers any evidence in its investigation that suggests that surveillance such as that which has been suggested took place it will pursue that evidence.
I recognise, particularly given what has happened over the past 25 years, that everybody is keen to ensure that there should be no sense that the timetable is not be followed appropriately. I discussed the matter with Operation Resolve and the IPCC when I was in Warrington. They are keen to ensure that at every stage they do everything properly so that there can be no opportunity to challenge their results. We would all agree that that is appropriate, but it takes time to do that. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I am making resources available to the IPCC and we talk to it and Operation Resolve regularly about what is necessary.
I was pleased to see—I am going to use the term appropriate again—the appropriate level of co-ordination between the two investigations. They are considering separate issues, although of course the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation, and they are working together in a manner that is fit and proper, ensuring that everything that is being done is being done in a way that will ensure that people have confidence in the results when they come out, whether they result in criminal charges or other findings.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary assure us that any questions that the relatives have can be asked and answered? What level of co-operation is she receiving from retired police officers?
Mrs May
There is indeed a level of co-operation from retired police officers. Not everybody whom the IPCC has wished to interview has been willing to come forward for interview, but we are talking about people who are being interviewed as witnesses. The fact that an officer is retired would have no relevance if somebody were to be found to be suspected of criminal activity. The investigation would of course proceed as appropriate.
As for the families and their access to information, there are two ways in which families can ask questions. First, they can go to Warrington and meet members of the investigation teams and talk to them. When I was in Warrington, I was taken through the sort of information that the investigators could provide to the family of a particular individual. Families rightly have questions. One benefit for those involved in the investigations when families go in to talk to them is that they can identify any questions that the families might ask that might not be the first to come to mind for the investigators. The forums are also important, as they provide families with the opportunity to raise questions face to face. As I have said, they are ably chaired and managed by Bishop James Jones.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and express my continued admiration for how she is leading this process. People might think of the families’ battle as being won, but in truth only now are they entering the most difficult period of all. Parents such as my constituent, Delia Brown, are only now finding out basic details about what happened to their sons and daughters between 3.15 and 4 o’clock. With that in mind, does the Home Secretary share my disgust and disbelief that South Yorkshire police have today, using public money, rerun slurs about alcohol that were dismissed by Lord Justice Taylor in 1989 and by the Hillsborough Independent Panel in 2012?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the families are well made. This is a very difficult time and, as he says, it is only now that some families are in any sense able to fill in the picture of what happened to their loved ones. I am concerned by his reference to South Yorkshire police and would be grateful if he and I could have a further discussion about that matter. I am certainly prepared to look into it.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I join the tributes to the Opposition MPs who have led the persistent campaigns for the families. Sadly, in the 1980s I was involved in two sets of crushings. The first was at an archbishop’s funeral, when 14 people died around me. The other was at the Heysel stadium, where, within 200 feet of me, 39 people died. As well as finding out what went wrong at Hillsborough and after Hillsborough, which I hope the inquest will achieve, we ought to pay tribute to the Police Federation for being the first to call for the safety of grounds from the 1930s through to the 1970s. May I say to my right hon. Friend that perimeter safety and crowd safety could be another tribute to those who sadly lost their lives?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should all be constantly aware of the need to ensure safety at stadiums when large numbers of people are at football matches and other events. It is extremely important that we learn the lessons from the tragedies from the past to ensure the safety of those who attend such events in the future.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to update the House today. In her statement, she said that in 2012 the Prime Minister apologised for a double injustice, yet now we learn that Hillsborough may have been a treble injustice. Ever since the disaster, the families of the 96 have expressed concerns that their phones may have been hacked and electronic communications monitored. First, families lost loved ones, then they were criminalised, and now it seems that they may even have been shadowed by terrorists. I have one simple question, so that the right hon. Lady can put the families’ minds at rest. Will she confirm unequivocally that at no stage since the disaster were the families subjected to surveillance by the police or security services of this country?
Mrs May
I fully appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the families’ concerns, but he will recognise, as I am sure his right hon. and hon. Friends will too, that we do not identify those who may or may not have been subject to interception in any form. I know that this is difficult and I know that some would prefer a somewhat different answer, but it has always been the case that the police do not confirm or deny whether an individual has been subject to interception. There are two avenues that I would refer to in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The first is that, as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the IPCC is aware of these concerns and is considering how best to address them. If it does find any evidence during its investigation that suggests that surveillance has taken place, it will pursue it. It is also available to those who feel that they have been subject to unlawful interception by the authorities, to refer that to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which provides an independent forum for investigating complaints.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
As a special constable, I can vouch for the fact that most police officers are hard-working and honest, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there is evidence of any wrongdoing by any individual police officers, they will face the full force of the law?
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that the purpose of the work that is being undertaken is to ensure that we can provide justice for the families. Jon Stoddart has made it absolutely clear that at whatever level they find that errors have been made, be they in relation to health and safety or criminal activity, appropriate action will be taken. If it is criminal activity, people will be charged and prosecutions will be brought.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The tenacity of the bereaved families has led to the exposure of organised deceit following the Hillsborough disaster and to where we are today with a new inquest and a major inquiry. How will the Home Secretary ensure that she maintains the trust of those bereaved families, and will she denounce the outrageous slur that Bishop Jones’ independent panel might have had its own agenda?
Mrs May
I am very happy to reject completely the suggestion that Bishop James Jones’ panel had its own agenda. It did an extremely good job. It identified a significant number of documents, and some are still coming forward. It did the first important task, which was to reveal to all of us the validity of the comments and claims made by the families over the years, who had not been believed and had not been listened to. The panel showed that the families were right and that errors and potential criminal activity needed to be investigated. The work of the independent panel was crucial. It was essential in enabling what is now happening in terms of trying to ensure that we get justice for the families. Had it not been for the independent panel’s inquiry and the results that it had, we would not be in the position that we are in today with two investigations.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update to the House today. Many people will be surprised to learn about the number of police notebooks that have suddenly become available. I am sure that the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012 has facilitated some of the investigation, but does she agree that there is a moral imperative for the Police Federation to ensure that all serving and former police officers co-operate fully with the investigation?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Most people will be surprised to know that police officers retain their police notebooks in the first place, and secondly that in this instance they kept them and did not reveal them to the panel. It is good that around 2,500 notebooks have now been made available to the investigators. I encourage anybody who has any information relating to Hillsborough—any documents, any files, anything—to come forward with that. I also support my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the Police Federation encourages all police officers and former police officers, who may have information relevant to these investigations, to make that information available.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I think that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues from Sheffield and the people of Sheffield when I commend the Home Secretary for both her statement and its delivery, and the work that she has been doing. I endorse the tribute paid by the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to the families and the concern that they expressed for them as we approach the 25th anniversary.
Finding the information in the form of the handbooks that have just been discovered will have shocked all of us once again, as will the information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned. Those of us who are concerned to ensure that successor bodies are both open and transparent, and to ensure that we get to the truth and hold to account those who were responsible 25 years ago, should co-operate in any way possible. I would be prepared to join my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary in dealing with any allegations that are made about South Yorkshire police or any other local body that may at this point in time be acting inappropriately.
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his offer. As he says, it is extremely important that all those who can encourage others to act appropriately, do so, and are willing to challenge those who are not acting appropriately.
If I may, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) asked another question, which I did not answer, about how I could maintain the trust of the families. I see the families from time to time, and as I have explained, Bishop James Jones is my adviser on the matter and he is seeing the families through the forums. I have made it clear both to Bishop Jones and to the families that if they have any concerns at all they should feel free to raise them directly with me and I will look into them.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her update today and the work that she is doing on this issue. I pay tribute to the strength of the families who have been pursuing justice through this dreadful almost 25 years. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether she believes that criminal prosecutions will take place and whether she believes that criminal prosecutions must take place to provide justice for those families?
Mrs May
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern around this issue. It is not my place to say whether a criminal prosecution will take place. The investigation takes place and the Crown Prosecution Service will independently determine whether prosecutions are appropriate. What I can say is that all those involved in the investigation are absolutely clear that where they find criminal activity, they will do their best to ensure that that is pursued, because everybody wants justice for the families.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and thank her for updating the House in the way that she has. May I take her back to the questions of the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)? The right hon. Lady is right that we should encourage people to co-operate, but I understand that 13 police officers have refused to be interviewed by the IPCC and two have declined to respond to its letters. She may have better figures. We do not just need encouragement; we need compulsion. They need to be made to co-operate so that we get to the truth.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is right: for the purposes of the IPCC investigation, 13 of the 242 officers whose statements have been amended have declined to be interviewed. Those who are being regarded as witnesses are not required to be interviewed at this stage, and there are those who have said that they do not believe that they have anything to add to the information that has been available in the past. I would therefore suggest a degree of caution in respect of how those who are not taking up the request for an interview are portrayed. As I have said, if the IPCC identifies someone who is potentially suspected of a criminal offence, that will not be an impediment, and the IPCC will act accordingly.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I was on the Lepping lane terraces at the FA cup semi-final of 1981. Around me, several spectators were crushed, and had to be treated by the medics. That was eight years before the Hillsborough tragedy. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on what lessons were learnt from previous FA cup semi-finals at Hillsborough, and will she arrange for that information to be published so that we can see what planning took place before the tragedy?
Mrs May
One of the things that emerged from the independent panel’s inquiry was that, sadly, there were apparently indications of problems relating to the ground, but not all the necessary lessons had been learnt from previous experience. That is why it is so important—as one of my hon. Friends said earlier—that in the event of an incident of any scale, but particularly an incident of the scale of the Hillsborough tragedy, lessons are learnt and people look at what went wrong. Part of the current process involves consideration of whether there was any neglect in relation to the ground and the operations that took place there. Sadly, as I have said, it appears that there were indications of problems, but lessons were not learnt before this particular football game.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Let me first record my appreciation of the work that the Home Secretary has been doing, and also my admiration for the families’ continuing and amazing drive to seek justice.
I understand that up to nine police forces are currently being contacted, but I want to concentrate on the Cheshire force and its former chief constable, Mervyn Jones. In a letter that I received from the IPCC, I was told:
“Records were found that indicated that 22 boxes of documents were recovered by South Yorkshire police on the 22nd of January 1998. These records indicated they were copy documents taken by Mervyn Jones.”
The documents had been kept in the armoury of Cheshire constabulary.
As the Home Secretary is aware, a number of those documents were policy files, and were rather important, because Mervyn Jones led the west midlands inquiry. He took them away with him after leaving the force. I found out today that they contain references to files that have since been deleted from the HOLMES computer system, which stores information about major incidents. May I ask the Home Secretary what lessons can be learnt from that? How can it can be ensured that in the event of any future major incident—or, God forbid, any future disaster—it will not be possible for a chief constable, or an assistant chief constable, to take files away rather than storing them at a central point?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point. As he presumably knows—because it has been in touch with him about this particular individual—the IPCC is aware of the issue, has identified Mervyn Jones as a person who is of interest to it, and is planning to interview him.
This issue has raised questions in my mind about the ability of police officers to retain documents that have been relevant to them in a particular role, and to take those documents away with them as if they were personal possessions. That has been highlighted not just in relation to the question of the pocket notebooks, but, on a slightly larger scale, in relation to the case of one person, Mervyn Jones, and I think that we need to look into it further.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I genuinely congratulate the Home Secretary on the thoroughness of her approach, but may I ask how many police notebooks that may prove relevant later were not recovered?
Mrs May
About 2,500 police notebooks have now been supplied to those conducting the investigations. I would encourage any officer out there who may have a notebook that is relevant and who has still not provided it to do so, because I think it important for all the notebooks to be made available.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the courage and bravery shown by all those affected by the Hillsborough disaster over the past 25 years, and especially in recent months.
May I ask the Home Secretary again about the police pocket notebooks? She has said that about 2,500 of them were not made available to those conducting earlier investigations. Does she know, or has she asked, why they were not made available?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and for her work on this most sensitive and troubling of issues. I also pay tribute to the Hillsborough families for their steadfast campaigning. They are about to enter a very difficult phase in the process.
I make no apology for returning to the issue—the shocking issue—of the disclosure of 2,500 police notebooks. May I ask two questions? First, the IPCC now has those notebooks, but will those involved in Operation Resolve have copies of them? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a thorough review of the storage of police notebooks, given that the issue has implications for all historical investigations, criminal and civil?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the point of concern about the police pocket notebooks. Although the two investigations are concerned with slightly different aspects of the Hillsborough tragedy, it has been made clear that information that is relevant to both should be available to both.
As for my hon. Friend’s wider question, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), it is important for us to look at the issue of documents that are acquired by police officers in relation to investigations or to incidents that they attend and are required in the course of their duty, but which, in the cases that we are discussing, were treated as if they were personal possessions that officers could take home and deal with as they wished. That is an issue to which I shall want to return.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Home Secretary both for her statement and for the way in which she continues to handle this most important issue. Does she agree that one of the truly alarming things that we have discovered in the recent past is the extent to which there was what could almost be described as an organised stereotyping distortion of what had taken place, and the extent of the prejudice against those who attended the game at Hillsborough—both those who lost their lives and those who survived? Does she agree that one legacy that we should really want is the knowledge that, in any future situations of this kind, such prejudices will be continually challenged and rooted out? The only guarantee that we can have that something like this will not happen again is a guarantee that those attitudes will be utterly condemned, and will become a thing of the past.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very important point. As I said earlier, when the Prime Minister made his own statement in 2012, he said that the second injustice that had taken place was the treatment that the families had received at the hands of the press. However, the injustice was wider than that: it did not just involve the press.
The press set out their particular portrait of what had happened, and of the families involved, but a collective view was then taken by society as a whole. With very few—but notable and honourable—exceptions, people had that collective belief, and felt that it was not necessary to take the matter further. Like others, I pay tribute not just to the families who continued the fight, but to the Members of Parliament and others who consistently challenged that view and said that it was not right to let the issue lie. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: while I hope that we never see an incident of this sort again, it is important for those who try to set a public perception on such issues to be challenged.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
On the question of the police notebooks, will the Home Secretary find out—it will be difficult, but not impossible in this computer age—how many police notebooks relating to the Hillsborough inquiry were used by the same police officers who in the 1984 miners strike compiled notebooks and statements all saying the same thing in the first few sentences?
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my praise for the families, whose tenacity and courage are an example to us all? I know from speaking to many of my constituents how difficult this is for them. What plans does the Home Secretary have to offer counselling and additional support to the friends and families of the victims, who are going to relive the trauma of 1989 during the impending inquests?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady makes an important point; this is going to be a very difficult time for the families. Additional consultation space will be provided for them so that they can have meetings with their legal teams, and every effort is being made to ensure that, in every practical sense, attendance at the inquests is made as easy as possible for them. We recognise that support of the kind she describes needs to be provided to those involved, and the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the coroner are working together to ensure that that is made available.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I should like to echo other Members in thanking the Home Secretary for her statement and for paying tribute to the families, campaigners and Members of the House for their work on this matter over the past 25 years. May I take the Home Secretary back to the issue of Lord Justice Goldring’s deadline of 31 March for fresh inquests? Understandably, she has said that that is a matter for him, but does she understand that it is important for the families that everything that can possibly be done is being done to ensure that that deadline is met?
Mrs May
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. I know that the investigatory teams are aware of the importance of meeting Lord Justice Goldring’s timetable in relation to the support they are giving him as coroner. Indeed, up to now they have met all his deadlines. They are clear that, in order for him to do his job, any requests put to them should be dealt with in the timetable that he has set.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary has made a welcome commitment to look again at the issue of the police withholding evidence. Does she not agree, however, that the fact that the notebooks, and other alarming acts, have only just been uncovered, despite all the previous investigations over many years, shows that the current system of police accountability and scrutiny is not fit for purpose, despite having been strengthened? She must know that she would get support from right across the House if she were to announce a radical overhaul of the system.
Mrs May
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this matter, but the Government have already acted in a number of ways in relation to this question. We have enhanced the powers of the IPCC to deal with these issues, and we will be giving it more resources to enable it to investigate all serious and sensitive complaints against the police itself, rather than passing them back to police forces. That is an important change. Also, I have already announced to the House a number of steps that are being taken in relation to the wider question of police integrity. The findings of the Hillsborough panel have raised a very real question in people’s minds about police integrity, and I welcome the steps by the College of Policing to introduce a code of ethics. A number of steps are being taken to improve that issue, so that people will feel that they can have full confidence in the police. The vast majority of police officers work day in, day out for our protection and to cut crime, and they work honestly and with integrity. However, when there are those who do not, it taints the picture that people have of the others. It is our duty to encourage and enhance people’s confidence in their police.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has referred in previous answers to the police notebooks being kept by individual officers. Will she clarify whether all the 2,500 notebooks were recovered from individual officers, or whether some of them were collectively stored by the police and deliberately withheld from previous investigations?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
A number of police forces, including South Yorkshire, have failed to provide evidence about Hillsborough. Does the Home Secretary think that that is due to a lack of resources or does she think that there is a worrying, ongoing reluctance to get to the truth?
Mrs May
It is extremely unfortunate that, at various stages, South Yorkshire police did not provide all the evidence, but I was pleased that they were willing to respond to and provide information to the independent panel. It is in everyone’s interests that we should be able to get to the full truth and to see justice done.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Perhaps the biggest risk to safety in football stadiums today is that posed by a panic mass evacuation, following a bomb scare, for example, or a terrorist incident. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is no requirement on any stadium to have a test mass evacuation using real people, that no such tests have been carried out and that every football stadium in the country relies on computer simulations to determine whether its mass evacuation plans will actually work?
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Home Secretary will recall that when we debated these issues in the House some time ago, the overwhelming sentiment on both sides of the House was that there was a need for full transparency and disclosure, not just as a prerequisite for justice but as a first step towards resolution. In the light of that, may I return to the question of the 13 retired police officers who have refused to comply with the IPCC’s requests for interviews? Does she agree that, rather than it being a matter for those officers to decide, before any interviews take place, that they have nothing to add, the IPCC should be allowed to discover whether that is the case during the process of such interviews?
Mrs May
As I said in response to earlier questions, those who have refused to be interviewed so far have been regarded as witnesses, which means that there is no requirement for them to take part in an interview at this stage. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about who should be the judge of whether they have anything to add to the investigation, but as I have said, they are being regarded as witnesses and are therefore not required to be interviewed.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I hope that this question will not be regarded as trivial, but at a meeting I attended recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), it was suggested that the facilities for the families at the inquests—toilets, tea and coffee-making facilities, catering and comfortable seating, for example—were not quite as good as they should be. Will the Home Secretary check that they are in fact up to scratch, because it is essential that those families should be made to feel as welcome and as comfortable as possible at the inquests?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. As I said earlier, it is my understanding that every effort is being made to ensure that the facilities are appropriate for the families, and that it will be as easy as possible for them to attend. She will have noted that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is in his place. He will have heard her comments, and I am sure that he will take them away to the Ministry of Justice.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I am sure the Home Secretary is aware that the families have asked for one person to be put in charge of the entire investigation so that they can co-ordinate all the various investigations that are going on. Will she consider doing that?
Mrs May
I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the families about this matter and what the most appropriate structure is to have in place. I believe that we do have the right structure at the moment, because the two investigations are looking at different aspects of this tragedy. It is of course important that there is co-ordination between them, and as I said earlier, the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation. What I have seen from visiting Warrington is that both investigations are conscious of not only those areas where it is necessary for them to co-ordinate, but those areas where it is necessary for them to recognise the difference in their investigation.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I acknowledge the worthy statement of the Home Secretary on the double injustice, but why should the ethic of apology and accountability not extend to the third possible level of injustice—the hostile surveillance of victims’ families? What standing policy says that evidence in that regard can continue to be withheld? Surely that is what would tell us how far and how high this syndicate of deceit and vilification actually reached. Before the Home Secretary tells me, as she told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), that families can go to the IPT, will she tell us what the IPT’s record is of upholding complaints or ever giving a reason?
Mrs May
I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, in that I will not be giving a different answer to the one I gave earlier. As I indicated, the IPCC is aware of this issue and is considering how best to address it. If it finds evidence of surveillance that has taken place, it will deal with that as appropriate.
Immigration Bill
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 12—Power to charge fees for attendance services in particular cases.
Government new clause 18—Deprivation of citizenship: conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK—
‘(1) In section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory.”
(2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2) of section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 in a case which falls within subsection (4A) of that Act, the Secretary of State may take account of the manner in which a person conducted him or herself before this section came into force.’
Manuscript amendment (a) to Government new clause 18, after proposed new subsection (4A)(b) in subsection (1), insert
‘and
(c) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under subsection (4B).
(4B) (1) This sub-section applies if the Secretary of State:
(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual in a case which falls within subsection (4A)
(b) makes an application to the court for permission to make an order.
(2) The application must set out how the deprivation is conducive to the public good and how the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, and of the islands, or any British overseas territory.
(3) The function of the court on the application is:
(a) to determine whether the relevant decision of the Secretary of State is
obviously flawed, and
(b) to determine whether to give permission to deprive a person of citizenship in a case which falls within subsection (4A)
(4) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.
(5) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (4A)(b) is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.
(6) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.’.
Manuscript amendment (b) to Government new clause 18, after subsection (2), insert—
‘(3) The court is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’.
New clause 13—Right of appeal: Impact assessment—
‘Before the Secretary of State makes an order under section 65 (commencement) to bring into force section 11 (Right of appeal to First-tier Tribunal) he must—
(a) undertake an impact assessment of—
(i) the number of appeals effected by the provisions of section 11; and
(ii) the costs attributable to appeals to First-tier Tribunals; and
(b) lay a copy of a report on that impact assessment before Parliament.’.
New clause 15—Exceptions to automatic deportation—
‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 33 (Exceptions), in subsection (2)(a), for “Convention rights”, substitute “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention”.
(3) In section 33, after subsection (6A), insert—
“(6B) Exception 7 is where the Secretary of State thinks, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including the seriousness of the offence, that removal of the foreign criminal from the United Kingdom in pursuance of a deportation order would cause such manifest and overwhelming harm to his children that it overrides the public interest in removal.”.
(4) In section 38 (Interpretation)—
(a) after subsection (3), insert—
“(3A) In section 32, “Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”;
(b) omit paragraph (4)(b);
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) In section 33, “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention” means Articles 2 or 3 of “the Convention” as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”.’.
Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end add—
‘(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—
(a) ensure that children are not detained for immigration purposes, except in the following circumstances—
(i) where the Home Secretary reasonably believes they are a threat to national security;
(ii) in port or border cases where departure is the following day and no application for a visa or asylum has been made; or
(iii) to provide pre-departure accommodation under subsection (7)(b); and
(b) ensure that if a child requires accommodation prior to departure it is—
(i) dedicated pre-departure accommodation which is subject to inspection by HMIP;
(ii) for a maximum period of 72 hours;
(iii) following a recommendation made by the Independent Family Returns Panel, and
(iv) with their family.
(8) Where subsection (7)(a)(ii) and (iii) applies, the officer responsible must ensure that children are only separated from their parents and carers for the purposes of child protection.’.
Amendment 79, page 2, line 38 leave out clause 3.
Amendment 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
‘(1A) In paragraph 16 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal) after paragraph (4) insert—
(5) A person detained under this paragraph must be released on bail in accordance with paragraph 22 after no later than the twenty-eighth day following that on which the person was detained.”.’.
Amendment 57, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In paragraph 22 (bail) at end insert—
(4) The following provisions apply if a person is detained under any provision of this Act—
(a) The Secretary of State must arrange a reference to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine whether the detained person should be released on bail;
(b) The Secretary of State must secure that a first reference to the First-tier Tribunal is made no later than the eighth day following that on which the detained person was detained;
(c) If the detained person remains in detention, the Secretary of State must secure that a second reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Commission is made no later than the thirty-sixth day following that on which the detained person was detained;
(d) The First-tier Tribunal hearing a case referred to it under this section must proceed as if the detained person had made an application to it for bail; and
(e) The First-tier Tribunal must determine the matter—
(i) on a first reference, before the tenth day following that on which the person concerned was detained; and
(ii) on a second reference, before the thirty-eighth day following that on which he was detained.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, “First-tier Tribunal” means—
(a) if the detained person has brought an appeal under the Immigration Acts, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal dealing with his appeal; and
(b) in any other case, such chamber of the First-tier Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) In case of a detained person to whom section 3(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 applies (jurisdiction in relation to bail for persons detained on grounds of national security) a reference under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, shall be to the Commission and not to the First-tier Tribunal.
(7) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 may include provision made for the purposes of this paragraph.”.’.
Amendment 73, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 1, page 8, line 19, leave out clause 11.
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 80, in clause 12, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 33.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 81, page 11, line 32, leave out clause 13.
Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
‘(za) first, to the best interests of any child affected by a decision as specified in section 117A(1).’.
Amendment 3, page 13, line 11, leave out ‘qualifying’.
Amendment 4, page 13, line 12, leave out ‘reasonable to expect’ and insert
‘in the best interests of’.
Amendment 62, page 13, leave out lines 14 to 39 and insert—
117C Cases involving Foreign Criminals
(1) No decision of the Secretary of State under section 33(6B) (Exceptions) of the UK Borders Act 2007 may be questioned except on appeal to the High Court.
(2) For the purposes of determining whether to give permission to appeal and determining any such appeal under subsection (1) the High Court must apply the procedures and principles which would be applied by it on an application for judicial review.’.
Amendment 58, page 13, leave out lines 19 to 39 and insert—
‘(3) The promotion of the best interests of children is in the public interest.’.
Amendment 5, page 13, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 14.
Government amendments 23 to 26, 45 to 53 and 27.
Amendment 61, in clause 65, page 50, line 27, at end insert—
‘( ) Section 1 and Part II of this Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed, being no earlier than the day on which an order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 9(2)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 in respect of civil legal services in connection with removal under section 1 and appeals under Part II comes into effect.’.
Government new schedule 1—Sham marriage and civil partnership: administrative regulations.
Amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 54, line 13, leave out paragraph (5).
Government amendments 28 to 44, 8 to 16, and 54.
Government motion to transfer paragraph 44 of schedule 8.
Mrs May
It might be helpful, before I comment on new clause 11, to set the context in which the amendments and new clauses are being moved.
This is an important Bill. It has, I think, widespread support outside this House, and will ensure that the Government have greater ability to make it harder for people to live in the United Kingdom illegally. It will make it easier for us to be able to remove people who are here illegally and will streamline the process for appeals, reducing the number of appeals from 17 to four. It will also, crucially, enable us, in certain circumstances, to deport individuals before they have their appeals, so that their right of appeal is outside of this country. It also introduces a variety of measures, one of which I will be coming on to speak to, because it relates to some of the technical amendments ensuring that people who come to this country for a temporary period contribute to our public services, as I think every hard-working family would expect them to do. It is this Government who are putting that through in the Bill.
The Bill is important because it will enhance our ability to deal with a number of immigration matters, although that is against the background of our success in reducing net migration into this country and particularly in dealing with the abuse of certain immigration routes, notably student visas. That is the context of these amendments. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the number of amendments, but many of them are very technical and minor amendments.
Government new clause 11 is intended to ensure that the marriage and civil partnership provisions work as effectively as possible. Importantly, part 4 of the Bill will establish a new referral and investigation scheme to prevent sham marriages and civil partnerships from gaining an immigration advantage. Increasingly, sham marriages are being used as a back-door route around immigration rules. The ability to do that has been extended by the Metock case in the European Court, which has enabled people from outside the EU married to someone within the EU to gain free movement rights. There is concern about sham marriages not only in the UK, but in other parts of the EU, and the UK is leading work across Europe.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is right about sham marriages, which are an issue I tried to raise last summer. It is crazy that the law does not allow registry offices to provide information on all marriages being sought, where immigration might be an issue, directly to the Home Office. At the moment, Home Office officials have to go and look at the board on the wall in the office. Could we not change the law?
Mrs May
The Bill will enable that reporting mechanism. In particular, because we are extending the period that the Home Office has in which to investigate, we should see more cases being investigated. The large number of sham marriages is a problem. Sadly—I am an active member of the Church of England—there have been court cases involving Church of England clergymen actively conducting sham marriages and being brought to justice as a result. It is important, however, that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with that.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions that the notice period for marriages will be extended, which I fully support, but will she also confirm that the Bill will provide for shorter periods in exceptional circumstances? For example, people fighting in our armed forces overseas might, for very legitimate reasons, need a shorter notice period.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify this issue. We will retain that ability, in certain emergency circumstances, to reduce that period for people with an urgent need to marry. It could be in the circumstances he highlights or, for example, where someone is on their deathbed. That is another emergency circumstance we want to cover.
It is important that we can deal fully and properly with sham marriages, and I believe that the Bill will enhance our ability to do that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady will know that marriages and civil partnerships are covered by Scots law and are matters for the Scottish Government. Why, therefore, is there not a legislative consent motion for this or any other part of the Bill? Surely, there should be an LCM in the Scottish Parliament so that these things can be discussed and passed properly.
Mrs May
If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience—I know he might find it difficult—I will explain how the Bill will enable us to discuss such matters with the Scottish Government.
The basic design of the scheme is straightforward, but the statutory framework into which it has to be introduced is complex—marriage law in England and Wales dates back to 1949—which is why we are bringing forward further technical changes. The changes need to be reflected in the law governing civil partnership, thereby doubling the number of amendments that are required. I have said before on a number of occasions that I think it is preferable for the Government not to table too many amendments at this stage, but these are minor and technical. I hope that people will appreciate the importance, when dealing with a part of the law that is so complex, of ensuring that we are able to make amendments to ensure we get it right and that the operation of the law is appropriate.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that what might be called by a lawyer the gravamen of his point has been heard. I do not think that a judge in one of the courts in which the hon. Gentleman has served would have allowed him to bang on for the length of time I have allowed him.
Mrs May
To clarify, the Bill increases the marriage and civil partnership notice period from 15 to 28 days in England and Wales for all couples, and allows it to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham. But we will be retaining the ability in emergency cases such as those set out by my hon. Friend to require the notice period to be shorter than is being provided for.
Chris Bryant
I am trying to help the Home Secretary. She referred earlier to clergymen. Will she confirm that she is not changing the law in relation to clergy at all, which actually will still be the weak point in the system?
Mrs May
I accept that we are changing the law in relation to the state obligations of civil registrars, which is part of the state apparatus in relation to this matter. There is not a requirement on clergy to report in this way. With his background, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share with me a desire to give a clear message that we have considerable concerns where we see clergymen indulging in the practices that I referred to earlier. We have discussed new measures with the Church of England and the Church in Wales and will continue to involve them in our plans for implementation. We are removing bands on the common licence route for non-EEA nationals to ensure that couples within the scope of the referral scheme are correctly identified. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some comfort.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary clarify her response to an earlier interjection on registrars notifying the Home Office about impending marriages, which appears to be one of the weaknesses?
Mrs May
They will refer all non-EEA marriages to the Home Office, and the purpose of the extension of the notice is that it gives further time for investigations to be conducted. In particular, the possibility of allowing that notice period to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham will enable the Home Office to investigate whether there is a genuine relationship and take immigration enforcement action where these are indeed sham cases. That will mean that an immigration advantage cannot be gained by entering into a marriage or civil partnership, if that were to go ahead. The Bill extends the powers for information to be shared by and with registration officials to help tackle these problems of sham marriages, immigration offences and, indeed, wider criminality and abuse.
I promised the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that I would refer to Scotland. The amendments allow further discussion with colleagues in Scotland and Northern reland about the extension there of the referral and investigation scheme. The new clause and schedule reflect no change in our overall approach but clarify the basis on which the Secretary of State may make regulations for the scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 11 also makes specific provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations and orders concerning the operation of the referral and investigation scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland when a clause 48 order has been made to extend the scheme there. Regulations concerning the operation of the scheme in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be subject to consultation with the relevant Registrar General, as they are in England and Wales, and they will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
New schedule 1 supports the new clause by setting out the purposes for which regulations can be made under it, for example in respect of the specified evidence required of couples referred under the scheme. Amendment 27 to clause 64 provides for any order made under the new clause, for example in respect of the information required to give notice when an non-EEA national is involved, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments 23 to 26 to clause 52 provide an explicit reference in respect of the requirement for certain non-EEA nationals to give notice at a designated register office of civil partnerships to be formed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, in a similar manner to the existing provision relating to England and Wales, and it clarifies the requirements in such cases.
Amendments 28 and 29 to schedule 4 reflect the fact that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 will, where applicable, allow same-sex couples to provide evidence of consent to a same-sex marriage from their religious organisation’s relevant governing authority after notice of marriage has been given. The amendments will ensure that such couples are not prevented from giving notice if they do not yet have the evidence.
Amendment 30 to schedule 4 ensures that the requirement to provide additional information at the point of giving notice does not apply to a proposed marriage between former civil partners one of whom has changed sex. Amendment 37 to schedule 4 is an equivalent provision for a proposed civil partnership between former spouses one of whom has changed sex. Such couples will not be within the scope of the referral scheme, because no immigration advantage could be obtained from the marriage or civil partnership, and there is therefore no need for the provision of the additional information.
Amendments 31 to 33 to schedule 4, which relate to marriage, and amendments 38 to 40 to schedule 4, which relate to civil partnership, clarify the drafting of the requirement for additional information from couples who are within the scope of the scheme. They also limit the requirement to provide details of other names and aliases that are used to couples when one or both parties state that they do not have the appropriate immigration status or a relevant visa, or state that they have it but provide no evidence. Amendments 34 and 42 to schedule 4 make minor drafting corrections.
Amendment 35 to schedule 4, which relates to marriage, and amendment 41 to schedule 4, which relates to civil partnership, ensure that the Secretary of State notifies the couple, as well as the registration official, of the decision on an application to shorten the notice period in exceptional circumstances in a case referred under the scheme.
Amendment 36 to schedule 4, which relates to marriage, does two things. First, it makes a consequential change reflecting the new notice provisions. Secondly—along with amendment 43, which relates to civil partnership—it ensures that the legal validity of a marriage or civil partnership cannot be challenged just because notice of a decision under the referral and investigation scheme was not properly given by the Secretary of State.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Let me give the Home Secretary some time in which to take a breath before she continues to go through her 50 amendments. Does she think it unfortunate that the Government did not include the amendments in the original Bill, rather than tabling them on Report and not giving us enough time to debate them?
Mrs May
When my hon. Friend made a similar point during Home Office Questions on Monday, I said that I thought that it was always better for the Government to be able to ensure that they had covered every aspect of a Bill in the original drafting, and I am sure that that view is shared throughout the House. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech today, these are very technical issues, many of which, including some that I shall discuss later, were raised in Committee. It was appropriate for the Government to respond to the points that were raised then, and to table amendments accordingly when that proved necessary.
Amendment 44 to schedule 5 will enable registration officials to disclose information about reports of suspected shams to the Registrar General under sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as to other registration officials and the Secretary of State. That will support inter-agency work to tackle sham marriages and civil partnerships. New clause 12, which I tabled, relates to the deprivation of citizenship.
Michael Ellis
Does the Home Office have any idea how many people are gaining immigration status through the route of sham marriages or civil partnerships? Is that an easily ascertainable figure, even if it is an approximation?
Mrs May
It is not an easily ascertainable figure. The proposals that we are discussing will enable us to investigate more cases. We have made assumptions based on marriage registration statistics, the volume of reports of suspected sham cases from registrars and feedback from immigration caseworkers who deal with applications that are made on the basis of marriage or civil partnership. The resulting estimate was that between 4,000 and 10,000 applications a year are made to the Home Office on the basis of a sham marriage or civil partnership. My hon. Friend will see from the breadth of the estimate that we need to approach the matter with caution, but it does give a guide to the potential scale of the abuse. There are details in the explanatory paper that we have published on part 4 of the Bill. I expect these provisions to give us a greater ability to identify cases, and therefore to ascertain the number of them.
I apologise to the House, because I was getting ahead of myself in setting out my new clauses. New clause 12 relates to fees. I will come on to the new clause that relates to the deprivation of citizenship afterwards. On fees, we remain committed to ensuring that the UK continues to attract tourists and the brightest and best migrants, including those who are considered to be commercially important to the UK. To ensure that we can do that, it is important that our immigration and visa services are a match for or better than those provided anywhere else in the world.
In a number of important respects, our visa services are already world class. We have expanded and improved the network of visa application centres. There are now 200 around the world, with 12 in each of India and China compared to the three or four that are on offer from most of our competitors. We have introduced online application and booking systems, and 95% of applications are now submitted online. Online applications are supported by translated help text and extensive web guidance. We have also established a business network with dedicated UK visa staff to assist businesses with their visa requirements. All of that is in line with our desire to attract the brightest and best to the UK.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I endorse everything that the Home Secretary has said about the international section of the Home Office. Does she think that there is an opportunity for more face-to-face interviews to be conducted in the posts abroad, or at least for people to be interviewed from this country through the new system of televised interviews?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of face-to-face interviews. I have made it very clear that I want to increase the number of such interviews. We reached the number that I had hoped for by the end of the year, which was 100,000. Some of the interviews are physically face-to-face and some, as he has indicated, take place remotely through the use of video screens. That is an important tool in ensuring that people who apply for visas meet the criteria that have been set. I have seen interviews take place in a couple of countries overseas and have seen that the ability of our entry clearance officers to make judgments is enhanced considerably by conducting interviews, rather than just looking at a piece of paper. We have already achieved 100,000 interviews, but I want to see how we can extend that further across the visa system.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I ask the Home Secretary about the current arrangements for issuing visas to travellers from Iran? I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Iran. As a result of the invasion of the embassy at the end of 2011, we do not have an operational visa section—or any other section—in Tehran, and anyone applying for a visa has to go to Istanbul or Dubai. Many of those people then have to wait for days for their visa to be issued. Those people often have connections here. Will the right hon. Lady discuss this matter with the Foreign Secretary to see whether those arrangements could be speeded up?
Mrs May
I of course understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. As he said, there are good reasons why we do not have the physical capacity for people to make their visa applications in Tehran. I will be happy to look into the processing that takes place in Dubai and Istanbul, and to see whether there is any way to ensure that the service can be of a higher standard.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
In the same vein, concern has been expressed about the distances that people in China and Russia have to travel in order to get their visa applications processed. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what is being done to ensure that the high-value customers that we are looking for do not have to travel thousands of miles to get a visa to come to Britain?
Mrs May
As I have said, we have been enhancing the various services that we are able to provide in a number of countries; that includes the expansion of our network of visa application centres. My hon. Friend mentioned Russia and China. In China, we have more visa application centres than any of the other Schengen countries. We have 12 such centres there; most of our competitors have only three or four. We are also constantly working with the tour groups that bring people over to the United Kingdom, to see how we can enhance the service that we offer. The ability to apply online is also important. Yes, we require biometrics to be taken, but we are enhancing our biometric capture capability. For example, in certain cases the biometric capture capability can go to the individual applying for the visa, rather than the individual being required to go to the visa application centre. So we are enhancing these services, and we are conscious of the issues that he has raised.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
May I support what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has just said about people from Iran? I have a constituent who was in exactly the situation that has been mentioned. His parents had to go to Istanbul to apply for visas. They then had to decide whether to go back to Iran or to hang around in Istanbul for three or four weeks to see whether they could come here. They were left in limbo, and we really need a fast-track service to deal with the parents and other relatives of people of Iranian descent in the UK who want to come here to visit them.
Mrs May
I hear what my hon. Friend says and understand the real example that he gives of the problems that can arise. As I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I will indeed go away and look at the whole issue of how visas are being processed and the length of time that it is taking.
Earlier, I said that we had introduced a super priority visa service in India, which allows a visa to be processed in 24 hours. We will expand that service to China by summer this year, and to other locations by the end of the year. In China, Russia and southern India, we are offering a passport pass-back service for applicants who wish to retain their passport to travel or to apply for a visa to another country while their UK visa is being processed. As a result of such improvements, we have achieved customer service excellence accreditation in at least one visa-processing hub in each of our six global regions. I hope that that is good news for the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who has had a longstanding concern about the services that are provided by the former UK Border Agency, which has now been broken up.
There is also strong demand for the bespoke services from overseas customers, who want us to go to them to deliver a visa service. Up to now, those bespoke services have been offered on a small-scale trial basis, mainly in China and the USA, to test demand and ensure viability. It is clear that demand for such services is strong, and we want to roll them out further. Neither the existing fees legislation nor the current Immigration Bill provisions provides powers that would enable a workable charging arrangement to be made for bespoke services. That only became clear after the Bill had been introduced.
Charging for statutory functions, whether connected to immigration or otherwise, is a technical area. As well as legislation and common-law precedent, there is much detailed guidance, such as “Managing Public Money”, which is published by the Treasury. The legislation and the guidance are there to ensure that the imposition of fees by public bodies, including Government Departments, is transparent, consistent and subject to proper scrutiny.
Fees for commercial services that are not connected to statutory functions are treated differently. For example, there is no requirement to set out in legislation fees for commercial services. It became clear after the Bill had been introduced that it would not be appropriate to treat bespoke services as commercial services and that the provisions in the Bill, while providing additional flexibility, would not be sufficient to enable a charging arrangement that would work in the real world. The main issue is that the services are bespoke. In other words, they vary considerably from one customer to another. That contrasts with other premium services, which are generally similar where they are delivered. For example, a bespoke service may compromise a member of staff visiting a customer at a location close to the visa centre. It could involve two members of staff travelling by air to another country with security escorts and overnight accommodation. It could involve the provision of services to several people, or several members of staff could be hiring a venue to provide services to a number of a firm’s employees.
The cost of providing a service could vary from around £100 to several thousand pounds depending on the precise nature of the request. It is not possible to use regulations to set out fees that take account of all the possible service variations that could apply, so we have made a new clause that enables fees for those services to be set without the need for regulations. In making those changes, we were keen to ensure that their effect was limited to this narrow but important range of bespoke services overseas. We do not want to take away the need for regulations on other visa and immigration fees, or deliberate restrictions on bespoke services fees to apply to charging for other premium services. To achieve that, we have separated out the part of the service that involves getting staff to the location of the customers’ choosing from the immigration services that may then be provided. The attendance service fee covers all the costs to the Home Office of our commercial visa partners preparing to deliver chargeable immigration functions. To put that plainly, it means that the cost of commercial partners’ staff time, travel, accommodation, security, venue hire and so on is charged as an attendance service fee. The fee will be priced on application, agreed between the customers making the request and the commercial partner based on the specific requirements of the service.
The cost of any related visa applications and any other premium services, such as accelerated processing, will be charged separately based on fee levels set out in the regulations. As a result, while the new clause permits fees to be charged without the need for regulations, several safeguards are in place. For example, the provisions apply only to bespoke services overseas delivered by our commercial visa partners. The services are optional and may be provided only at a customer’s request, and the fees may reflect only the cost to the Home Office of providing the service, and must be agreed by the customer in advance.
New clause 12 ensures that we may continue with our plan to expand the availability of bespoke mobile services overseas. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the attendance service provisions may apply when they are connected to a chargeable immigration function and provided at a time and place requested by a customer overseas. Subsection (3) ensures that the provisions still apply when the service is connected to a chargeable function, even if no charge is imposed. For example, if the visa application fee is waived for any reason, it would still be possible to offer and charge for the bespoke service. Subsection (2) ensures that the attendance service charging arrangements apply only to bespoke services and cannot be extended to cover other chargeable functions. Fees for those other functions will, as I say, continue to be set out in regulations as they are at present.
Subsection (4) provides that the customer will be charged the costs incurred in attending the location of his or her choosing at a time specified by him or her. Such costs include, but are not limited to, the cost of travel, including flights, hotel costs, security costs, the cost of hiring a venue, and staff costs. As I said, the fee will be charged outside the fees regulations.
The costs for overseas bespoke mobile VIP services will be based on the actual cost of providing the service and will not be set with regard to the criteria set out in clause 61(5), which include growth, international comparisons and benefit. All costs will be agreed between the commercial provider and the customer before the service is delivered.
Subsections (5) to (7) of the new clause ensure that the provisions on the treatment of fees paid for chargeable functions and debt recovery also apply in respect of fees paid for attendance services and that the new clause does not undermine other legislation.
Amendments 45 and 46 are consequential and ensure that the attendance service provisions fit within the wider immigration and visa fees framework established by the Bill. Amendment 46 replaces the wording in clause 60 that is being removed as part of amendment 45 and provides that fees other than for the overseas bespoke mobile service can be calculated by one or a combination of the following factors: a fixed amount, a per hour amount, or another factor. It states that the maximum amount for the fee or other factor must be set out in a fees order, a minimum amount may be set and that the actual amount of a particular fee will be set out in regulations. When fees are set by an hourly rate or other factor, the regulations will detail how the fee will be determined—for example, £50 per hour. Those provisions will not apply to the fee for the provision of the overseas bespoke mobile VIP service.
Amendments 47 to 53 are minor consequential changes to clause 60 to ensure that it does not limit or affect the proposed clause 61. Amendment 54 is a minor consequential change to schedule 8 to ensure that there is no effect on clauses 60 to 62.
Let me now come to the issue on which I got slightly ahead of myself earlier, which is new clause 18 and the deprivation of citizenship. As we move on to this important issue and before we get on to the specifics of what the clause seeks to achieve, it might help the House if I give some background to put it in context.
Depriving people of their citizenship is a serious matter. It is one of the most serious sanctions a state can take against a person and it is therefore not an issue that I take lightly. As I am sure all Members who were around during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 will recall, it can be a subject that generates lively debate.
It is noteworthy that depriving people of their citizenship is a concept with a long history. Almost as soon as world war one broke out, demands were made for denaturalisation of enemy aliens on grounds of disloyalty and/or their German past. That is the origin of the power. Before the war was over, legislation had been passed that made provision for revocation of citizenship if a naturalised person was suspected of treasonable activities. It has subsequently been amended to cover matters such as overt disloyalty, criminality, absence from the UK without maintaining a connection, through to it being conducive to the public good to deprive.
We are not seeking a wholly new power. The law as it stands today allows me as Home Secretary to deprive a person of their citizenship status in two scenarios. The first is when the person acquired it using fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. Essentially, that means that they used deception to obtain citizenship when had we known the full true facts at the time we would not have granted them that citizenship. The other circumstance is the reason why I am satisfied that doing so is conducive to the public good and that the person would not be left stateless as a result.
Keith Vaz
The Home Secretary is right that she seeks to amend a very important part of the Bill. When she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on 16 December we raised the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who was in Somaliland. He did not want to return to the United Kingdom, but Charles Farr told the Committee, and the Home Secretary supported this in her evidence, that there was an obligation to bring him back. There was no legal justification for taking away his citizenship or preventing him from returning. Is she now telling the House that the new clause gives her the legal basis to prevent a British citizen involved in terrorist activities abroad from returning to the United Kingdom because she can strip that person of citizenship and leave them stateless? Does it give her that power?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will explain exactly what the new clause does. It extends the Secretary of State’s powers to deprive someone of citizenship. It is in response to a particular case—not the one that he has quoted—which I will describe in order to set the background in a way that I hope will be helpful for the whole House. The right hon. Gentleman has a knowledge and understanding of these issues, but it would be helpful to set out the whole background.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate. The Home Secretary referred to her powers where someone has obtained citizenship by fraudulent means. There may have been strong mitigating circumstances when someone made such an application. For example, we know that some years ago many people came to the country on false documents because they had been persecuted. They may have applied on a false basis, but there were strong mitigating circumstances—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I know that this is complicated and many Members want to speak. May I clearly ask for your assistance. Will any Member making an intervention try to make it brief?
Mrs May
If citizenship was granted purely because someone used fraud or deception, did not disclose a material fact or used incorrect facts, and if we would not have granted citizenship had we known the full facts, the decision would be to deprive that individual of citizenship. I will not comment on the type of case that the hon. Lady has set out, but the initial question would be whether citizenship would have been granted if the full circumstances had been known at the time of the application. If the full facts had been known, would the decision have been not to grant citizenship? If so, the decision would be to remove citizenship.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Yesterday the House heard many noble speeches about our international obligations and humanitarian protection led by the Home Secretary. I was the first to congratulate her on that. Today, as the clause is drafted, she appears to be asking for a blank cheque to remove people’s rights to have rights. I wonder whether she can see the irony in that and whether our international leadership does not also cover such an important fundamental right?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter. I do not accept her description of what we are putting through in this Bill. We are not asking for a blank cheque. There are specific and limited circumstances in which the power would be used, which I will describe to the House. We are not suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into a situation that it has not been in before. We are suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into the situation that is required by the UN convention to which it has signed up. A decision was taken a few years ago to go beyond that UN convention. We think it is right to go back to the UN convention.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Home Secretary knows that we are dealing with complex and serious issues, so will she explain why she tabled the new clause 24 hours before Report without consulting any outside bodies? The situation is such that we have had to table manuscript amendments to deal with serious concerns about it. Will she explain why she is acting with such urgency today, rather than allowing for consultation before introducing a measure in another place that could then be examined by both Houses?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall set out why we thought it was necessary to table the new clause and how we have considered the matter. I accept that the Opposition have tabled manuscript amendments. While I wait to hear what he will say about them, if there are specific concerns, I will be willing to consider them and, if necessary, address them further in another place.
The new clause is a consequence of a specific case. The power to deprive on conducive grounds is such that even when I consider the first and arguably the most important part of the test to be met—that it would be conducive to the public good to deprive—I am still prevented from depriving a person of their citizenship if they would be left stateless as a result. That was the point explored in the Supreme Court case of al-Jedda.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary help me to understand what is being proposed? There is a question of British citizens overseas, to which the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred, and another of what would happen to someone in the UK who was made stateless. What would such a person’s immigration status be, as there would be nowhere to remove them to? Would we not be trapping someone who was dangerous to this country in this country?
Mrs May
When I explain the circumstances in which it would be possible to remove somebody’s citizenship, I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it would not necessarily be the case that an individual would be left stateless, because we are talking about a situation in which they would be able to acquire statehood from somewhere else.
Mrs May
Perhaps hon. Members will have some patience and let me set out my points.
I will not to go into too much detail about the case of al-Jedda, but he was an Iraqi refugee who was granted British nationality in 2000. In 2004, he was detained by British forces in Iraq because of his suspected involvement in terrorism. In December 2007, the then Home Secretary made an order depriving him of his British citizenship.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As far as I can see, there are no copies of the manuscript amendments on the Table. It seems bizarre, on the matter of whether people should be deprived of their citizenship—[Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration can keep quiet for a moment. The reason we need manuscript amendments is that the Government tabled their new clause only at the very last minute to try to shove other measures off the agenda. Can we ensure that the manuscript amendments are available to everyone so that we know what we are debating?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not finished my sentence yet. It would be helpful if that could be checked, although I am assured that they are available, and if copies could be made available in the Chamber for Members who feel unable to get to the Vote Office because they wish to hear the debate.
Mrs May
I hope that the manuscript amendments, which were tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, are indeed available in the Vote Office.
As I said, in December 2007, one of my predecessors deprived the individual of his British citizenship. That gave rise to lengthy litigation, which culminated in a Supreme Court hearing in June 2013, with the verdict promulgated in October 2013. The Court—disappointingly to my mind—rejected my assertion that the individual could reassert his Iraqi nationality and that his failure to do so was the cause of his statelessness. Its conclusion was that the question was simply whether the person held another nationality at the date of the order depriving them of British citizenship.
Having studied the Supreme Court determination carefully and considered my options, I asked my officials to explore the possibility of legislating to address the key point identified in the al-Jedda case, namely that our domestic legislation, and the changes brought about in the 2002 and 2006 Acts, go further than is necessary to honour our international obligations in terms of limiting our ability to render people stateless.
That may have been well intended. It was done, as I believe, in anticipation of signing the 1997 European convention on nationality. We have never signed that convention and this Government have no plans to do so.
It is also important to stress—it is a point that has been made by a couple of Members already in interventions—that I have discussed this at length with colleagues across Government; it is not something I have just decided on. Given the importance of the subject matter, we wanted the time to ensure that we got it right. Indeed, I had a meeting with my hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party on 4 December last year to discuss the proposal and listen to their concerns and the issues they wished to raise.
The United Kingdom has signed the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. We made a declaration on ratifying that convention to allow for the prospect of leaving a person stateless in certain circumstances. Those circumstances include the ability to deprive a naturalised person of their citizenship, regardless of whether or not it might leave them stateless, where that person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I am a naturalised British citizen and the clause therefore applies to me. I support it wholeheartedly. There are rights as well as obligations that come with British citizenship. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should go even further—the Immigration Bill may not be the place to do so—and introduce similar sanctions against anyone who is British, irrespective of how they got British citizenship, if they do something so heinous against the British state.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point about his position and also about the desire that we have in the House to ensure that we can take appropriate action against people who are acting in a manner that is not conducive to the public good and who are acting in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to this country’s interests.
New clause 18 recreates—
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
When I first became a Member of this House, anyone born in Britain automatically became a British citizen. That right was taken away by the Thatcher Government. Will this law apply to the children of people who have acquired British citizenship?
Mrs May
It applies to somebody who is a naturalised person. That is who it applies to. It seeks to recreate the very specific sub-set of cases that are currently provided for under the “conducive” power. It would allow me to deprive a person of their citizenship, regardless of whether it left them stateless, but as I say, it applies only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who register to acquire citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act—
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman would wait—such as those which provide for children to acquire British citizenship. And it would apply only to very serious cases of people whose conduct is
“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.
Those safeguards and limitations are important. The amendment will allow the key consideration to be whether the person’s actions are consistent with the values we all attach to British citizenship. We may all have a slightly different interpretation of what they might be, but I am confident that Members of this House would agree that this is encapsulated by the oath that naturalised citizens take when they attend their citizenship ceremonies.
Mrs May
I understand my hon. Friend’s point about foreign national offenders. The Government are conducting an exercise to ensure that we can deport more foreign national offenders from our prisons to serve the remainder of their sentence elsewhere, and the prisoner transfer agreements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is negotiating are an important part of that. However—this is the important point—this power applies in a very particular set of circumstances in which someone has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty. The power being put into the Bill will apply in only a very limited number of circumstances. My hon. Friend also asked whether it would stand the test elsewhere. I believe that it will. What we are doing is returning the United Kingdom to the position set out in our international obligations under the United Nations convention.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way; she is being most generous. I realise that this is a very difficult issue. What happens if another country will not take the individual who has been stripped of their citizenship?
Mrs May
I recognise that there are many questions that Members wish to ask on this. I am answering the questions and taking as many interventions as Members are requiring. I will give way again shortly.
A stateless person is defined by article 1.1 of the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons as one
“who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.”
If they are inside the UK, we, as a party to that convention, are legally obliged to comply with its provisions, which set out various rights for stateless people. One of our aims in seeking to deprive might be to remove the individual from the United Kingdom, as I have indicated. It might not always be possible to do that, especially when the individual is stateless. If they are deprived, they become subject to immigration control, but we have provisions in the immigration rules that enable a person regarded as stateless to regularise their stay.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
One of the things that concern me is the definition of “seriously prejudicial.” If we look up “prejudice” in the dictionary, we see that it just means something we have decided before, so “seriously prejudicial” could be anything a Home Secretary liked. I am absolutely convinced that the present Home Secretary would never in any way abuse that power, but how do we know what will happen next week, next month, in two years’ time, or in five years’ time? A Home Secretary will be able to use a term that is so vague and has so little meaning that they could strip someone of any citizenship, leaving them stuck in this country with no ability to work, receive benefits or do anything at all, simply because of a definition that is pretty much meaningless.
Mrs May
I think that the concept of something that is seriously prejudicial to the interests of Her Britannic Majesty—to the interests of the United Kingdom—will be understood. There will of course be an opportunity for a review of that through a court process—a judicial review—so the definition would be tested. My hon. Friend might not choose to rely on the abilities or understanding of future Home Secretaries, but I hope that he will see that there is a further safeguard.
I wish to reiterate—this is an important point—that that is the position the United Kingdom had prior to 2003, when the law was changed. It is the position that we are required to have under the United Nations convention. All that we are doing is returning our position to the scope of our declaration under that convention. It goes no further.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In response to an intervention, the Home Secretary said that at some point a stateless person’s position in the UK could be regularised, which is an interesting concept. If they became stateless, they would in the meantime presumably become destitute in this country, because they would not be eligible for access to any benefits or other aspects of society. Has she considered that, and are there any people in that situation at present?
Mrs May
The answer to the second question is that there are no people in that situation, because I have not been able to deprive anybody of their citizenship and therefore potentially make them stateless. That is the existing situation. If somebody is stateless and either does not apply for citizenship of another state despite having access or is denied permission to do so, but stays in the United Kingdom, we would have to look at the situation and at their immigration status. Crucially, their status would not attract the privileges of a British citizen—they would not be entitled to hold a British passport or to have full access to certain services—so they would therefore be in a different position from the one they were in when they held British citizenship.
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way for a second time. I understand what she is trying to do and I believe her when she says that she will use the powers only rarely, but she still has not answered this question: once she has taken away citizenship from someone in this country and they are stateless, how will she get them out of this country? We know full well that she is doing this because Jacqui Smith tried to get rid of al-Jedda and was not able to do so. That matter is still before the courts, and the right hon. Lady’s judgment will also be challenged in the courts. How will she get such people out once she has taken away their British passport and they have no travel documents?
Mrs May
The al-Jedda case went to the Supreme Court, which promulgated its verdict last October, which was when we started to look at how we could legislate and what vehicle we could use to remove people. That circumstance might apply to somebody in the United Kingdom or, as in that case, to someone outside it. The important point is that the process applies in cases where the individual could access the citizenship of another country, and it would be open to them to apply for such citizenship. That is the whole point.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for being very generous in giving way again. She may recall the case of Abu Hamza, who was an Egyptian citizen as well as a British one. Under the Government of Mubarak, the former President of Egypt, his Egyptian citizenship was withdrawn, leaving a very difficult case for this Government and, indeed, the previous one to deal with. The Home Secretary has surely come to the House with some figure in her mind of the number of those currently on the prison estate who might fall into the Abu Hamza category. I wondered what the number is.
Mrs May
My only comment on my hon. Friend’s request for figures is that he mentioned people on the prison estate. We are not necessarily talking about them, but the number of people involved is very limited. The number of cases of the particular type of deprivation of citizenship dealt with since the law was changed—I apologise for saying that that was in 2003, because the law was changed by the 2006 Act—is 27. Since 2006, 27 people have been deprived of citizenship under the conducive powers, which apply only when somebody would not be made stateless.
Mark Pritchard
For clarification, is it the Government’s position that someone considered under the new criterion would not need to have committed any criminal or terrorism-related offence, but could be walking around the streets of London right now?
Mrs May
Yes. People need not have been convicted of a particular offence to be deprived of their citizenship. On the numbers, it might be helpful for me to add that 13 people were deprived on grounds of fraud during the same period. Those are the sort of numbers that we are talking about.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been extraordinarily generous in giving way. I broadly support this measure, which addresses a small number of very serious cases, but can it be applied to somebody abroad at the time? If it can be so applied, how would any subsequent appeal handle sensitive intelligence material of the sort that clearly could not be allowed to go, for example, to Strasbourg?
Pete Wishart
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Is it not the case that she has not got a clue? She has brought forward the measure to prevent proceedings on what Conservative Members want to discuss and vote on. To say that this was concocted on the back of a fag packet would do a massive disservice to fag-packet speeches.
Mrs May
It is a bit rich of the Scottish National party to talk about not having a clue. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—I have said it before and I will say it again as many times as necessary—that we are giving effect to our declaration under the United Nations convention. That position applied in the United Kingdom until the previous Government changed the law in 2006, and we will return to that position.
Mr Cash
I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that the way in which the provision is expressed will give the Secretary of State enormous power. Effectively, it involves the opinion of the Secretary of State, which will make it largely non-justiciable. Given its width and the cases of which the Home Secretary has given examples, is there a danger that we might be regarded as a nasty party if we put this kind of provision into effect?
Michael Ellis
Despite the protestations and mock indignation of Labour Members—
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for actually listening to what I have said this afternoon. He is absolutely right. The previous Government changed the law because they were going to sign up to the new European convention on nationality, but they did not do so. We have not signed up to it, and we do not intend to do so. It is therefore right to take the law back to the previous position, which is that of our international obligation under the United Nations convention.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
May I press the Home Secretary on our international position under the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, to which we are a signatory? My understanding is that we would be required to seek a reservation from that convention. Is that correct, or does she plan that the UK should operate in contravention of it?
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady has been speaking for well over an hour and we are only a proportion of the way through the amendments in this group. Is this any way to make legislation?
Mrs May
The reason I have been on my feet for more than an hour is that I have been incredibly generous in taking interventions from Members in all parts of the House. This is an important Bill, which we must get right, and an important new clause. I am taking interventions on new clause 18 in particular because I recognise that Members have not had as long to consider it as they would perhaps have wished.
The Government have been considering the matter since we saw the result of the al-Jedda case. I specifically asked officials whether there was anything that we could do to ensure that we would be able to take action against people whose activities, particularly those related to terrorism, were seriously prejudicial to the state. Lo and behold, we discovered that had it not been for the law that the last Government passed, I would have been able to deprive al-Jedda of citizenship.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
As another naturalised British national, I fully support what the Home Secretary is doing. May I ask her for clarification? Five British nationals had their nationality taken away under the previous Government, and 16 had their nationality taken away under the current Government between 2010 and 2012. What has happened to those people? Have we been able to return them to their countries of origin? If not, is that why the Government are pushing forward with the new clause—so that we can do that in future?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In some cases we are able to return people, and we do a lot of work with other countries, through our agreements on deportation with assurances, to ensure that we can deport people elsewhere. Of course, there was a particular case in which we could not take such action against an individual because it would have rendered them stateless, notwithstanding the fact that they were in a position to apply for citizenship of another state.
Frank Dobson
It may be a fault in me that I did not understand the Home Secretary’s reply to my question earlier. Will she confirm that the child of someone who had acquired British citizenship would be subject to the law that she envisages?
Mrs May
I thought that I had provided some clarity in the answer that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. The law will be limited to naturalised citizens and will not apply to anybody who has British citizenship by any other means. The action would be taken against the naturalised British citizen, not their child.
Mrs May
I recognise that there are consequences, and they have been considered. The circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are if the child was in the United Kingdom and their parent was elsewhere conducting activity that was seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom. That would be considered on a case by case basis—there would not be a tick-box, mechanistic approach. All circumstances would be looked at in considering whether it was appropriate to apply the new power to an individual. There are safeguards within the proposal, such as the seriously prejudicial nature of the activity that an individual must have undertaken.
I had not quite finished my response to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) when I allowed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to intervene. I repeat the response that I gave earlier to the former: the law will apply only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who acquired citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act, such as those that provide for children to acquire British citizenship. I hope that I have perhaps made that clearer to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
Frank Dobson
If that is the case, what powers did the Home Secretary use to take citizenship away from my constituent Mahdi Hashi, who was then kidnapped by the Americans in Somalia and is now in court in New York?
Mrs May
I will not discuss an individual case, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about it, I will respond to him. I have set out the powers that I already have to deprive citizenship, which are twofold. The first circumstance is when somebody has acquired citizenship through deception or fraud, and the second is when somebody has acted in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to our national interest and they would not be rendered stateless as a result of the deprivation of their British citizenship.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Is this not just about getting rid of very bad people and preventing them from coming back to our country? Is that not the nub of what we are discussing?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the matter so succinctly and sensibly. This is about dealing with people whose behaviour is seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom, and I would have thought that we all wanted to ensure that the Government had the appropriate powers to do that.
Dr Huppert
The Home Secretary is doing sterling work in taking interventions on new clause 18. May I thank her for coming to talk to Liberal Democrat colleagues about it? I understand what she is trying to achieve with it, but I still have a number of concerns. She places great reliance on the point that the people affected will be able to get another citizenship. Does she think it is likely that somebody who is in this country and has been deprived of citizenship will find it easy to go to another country and say, “Here is my background. Britain has just stripped me of citizenship. Could I have yours, please?” Or will we just find those people stuck in this country and unable to leave?
Mrs May
As I made absolutely clear, if somebody was in a position to acquire other citizenship, I would expect them to attempt to do so. As I indicated earlier, there may be circumstances in which somebody remains stateless, in which case our international obligations to those who are stateless would kick in, and we would abide by them.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have spent some time looking at cases in which people have been deprived of citizenship, many of whom were abroad. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is reasonable for the judicial review clock to start ticking at the point when the person affected becomes aware that such a decision has been taken rather at the time when it is taken? There is a three-month limit on applying for judicial review of the decision, and to allow proper consideration that clock should start ticking when the person in question becomes aware of it.
Mark Pritchard
The Home Secretary will know that I, along with many other Members across the House, have championed refugees being allowed to come to the UK in some numbers. As she will know, in the case of Syria, there is a national security issue relating to British nationals with either single or dual citizenship returning to this country and possibly causing problems here. How quickly does she believe the new law will be in place, and does she believe it should apply to nationals and dual nationals coming back to the UK from Syria?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of people who may have trained and fought in Syria potentially coming back here radicalised and with the desire to do us harm. I am sure that is a matter of concern throughout the House. As I have indicated, I believe the power in question would be exercised in a limited number of cases, but it is important that the Government have it. As I have said, they had it until about 10 years ago, then the law was changed to reduce their ability to take action against those acting in a way that comes under the definition of “seriously prejudicial” to us. It is important that we have such a power, but I am not in a position to say to my hon. Friend that I will suddenly use it in a number of circumstances. The power will be used on a case-by-case basis, but, as I have indicated, I expect that it will be used in a very limited number of circumstances.
I will conclude my remarks on new clause 18 by stating again that it is consistent with our obligations under international law and, as I have said, it was a power we had for most of the past century. It is a carefully constructed measure designed to give effect to our declaration under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, but it goes no further. My officials, together with those from other relevant Departments and in consultation with our in-House legal advisers, conduct the research and provide a recommendation on each case, but these are decisions that I—or, on the rare occasions I am not available, another Secretary of State—will review and sign off personally. The persons subject to provisions in the new clause will continue to be afforded an independent right of appeal, retaining an avenue of judicial redress. This is not about arbitrarily depriving people of their citizenship; it is a targeted policy that will be used sparingly against very dangerous individuals who have brought such action upon themselves through terrorist-related acts. I urge the House to conclude that new clause 18 is a proportionate and necessary measure.
New clause 13 stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and I will wait to hear what he says and respond to the issues he raises. New clause 15 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I will make a few comments about it. I respect the fact that he will speak about his own new clause, so at this point I will not go into all the detail but will simply set out a few points.
I think we are all agreed across the House—this is one of the things the Bill tries to do—that we want to enhance the ability of our country to deport foreign criminals from the United Kingdom where it is appropriate to do so. The Government have taken a simple position on article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which is that our judiciary have not been interpreting it in the way we believe it should be interpreted, because it is a qualified right in the European convention itself. Having changed the immigration rules, and that not having had the effect we desired, we are now putting it into primary legislation and ensuring that we clarify absolutely what the qualified interpretation of article 8 should be in relation to the Government’s ability to remove people from the United Kingdom. I believe that is an important change that the public, as well as Members of the House, would wish us to put through. It is right that the Government are taking this opportunity to include that measure in the Bill. We all have a shared desire to ensure that we enhance our ability to deport foreign criminals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has tabled a new clause that would amend the Bill, but I think that some aspects of it would not strengthen our ability to deport foreign criminals, but could actually weaken it. Other aspects of the language he uses might indeed strengthen our proposals.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way as there are many things to discuss in this group of amendments. Has she received any formal advice from the Attorney-General or her departmental lawyers that the new clause would be compatible with the European convention on human rights?
Mrs May
The advice I have received is that it is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. I am concerned with other aspects of the new clause because I believe that in a number of areas it weakens the Government’s proposals in relation to article 8. I am also concerned about the practical application of the new clause, because in reality I think we would effectively hinder our ability to deport people for a period of time because there would be considerable legal wrangling about the issue.
Mrs May
I am making a few comments about the new clause. I would like to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton speak about it and hear whether he intends to press it to a vote.
I think that where children are involved the new clause weakens the Bill, and as I have said, there are concerns about how the measure would operate and its practical implications. I think it would lead to circumstances in which—potentially for a significant period of time—we would not be able to deport people who otherwise we would be able to deport.
Sarah Teather
Given the strong line the Home Secretary has taken on trafficking, how does she feel about the exclusion of article 4 of the European convention on human rights from the new clause?
Mrs May
I have indeed taken a strong line on trafficking, but the exclusion of certain other articles of the convention in the new clause is one of the aspects that makes it incompatible with that convention and raises the issue of how it would operate. I have already indicated that I think the new clause is incompatible with the European convention, and I am raising some of the other practical issues that I think would be its impact. I think we will find it harder to deport people because of some aspects of the new clause, and that more cases will go to the European Court as that would become the first decision maker in a number of cases. There would be considerable litigation in the domestic courts if we found ourselves seeking to remove someone contrary to a rule 39 indication. Those are practical issues about whether we can deport individuals.
I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, and others, about our ability to deport foreign criminals, and in relation to the European convention on human rights. I have said on many occasions that it is necessary for the Government to determine and sort out our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, and as far as I am concerned, nothing should be off the table in doing that. Today we are considering a Bill that will deal with the deportation of foreign criminals.
Yasmin Qureshi
Again, will the Secretary of State’s party support new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab)?
Mrs May
I am sorry, but I answered that question earlier. I said that I will respond to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton makes, and see whether he moves the new clause. I will make the Government’s position clear to the House. [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Lady believes that debate in the House is important. I am therefore sure she agrees that listening to hon. Members is also important.
As I have said, the Bill puts in place stronger practical arrangements that will enable us to deport more foreign criminals, which all hon. Members want.
Dr Huppert
It looks like the Home Secretary is nearing a conclusion, but may I press her on amendment 74, which I have tabled, and which would write into law the Government’s achievement of ending child detention for immigration purposes? The Immigration Minister has said that he would come back to that. Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress? Will the Government accept my amendment or come up with a better drafted version?
Mrs May
The Government accept the principle of my hon. Friend’s point. We propose to reinforce the commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes by putting key elements of the family returns process into primary legislation. That will involve providing a statutory prohibition on the detention of children within immigration removals centres, subject to the exceptions agreed in 2010, which continue to be Government policy; providing families with children a minimum of a 28-day reflection period following the exhaustion of appeal rights against a removal before their enforced removal; placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to appoint an independent family returns panel to advise on the best interests of the child in every case in which enforced return is proposed; and providing a separate legal basis for pre-departure accommodation independent of other immigration detention facilities. Our intention is to introduce those amendments in Committee in the House of Lords. I hope that covers my hon. Friend’s concerns on ending child detention for immigration purposes.
Simon Danczuk
The right hon. Lady will be familiar with the two Rochdale grooming cases. The country of origin of some of the perpetrators of those horrific crimes is not the UK. Will the Bill make things easier? Will she assure me and the people of Rochdale that, under the Bill, those who committed those crimes can be sent back to their country of origin?
Mrs May
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee on any specific case, but the Bill will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It clarifies the interpretation of article 8 in a way that will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It ensures that foreign criminals can be deported first, unless there are particular circumstances in the country to which they are going, and appeal against their deportation afterwards. However, on people who have been convicted of a crime and who are in our prison estate, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is working hard with Home Office immigration enforcement people to ensure that we can remove more foreign criminals to their country of origin in a number of ways, such as through prison transfer agreements.
The House shares the concern that we should be able to deport more foreign criminals. The Bill strengthens our ability to do that. I would not wish to see it weakened in any way. As I have said, I have concerns with some aspects of new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, because it could weaken our ability to deport more foreign criminals. However, I recognise that he has sought to strengthen the language in the Bill. The public want an immigration Bill that strengthens our ability to deport foreign criminals to get through Parliament. That is a shared aim. I believe that that is what the Bill, as drafted, does.
Mr Hanson
The Home Secretary spoke for just over an hour and a half, but at the end of her contribution I am still not clear on key aspects of the Government’s proposals. I am not clear whether the Government as a whole have a united position on them. Do the Liberal Democrat members of the Government have a different view? The interesting proposals in new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), are yet to be considered the Government in a full and frank way.
I want to mention measures on which I agree with the Government, as the Bill does contain measures that the official Opposition support. On new clause 11, the Home Secretary has our full support for her proposals to tackle sham marriages. Sham marriage is a serious problem. The Home Office estimates that 4,000 to 10,000 applications to stay in the UK each year are based on sham marriage or sham civil partnership—the Minister for Crime Prevention and I discussed this extensively in Committee. That is a significant number of cases and action is needed.
New clause 11 deals with the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which the Opposition raised in Committee, and contains measures we support. We can support the measures on same-sex marriage, on which we sought clarification in Committee. New clause 11 is welcome, and the Opposition support it.
As I have mentioned, we have four and a half hours for the debate. The Home Secretary took one third of that time for her opening contribution. She explained the issues, and I look forward in due course to listening to hon. Members’ concerns. I will try to take less time than her, but I have some things to say.
I reach out a hand of friendship on new clause 12. The Opposition will not oppose it today. It is reasonable to try to recoup charges from individuals who use our services, but we might disagree with the Government, because we believe we need to improve those services. As the Home Secretary has recognised, we need to ensure that the charges do not deter the brightest and best, and those with skills, from coming to work here to create jobs and growth in our economy. We need to ensure that they do not deter students. I am afraid that Government policies currently deter students from coming to the UK. We need to ensure that we do not turn away people who will contribute strongly to our community. The tourism economy is particularly important. We need to ensure that the level of charges, which we will discuss shortly, does not damage investment in our economy through tourism.
The Opposition have three concerns. The Home Secretary devoted around 45 minutes to new clause 18. I accept and understand that it deals with a serious problem. We are dealing with people who are undertaking activities—terrorism—that are of great concern to the state. Having been a Home Office Minister in the previous Government dealing with terrorism and counter-terrorism activity, I understand the need to examine those matters. I should tell the Home Secretary clearly that it is not acceptable, at least as far as the Opposition are concerned, to bring a major new clause to deal with that to the House 24 hours before the debate on Report and Third Reading. We have only four and a half hours to debate important issues, including European accession—the Opposition and the Government have different views on that, but it is valid to discuss them—new clause 15 and the concerns of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton. I tell the Home Secretary that that is not the way to discuss sensitive issues such as taking steps to deprive individuals of their citizenship.
I have listened to what the Home Secretary has said on a number of measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has concerns. Others, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and, dare I say it, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) have raised pertinent issues of concern. However, we have less than three hours to reach conclusions on these major measures.
Mr Hanson
My objective is the same, I think, as the Home Secretary’s, which is to protect the British people from potential terrorist activity at home and abroad. That is a key joint objective.
New clause 18 raises complex issues on which a range of individuals will have a view, but on which there has been no consultation outside the House. Let us look at the manuscript amendments and consider whether we could tighten up the process so that we are all content, and we will reserve judgment until we reach another place, at which point I hope we can reach a conclusion that meets our objectives.
Mrs May
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the time to consider the new clause, and I am happy for the Government to have discussions with him to set out in more detail how it would operate. On that basis, I hope he will consider not moving his manuscript amendments, although obviously, following those discussions, the Opposition could come back to them in another place, if they felt it necessary.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her accommodation, and obviously we will reflect on her comments. This is an important issue, which is why we tabled the manuscript amendment. It is unusual for such amendments to be taken, so—I should have done this before—I would like to thank Mr Speaker for accepting it at this late stage. We tabled it so late simply because the new clause was also tabled late.
Mrs May
If I may, I will make a triaged intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. To clarify, all I said was that I had received legal advice. It is not the practice for Ministers to say in this House whether legal advice has come from the Attorney-General or from other sources. I am absolutely clear from the legal advice that I received that new clause 15 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
In answer to my hon. Friend, the advice from the Home Office is absolutely clear that a rule 39 injunction would be less likely to be imposed where the decision had undertaken a balancing act in considering the issues. That is precisely what the Bill allows. My hon. Friend’s new clause does not allow that. That is why rule 39 would be more likely to be used under his proposal.
Mr Raab
I thank the Home Secretary for her intervention. I have the memo that I received in front of me. I will read from it so that there is no doubt and so that hon. Members can make up their minds. It states that it is clear from the case law that
“it would only be in exceptional cases that an interim measure would be granted in an A8 case.”
It goes on to say:
“I can’t say whether there has ever been a Rule 39 in a UK A8 case, but it is obviously rare.”
It goes on to say, because I was asking the question in relation to the Government’s clauses:
“we do not expect interim measures under Rule 39 to be issued routinely, if at all.”
I do not want to engage in a clash of legal opinions here, although the Attorney-General is free to intervene on me, but I say briefly in response to the Home Secretary that there is nothing in the limited case law of Strasbourg to suggest that the Bill and the new clause that I have tabled are different. One never gets such precision from the Strasbourg Court and I do not think that that is what the Home Secretary meant.
Caroline Lucas
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We have heard thoughtful and powerful speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I want to link my views with those of the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who made a compelling and well-informed case about the cruel, counter-productive and ill thought out nature of the Bill. I also associate myself with the views of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who spoke with his customary eloquence and reminded us that we should be under no illusion that this miserable Bill has very little to do with national security, but everything to do with out-toughing UKIP. No one would argue that our immigration system does not need fixing or that it is not blighted by inefficiency and error, yet rather than taking positive steps to fix the problems, the Government have brought forward proposals that will drive standards down, not up.
All the amendments in the group that I support would make the immigration system fairer and more accountable, such as amendment 1, which would delete clause 11. It is important that we support that amendment because the latest figures reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry-clearance applications were successfully appealed last year, yet the Government’s depressing response to that large margin of error is not to try to improve the quality of decision making, but to reduce the opportunities for challenge by slashing the scope for appeal.
Amendment 79 was tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke movingly about it, and co-signed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The basis of clause 3 is utterly flawed, given that it sets out the idea that directions for removal within 14 days are somehow sufficient grounds to assume that bail should not be granted. On any common-sense analysis, there are factors that bluntly challenge that assumption. Plenty of people suffering from psychological or physical illnesses, or who have been bereaved or have caring responsibilities, should not be detained, but will not be able properly to challenge that detention.
I support amendment 60, which would retain the status quo on the use of force, not least because there are serious gaps in the training provided on the exercise of force, especially regarding the use of restraint techniques, by immigration officers and contractors. That is just one reason why it is completely unjustifiable that the Government are extending the use of force without any reference to the type of power exercised and the necessity of that force, and without parliamentary scrutiny.
I get the sense that you would like me to conclude my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall oblige, but let me simply say that this is a miserable Bill and that I hope the House will take every opportunity to vote against it.
Mrs May
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised. I do not agree with the manuscript amendments to new clause 18 that were tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). It is right for the Secretary of State, as someone who is democratically accountable, to take the initial decision, but I confirm that there will be a full right of appeal, so a judicial process will apply. I accept that the Opposition have concerns about the new clause, so I will be happy for the Minister for Immigration to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman and go through his concerns before the provision is considered by the other place. I hope that that will be of benefit to him and that it brings him some comfort.
I stress again that I strongly support the intention behind new clause 15, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Everyone in the House wants to ensure that we can deport more foreign criminals, but it is absolutely clear that the provision, as drafted, is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Crucially, it would weaken at least two aspects of the Bill, given that it does not deal with persistent offenders who have been subject to sentences of less than 12 months. I am also worried that it provides for an exception to apply when a child has not lived in the country for a significant time and does not have a relationship with their parent. Our Bill requires that a child must be British, that they must have lived in the country for a particular period of time, and that there must be a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. Given its drafting, the new clause would cause problems in the sort of cases that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talked about.
There are also concerns that the drafting of the new clause would lead to a number of rule 39 cases. However, I recognise that there are issues—the right hon. Gentleman said this—with some of the language in the new clause, which we can consider and come back to. As drafted, I do not think that it is appropriate, but Conservative Ministers will abstain from the vote.
I said that I would mention rule 39, on which I intervened earlier. The reasons why I am concerned that the amendment would lead to fewer deportations are: first, because the language in the amendment in relation to children would lead to significant litigation; and secondly, because although article 8, under the current system, does not lead to rule 39 orders—
Mrs May
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a considerable and lively discussion today. I thank all who have contributed to the Bill during its various stages so far, particularly those who steered it through the Committee stage: the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and the Minister for Crime Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). Indeed, I am grateful for the hard work that was done by all members of the Committee.
Let me remind the House why the Bill is so necessary. It will bring clarity, fairness and integrity to the immigration system, and will address long-standing problems that have prevented the effective operation of immigration controls. It will do that by ensuring that those who are refused permission to stay are required to leave the country, and know that they must do so; by streamlining the appeals system to reduce the scope for playing the system; by ensuring that foreign criminals can be deported first and appeal afterwards, unless there is a real risk of serious irreversible harm; and by ensuring that courts must have regard to the will of Parliament when considering article 8 in immigration cases.
The Bill will make it more difficult for illegal migrants to live in the United Kingdom by denying access to the tools of everyday life. That will include giving landlords a duty to check the immigration status of tenants and imposing penalties on rogue landlords, and denying illegal migrants access to bank accounts and driving licences. We will also strengthen the enforcement of penalties for employers of illegal workers. The Bill reinforces controls to counter sham marriages and sham civil partnerships, conferring new powers and duties, and it will ensure that temporary legal migrants contribute to our national health service.
Ms Abbott
I accept the Home Secretary’s wish to clean up the system and discourage people from “playing” it—I deal with thousands of immigration cases every month—but has she given no thought to the effect that her measures that are designed to crack down on illegal immigrants could have on people who are British nationals, but appear as if they might be immigrants?
Mrs May
We have given a great deal of thought to the way in which our measures will operate. The changes that we propose will strengthen our ability to deal with those who are here illegally. We are, for example, strengthening our ability to enforce penalties for those who employ illegal workers. The system enabling employers to determine whether the workers whom they employ are here legally or not is in place, is well known and is running properly, and the same will apply in the other areas that we are discussing.
The Bill will also help to discharge the Government’s commitment to introduce exit checks on people leaving the UK in order to tackle overstaying and prevent people from fleeing British justice.
Let me now go into a little more detail, although not too much, because I know that others wish to speak. The Bill substantially reforms the removals system, and ensures that illegal migrants who have no right to be in the UK can be returned to their own countries more quickly. We inherited a complex system involving multiple stages before an individual can be removed, allowing numerous challenges to be issued during the process. The Bill will ensure that we adopt a system whereby only one decision is made. Individuals will be informed of that decision, and if the decision is that they can no longer stay in the UK, immigration enforcement officials will be allowed to remove them if they do not leave of their own accord. The Bill also reforms the system whereby illegal migrants held in detention centres are allowed to apply for bail, and it gives immigration officers stronger powers so that they can establish the identity of illegal immigrants by checking fingerprints and searching for passports.
The current appeals system is also very complex. There are 17 different immigration decisions that attract rights of appeal, but the Bill will cut that number to four, which I think will prevent abuse of the appeal process. It will also ensure that appeals address only fundamental rights. It will make it easier to deport foreign criminals by requiring individuals to appeal from abroad after deportation, unless they face the prospect of serious harm.
Sarah Teather
I do not intend to make a speech, because I know that others wish to speak, but an issue that has not been mentioned at all today is health. The organisation Doctors of the World, whose clinic I visited last week, is very worried about the Bill’s impact on those who do not have residence status. Such people are often extremely vulnerable, and many have been trafficked.
Mrs May
The hon. Lady has raised a number of concerns about aspects of the Bill, and has indicated her objection to it overall. A number of the changes that we are making relate to migrants’ access to services, but I think that the issues to which she has just referred are within the purview of the Department of Health, and are therefore not relevant to the Bill.
We are strengthening our ability to deal with cases in which it has not been possible to deport foreign criminals because they have had recourse to an argument relating to article 8. That is a qualified right under the European convention, and we are now putting it into primary legislation. We expect the courts to respond appropriately.
We will require migrants who will be here temporarily to pay a surcharge so that they contribute to the NHS. I think that most hard-working people would agree that that is appropriate. We have improved our ability to deal with sham marriages.
The deprivation of citizenship is an important new power. As I indicated to the shadow Minister for Immigration, we are happy to discuss with him the full impact of that power. The Minister for Immigration will have those discussions with him. What we are doing meets our international obligations and will strengthen our ability to deal with those who wish to act in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the UK.
The Government are getting to grips with immigration. Net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010. Net migration from outside the EU is down to 140,000 and is at its lowest level since 1998. The reduction is being driven by cuts in the number of people coming to this country. In 2013, there were nearly 100,000 fewer people immigrating to the UK than in 2010.
We are making good progress with our reforms. We are transforming the immigration and border system. We have abolished the UK Border Agency, established two new operational commands, tightened immigration routes where abuse was rife, strengthened the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK, reformed the family visa system, and set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants who are admitted to the UK. All those reforms are working well and are doing much to tackle the chaotic and dysfunctional system that we inherited from the previous Government, but we need to go further.
The Bill will build on our achievements. It will ensure that immigration serves our economic interests and that our system commands the respect of the British public, who need and deserve an immigration system that is fair, reasonable and measured. I commend the Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper
I am going to make some progress, because time is very tight.
The Home Secretary has become terrified of her own legislation. Even though Parliament has had hardly any business, she has kept the Bill away from the House and has then tried to rush it through in four hours today. We have had just four hours to debate a series of important amendments. On our proposals to tackle the impact of immigration on jobs and growth, and to take stronger action on the minimum wage and agencies that exploit immigration, there has been no debate today. On the proposals of Tory Back Benchers on Bulgaria and Romania, there has been no debate today. On the workability of the housing proposals, there has been no debate today. On the fairness of the appeal proposals, there has been no debate today. A series of amendments has been tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but none of them has been debated today.
What have we had instead? The Home Secretary pulled out of her hat, at the last minute, a new power on citizenship, with no consultation and no scrutiny, in a desperate attempt to distract her own party, but it failed. She then stood up for an hour and a half—I have to admire her resilience—to kill time, without even knowing what her position was on the key new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).
Justice and Home Affairs Council
Theresa May Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Informal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 23 and 24 January in Athens. I attended the interior day on 24 January on behalf of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was unable to attend the justice day due to commitments in Parliament, but he was represented by a senior official. The following items were discussed.
The justice day began with a discussion of the future development of the justice and home affairs area. There was widespread support among member states for implementation and consolidation of existing EU legislation, mutual recognition, exploiting new technologies, and greater coherence between internal and external EU justice and home affairs activities. Fundamental rights and minimum criminal procedural standards were also a theme for many member states. The UK supported concentrating on the implementation of existing EU law rather than creating new legislation, and argued against further harmonisation. The presidency concluded that mutual recognition should remain the basis of judicial co-operation and that existing legislation needed to be implemented and codified. It also said that there was a need to make full use of e-Justice and new technologies, and to have much greater coherence between internal and external EU JHA work.
Next, the Commission set out its package of measures on procedural rights in criminal law. The chair of the European Parliament’s LIBE Committee said the package would be a priority for the new European Parliament. There were mixed views from those member states who spoke in response, with support expressed in principle but some concerns raised about the detail of what the package would mean in practice.
Over lunch, the presidency asked for views on the proposed amendments to the European small claims procedure regulation. The UK joined the majority of member states in agreeing that the threshold should rise but there was a difference of opinion about what the new level should be. Most also agreed with the greater use of electronic communication methods, provided member states retained some discretion in their use. Although not raised by the presidency, some member states also expressed concerns about the proposed changes to the cross-border restriction and the introduction of a cap on fees.
After lunch there was a discussion on data protection and the issue of international transfers of personal data. There was broad support among member states for the principle of extending the rights of EU residents to third countries where possible but also concern among some delegations, including the UK, about the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism outside the EU, the potential for controllers to be confronted by conflicting legal obligations and a lack of certainty for data subjects about their precise rights. The UK maintained that the focus of effort should be on chapter 5 of the draft regulation, and its rules on international data transfers which are enforceable within the EU. Nonetheless, the presidency concluded that Justice Ministers agreed to the geographical scope of the proposed regulation while highlighting that there were issues about enforceability outside the EU. Further discussions will now take place at the technical level.
The interior day began with the presidency referring to the tragedy earlier in the week off the island of Farmakonisi in which a number of migrants died. The Commission (Malmström) expressed its concern about the loss of life.
The first session concentrated on terrorism and border security, including links between terrorism and border security, the “smart borders” package and preventing the movement of fighters to and from conflict zones.
The Commission also described the content of its communication on countering radicalisation and violent extremism. Member states and the EU’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator (De Kerchove) broadly welcomed the communication. A large number of member states stressed the importance of making progress on EU passenger name records (PNR) and called upon the European Parliament to unblock it.
The UK argued that EU PNR was essential to enable authorities to track the movements of terrorists across borders. The UK also suggested that other member states consider a system using advance passenger information (API) data to implement a “no fly” system, as we do. On smart borders, the UK stressed the need for joined up co-operation with third countries, in particular Turkey. Finally, the UK offered to share its experience of legislation to prevent people travelling to conflict zones for terrorist purposes.
The Commission stated that it intends to review the implementation of the framework decision on terrorism. Several member states were willing to look at amending the EU’s legislation on terrorism, in particular in the light of new legislation at national level.
The presidency concluded by calling for the use of all available tools to combat terrorism, in particular EU PNR and better use of the SIS II system; the smart borders package and better co-operation with third countries also needed to be stepped up.
The second session focused on the future development of the JHA area where the presidency introduced its paper and underlined the importance it attached to the strategic guidelines being clear about the need for burden sharing in the migration field, and solidarity with those member states under the most pressure.
The Commission said that the strategic guidelines on the future of the JHA area needed to take account of a range of new security and migration challenges. There was also a need to step up work on counter radicalisation and a number of serious crime areas, including trafficking in human beings and cybercrime. The European Asylum Support Office had an important role in supporting some member states to deal with excessive pressures on their systems. These issues would be considered in more depth at DG Home’s conference on the future of the JHA area on 29 and 30 January.
The UK highlighted that burden sharing was not the solution and that it would simply increase the pull factor. Nor should we call into question the Dublin system, which had only recently been strengthened. Instead, there was a need to strengthen the external border and reduce illegal immigration into the EU through practical co-operation, with a focus on returns and reducing abuse of migration and asylum systems. The UK stated that future JHA priorities should include better exchange of criminal records as well as action to tackle trafficking in human beings and modem slavery, where the UK was introducing new legislation.
The UK argued that the strategic guidelines should address the issue of abuse of free movement; in particular the way in which illegal third country migrants and criminals exploit free movement to circumvent controls on immigration. This was core JHA business and had previously been covered in the Stockholm programme.
In conclusion, the presidency called upon the Commission to listen to member states’ views in preparing its communication. There would be a further discussion at the March JHA Council.