Public Disorder
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 9 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 this House has considered the matter of Public Disorder.
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that in view of the enormous interest in the debate I have imposed a limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. There is no limit on Front-Bench speeches and I leave it to the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary to tailor contributions in the light of the level of interest.
Mrs May
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The last five days have been a dark time for everybody who cares about their community and their country. Violence, arson and looting in several of our towns and cities, often openly in front of television cameras, have destroyed homes, ruined livelihoods and taken lives. As long as we wish to call ourselves a civilised society, such disorder has no place in Britain.
I know that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the bravery of the policemen and women who have worked to restore order on our streets. In particular, I know that hon. Members will want to lend their support to the police officers who have suffered injuries in the course of their duties, and the whole House will want to send condolences to the families of the three men so senselessly killed in Birmingham on Tuesday night.
The violence of the last five days raises many searching questions, and the answers may be painful to hear and difficult to put right. Why is it that so many people are prepared to behave in this way? Why does a violent gang culture exist in so many of our towns and cities? Why did the police find it so hard to prevent or contain the violence? It will take time to answer those questions fully and adequately, but I will take each of them in turn.
First are the reasons behind that behaviour. We must never forget that the only cause of a crime is a criminal. Everybody, no matter what their background or circumstances, has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Those who make the wrong decision, who engage in criminality, must be identified, arrested and punished, and we will make sure that happens.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Lady not recognise what the Prime Minister said earlier? Every crime has a context. Is it not important, therefore, to have a full and proper inquiry, led by somebody of the level and competence of Lord Scarman, to look at the wider context of all these events? Of course, as the Home Secretary says, stating the blindingly obvious, the acts are the responsibility of those who committed them.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister exactly the same question, and he gave a very clear answer. The Home Affairs Committee will consider the policing of the violence that has taken place over the past five days, and I will bring a report on gang culture and the number of gangs in our society—I will make further reference to it—to the House in October.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I commend the points that my right hon. Friend has made in opening the debate. Does she share the concern relayed by a number of hon. Members about the soft sentences for such disorder passed in the cases that have already gone through the courts? Does she share my concern that, although we talk about riots, the number of people charged with riot is very small? As these were riots, whoever is charged with an offence during the nights of disorder should punished accordingly.
Mrs May
We have been clear in encouraging those who are making decisions about charging and, indeed, those who will make sentencing decisions in the courts to consider these crimes in the context of the circumstances. My hon. Friend refers to the fact that no one has been charged with the very specific offence of riot. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are making the right charging decisions, in the context of ensuring that they recognise the impact that people being on the streets can have.
No one doubts that the violence that we have seen over the past five days is a symptom of something very deeply wrong with our society. Children celebrated as they smashed their way into shops. Men in sports cars arrived at stores to steal goods. Women tried on trainers before they stole them. A teaching assistant was caught looting. Thugs pretended to help a injured young man but robbed him. They are shocking images, but they are in fact symbols of a deeper malaise in our society.
Almost 2 million children are brought up in households in which no one works. One in three children leaves primary school unable to read, write and add up properly. We have the highest level of drug abuse in Europe. Almost 100 knife crimes are committed every day and nearly 1 million violent crimes every year. Half of all prisoners reoffend within a year of their release from prison. Those are serious social problems, and we cannot go on ignoring them. No one is pretending that there are easy answers to such deep-rooted problems, but they are the reasons why the reform of welfare, schools and the criminal justice system cannot wait.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady lays out the context of the difficult role that faces our police. In that context, is it not bizarre that the Government should choose to make such swingeing cuts to the Home Office budget and particularly to the police budget, in comparison with other budgets that have survived relatively intact? Why does she not fight her corner and ensure that we have enough police on the streets to do the job?
Mrs May
I am clear that there will be enough police on the streets to do the job that we and the public want them to do, and that police officers want to do. I say to any other Opposition Member who wants to make a similar point that I listened to the previous statement and it is now absolutely clear that the Labour party has abandoned any pretence of having a credible policy to deal with the deficit.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister said this morning that, all of sudden, the Met could turn out 16,000 people in a day, rather than the previous 6,000 or whatever the figure was. That does not take into account all the other policemen and women from all the other forces. How many Met police were in fact turned out, and how many came from other forces?
Mrs May
A significant number did indeed come from other forces. I do not want to give the right hon. Gentleman figures that are incorrect, so I will get the precise figures for him. It is right that the 16,000 figure that the Prime Minister spoke about included mutual aid from other forces. I pay tribute to all the forces around the United Kingdom that have been willing to provide support and trained police support units.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Is it also the right hon. Lady’s understanding that if a police authority has had to dip into its contingency fund to pay any of the additional costs of high police visibility, which we all understand have to be met, it will be recompensed—that there is no question of police authorities having to expend the money themselves?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman has been involved in home affairs long enough to know that a scheme is available under which police forces can make special requests to the Home Office in relation to specific expenses that they have had to incur. There are some rules on how the scheme operates but, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are committed to providing support to police authorities, and therefore police forces, in relation to the financial implications of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. As the House will be aware, those costs could be significant, given the events on our streets.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Barbara Keeley
Apropos police budgets, will the right hon. Lady comment on what it has been reported she was told by Greater Manchester police about what happened on Tuesday:
“We really didn’t have the staff, protection or resources to deal with it. I find it really, really frustrating and really worrying that people could have got killed.”
So overstretched were our officers in Greater Manchester, particularly in Salford, that apparently they reported to the Home Secretary that they could have been killed. It is not only Labour Members who are saying this; it is police officers, as well.
Mrs May
I was pleased to visit Greater Manchester police yesterday and to sit down with some of the officers—the most highly trained riot officers—who had been on the front line in Salford on Tuesday night. One of the most striking comments made by an officer was that he had looked up into the sky and it was dark because it was raining bricks. They were under extreme pressure that night, facing violence of a ferocity that they had not seen before. There were times in Salford when the police did not have sufficient numbers to deal with what was happening on the street, and they had to retreat and regroup both for their personal protection and to make sure that they could do their proper job of protection on the streets.
I can inform the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who asked how many of the 16,000 officers in London were Metropolitan Police Service officers, that more than 90% were.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
I said I wanted to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), whose constituency was affected, rose earlier. If he still wishes to intervene, I will take his intervention next.
Andrew Miller
Following the right hon. Lady’s reply to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who speaks for the Welsh nationalists, can she give similar figures for Manchester and Liverpool, which also drew on resources from surrounding forces? We heard earlier about injuries sustained by Cheshire officers, for example. I think the figures ought to published and made available to everyone.
Mrs May
I could provide a map of where officers went around the country, but it was not a matter of simple exchanges between one force and another. Officers from one force will have gone to support another, with subsequent backfilling by officers from a further force. The whole point of the ACPO PNICC—police national information co-ordination centre—arrangement is that such movements around the country can be worked so that when a force asks for numbers to be increased, officers are available. The key element is that the officers in question are mainly in police support units—officers who are specially trained in public order—thereby ensuring that the officers on the streets have the right level of training.
Frank Dobson
In response to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Home Secretary said that no one had been charged with riot because the particular circumstances of riot had not arisen, or the charge was inappropriate. Will she confirm that that fact will not be used by the Metropolitan police to weasel out of providing the compensation that should be provided under the Riot (Damages) Act?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My constituency was badly affected on Monday. I wanted to ask about the police cuts. The Prime Minister told us earlier that the budget cuts could be managed with no reductions in visible policing. As the Home Secretary knows, in London a large number of police sergeants are being taken out the leadership of safer neighbourhoods teams in a very visible way. Are we to take it that the Government think there is a different way of managing cuts in London from the one that is being implemented?
Mrs May
No. We are leaving police forces, as is appropriate, together with their police authorities, to decide in relation to budget what will happen. We are leaving chief constables to make operational decisions about how they do that. What is absolutely clear in relation to the Metropolitan police is that under the leadership of the previous Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police increased the availability of police in terms of the number of hours that would be spent and the amount of ground that could be covered by moving to the single patrols. They said, “There is a different way of doing this.” That is a good example of how such an innovative approach can improve the presence on the ground.
I shall now move on to the question of gang culture in many of our towns and cities. Six per cent. of young people are thought to belong to a gang of one kind or another. Gangs are inherently criminal. On average, entrenched gang members have 11 criminal convictions, and the average age for the first conviction of a gang member is just 15. They are also inherently violent. Gangs across the country are involved in the use and supply of drugs, firearms and knives. From talking to chief constables who have dealt with the violence of the past few days, it is clear that many of the perpetrators, but by no means all of them, are known gang members. So we have to do more to tackle gang culture.
We have already announced plans to provide £4 million in funding to London, Greater Manchester and the west midlands over the course of this year and next to tackle their gang, guns and knives problem. We are providing a further £4 million over two years to community organisations working to stop young people becoming involved in gangs, help young people get out of gangs and support parents to help their children, and we are working with the Prince’s Trust to support young people who want to prevent gang violence, through the new Ben Kinsella fund.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is clear that many of the perpetrators of these appalling crimes have been very young children indeed, and we know the limitations of the criminal law in relation to detention for young offenders who are under 14. Does my right hon. Friend agree that efforts to use restorative justice principles with young offenders, making them face up to the victims of their crimes and making them play their part in restoring the damage that they have done would be a good way to divert those young children from further involvement in the gang culture and in the crimes that we have seen?
Mrs May
I have long been a supporter of restorative justice where it is going to work. That is one of the key issues that we need to look at when we consider what is an appropriate way of dealing with individuals. Restorative justice has a record of dealing particularly well with those who are young and first offenders. However, sadly, it may be the case that even at a very young age, some of the people we are looking at who have been involved in the violence are not simply first offenders. It is a sad comment on our society that there may be those who have been involved as gang members in criminal activity previously. But we need to do more.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful. Does the Home Secretary accept that the evidence from the police and the community in urban communities such as mine is that there are 40 or 50 serial serious criminals who are regularly the causes of most of the trouble and most of the crime, and who were involved in the past week’s activities? Will chief police officers and local police commanders assure us that such criminals are a central target for activity, so that they cannot sweep in the youngsters referred to in the previous question and others, who become the followers, but are following only because there is someone seriously criminal who leads?
Mrs May
I assure my right hon. Friend that the police are very clear that they want to identify and arrest all those who have been involved over the past few days, and they are conscious that that means not just those who find themselves caught up in it but the core criminals, who are well known to them. As a number of chief constables have been saying to me, they know a number of the gang members who have been involved because they have had interaction with them before.
Mrs May
I hope that hon. Members will bear with me and allow me to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the time available for the debate.
We need to help communities more in sharing ideas and expertise on how we can tackle their gang problems, so working with ACPO we will establish an ending gang violence team of experts drawn from across the country, from the police service, local authorities and the voluntary sector, to provide an up-to-date map of the scale of the problem and practical, on-the-ground expert advice to areas wanting to get on top of their gang problems.
In January we launched gang injunctions, which give the police the power to impose tough sanctions on adult gang members, such as barring them from entering certain parts of town, appearing in public with dogs or wearing their gang colours or emblems. As the Prime Minister said in his statement earlier today, we will now go further and introduce gang injunctions for young people under the age of 18, not just in pilot form but throughout the country. As the Prime Minister also said in his statement, and as I said in answer to a question, I will present a report to Parliament in October on a cross-Government programme to combat gangs.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have had to say so far, and I have heard already that we want the police to be able to surge in numbers in immediate crisis situations. The Home Secretary has now given a reassurance that the police will focus on the most prolific and serious offenders in our communities and she is now going into detail about how the police will work with a range of community partners to end gangs. There has to be a limit to what the police can achieve, and in Greater Manchester we will have 1,500 fewer of them at the end of this period. Cuts do need to be made, but at the moment a 20% cut genuinely needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the incidents and the severity of the events we have seen.
Mrs May
I pay tribute to the way in which the right hon. Lady has entered into the debate generally. Her constituency was particularly badly affected and is a particular example of criminal gangs operating on the streets in order to test and press the police. I will give the same answer to her in relation to police budgets as I gave earlier and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a number of Members who raised the issue. At the end of the spending review period, the police will have the numbers to enable them to deploy in the way they have during the last few days. It is possible to make cuts in police budgets by taking money out of matters such as better procurement to ensure that we can achieve the cuts that we need to make while still leaving police able to do the job that we want them to do and that they want to do.
In January 2011, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, Peter Fahy, told the Home Affairs Committee:
“we have large numbers of officers still in roles that do not require the skills, the powers and expertise of a police officer. It is through that route over the next four years where we will achieve quite a bit of savings.”
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the emphasis that she is putting on the gang culture, which the Prime Minister himself referred to when he said that it was a culture that glorifies violence and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities. Does she agree that the legal restraints that are placed upon, for example, the police, social services, teachers and parents, in imposing discipline in the home, in school or elsewhere, directly derive from a number of legal constraints that come from, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, which needs to be repealed? We cannot deal with the culture and with the question of rights and responsibilities unless we deal with one of the root causes, which is this idea that people can do anything and get away with it.
Mrs May
We are taking steps to deal with the culture, and one example is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is taking steps to ensure that we restore discipline in our schools. My hon. Friend refers to the Human Rights Act, which was referred to during questions to the Prime Minister, and my hon. Friend is well aware that we are looking at the issue both through the Bill of Rights commission that has been set up by the Ministry of Justice and my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and work that we are doing with the ECHR.
Mrs May
I ask hon. Members to bear with me, because I am very conscious of the fact that many will wish to speak in the debate.
I want to move on to the questions about the police reaction to the violence, because I know that hon. Members, like members of the public, are concerned about the speed and quality of the police response. That response has changed over the past five days and has differed across the country. We need to appraise it honestly and bluntly and learn lessons where things have gone wrong. As we know, the first disturbances in London began in Tottenham on Saturday night. The police operation began with the originally peaceful protest about the death of Mark Duggan. Officers were understandably cautious about how they policed the protest, but as the violence began they lost control and a fully fledged riot followed.
On Sunday night, with Tottenham calm, the police managed to nip in the bud trouble at Oxford Circus, but the violence spread to Enfield and Brixton. On Monday night, the number of officers deployed in London increased to 6,000, two or three times more than there are on a normal evening, but still that was not enough and, with the violence reaching Hackney, Peckham, Croydon, Ealing, Lewisham and Clapham, officers were overwhelmed. In Clapham, the mob ran amok for more than two hours before the police regained control. That is simply not acceptable.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister and I held a meeting with the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in which he set out his intention at least to double the deployment of officers. During the day, a number of offenders were identified, arrested and taken out of circulation. Officers took a tougher approach and intervened earlier to disperse groups before trouble began. Leave was cancelled, special constables were mobilised and mutual aid was stepped up, so up to 16,000 officers were deployed in total. As I said, officers took a more robust approach to tackling disorder and making arrests. There are tricky days and nights ahead, but thanks to the efforts of those thousands of officers order has in large part been restored.
Ms Abbott
The whole House admires the bravery and courage of the police officers, who were often up for three or four days without any time off, and we understand the need to police the disturbances in Tottenham carefully, but young people were seen looting Wood Green shopping centre and Tottenham Hale retail park for hours early on Sunday morning, which I think gave the green light to every little hooligan in London to come out on following days to loot and steal.
Mrs May
It is unacceptable that people were able to do that on our streets. There were not enough police on the streets on Saturday night. The number of police was increased further on Sunday and Monday, and it was then clear that that needed to go further. We had a conversation with the acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who presented plans to more than double the number of police on the streets. I have been clear over the past few days that we need not only the police presence, but a tough policy on arrests to give a very clear message that these actions have consequences so that people do not think that they can get away with it in the way the hon. Lady suggests.
Mr Umunna
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. The surge in officers that came after the decision taken at 9 am on Tuesday made a huge difference in my constituency and meant that we had a peaceful night. Did the commissioner explain why he did not increase the number of police to 16,000 sooner? The police in my constituency dealt with a really impossible situation and we are incredibly grateful to them, but why was that decision, which was announced by the Prime Minister at 9 am on Tuesday, not made sooner—for example, on Monday evening, because it was very clear in our area, given what had happened on Sunday night, that this would get far bigger?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. That is one of the issues that we need to look at in more detail. However, the answer that I would give him is that when the police were looking at their numbers and bringing in some mutual aid, which they did on Monday night, they were of the view that they would have the capacity to deal with what they believed was going to happen.
The police were dealing with a different situation from that which they had seen before. One comment that a number of chief constables and officers have made to me is that they were surprised by the speed with which gangs were able to mobilise through the use of social media, and I shall come on to the issue of social media. Very real questions have to be answered about how we take forward those policing matters, and that is why we need to make sure that we learn the lessons from that situation.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is right that the number of officers then put on the streets on Tuesday night was effective. That robust policing, coupled with a robust arrest policy, was effective; it has been continued, and other forces have followed it through.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
It is very easy for us as politicians to be armchair police officers, and it would have been wrong to comment on the night, but we need a cold analysis in order to know whether, for example, the lessons of the surge in London were taken on board in other parts of the country. That is not a matter that should divide the House; that is a matter of concern to my constituents, obviously, to those of other Greater Manchester Members and to those in other cities and conurbations throughout the country.
Mrs May
I am going to make a little more progress, because, although the number of officers on the streets on Tuesday night made a difference in London, we saw more disorder in other parts of the country. We saw it in towns and cities including Manchester, Salford, Nottingham, Wolverhampton and, for a second night, Birmingham, where there was further violence. In Greater Manchester and the west midlands, despite the best efforts of officers, we saw for a while that thugs, not the police, were in control of the streets.
In Winson Green in Birmingham, as we know, three young men were killed when they were hit, apparently deliberately, by a car, and I, like the whole House, want to pay tribute to Tariq Jahan, the father of one of the victims, for an extremely dignified call for calm, which undoubtedly did much to calm community relations.
As I have just said in answer to an intervention, yesterday I convened and chaired a conference call with chief officers from every force in the country. We agreed the mobilisation of all special constables, the cancellation of police leave throughout the country and the adoption of the tactics deployed by the Metropolitan police in London. Again, there are difficult days and nights ahead, and we are not complacent, but at this stage order has been resorted.
We said that we would do everything necessary to bring the disorder to an end, and we meant it. We made it clear to the police that there was nothing to stop them using baton rounds if they judged it necessary, and we put the water cannon stationed in Northern Ireland on standby, to be deployed within 24 hours. The police made it clear to me that they did not want to use them, and, as things stand, what is working to restore order is officers on the streets and robust policing with the help and support of local communities. We would jeopardise that if we rushed to use things such as rubber bullets.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
During the Prime Minister’s statement, we heard a lot about the stand-and-observe order that was apparently given to the police in particular circumstances. We all agree that that was terrible, but was not the policy determined mostly by police concern about over-reaction, given that they have been so criticised for how they dealt with the G20 riots, on which there is a case pending in the European Court of Human Rights? Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever police powers we end up agreeing with, in such circumstances we must provide consistent support when things go wrong?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point that I will come to in my remarks.
The police are concerned to ensure that when we talk about robust policing, we definitely give them backing for what they want to do. Policing by consent is the British way, but the police retain the confidence of the wider community only if they are seen to take clear and robust action in the face of open criminality. On Monday night it was clear that there simply were not enough officers on duty. The largest policing event in London is the Notting Hill carnival. There were about 6,000 officers on duty on Monday night, which is the number that the police usually deploy for the Notting Hill carnival. It was clear that in the circumstances that developed that was not enough officers on duty.
It is clear to me that the original police tactics were insufficient—exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) raised. After the criticism of previous public order operations for excessive force, some officers appeared reluctant to be sufficiently robust in breaking up groups. Many arrests were made, but in some situations officers contained suspects in a specified area where they were free to commit criminal damage and steal, instead of intervening and making arrests. I want to make it clear to the House that in making these points, I am not criticising the police. Too often, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Nowhere is that truer than in public order policing. I want to be clear that as long as officers act within reason and the law, this Home Secretary will never damn the police if they do.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Earlier, I raised with the Prime Minister the nervousness of the police in acting since the G20 disturbances and the sad death. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that officers who take robust action will not find themselves on the wrong end of the law?
Mrs May
As I have just said and as I have made clear to the police from when I first took on this role, I will always back officers who do the right thing and operate within the law. Appropriate action must be taken against officers who do the wrong thing, but we will back officers who do the right thing and I will back them as Home Secretary.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs May
I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me for a few minutes because I want to talk about another way in which the police response could have been better, which is in the harnessing, sharing and analysis of intelligence.
Even in the best of economic times, we would not have the resources to keep up this level of deployment continuously, so public order planning and intelligence will need to be considerably better. This is not the first time that criminals with plans to disrupt life in our towns and cities have used technology to plot their crimes. Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook and messaging services such as BlackBerry Messenger have been used to co-ordinate criminality and stay one step ahead of the police. I will therefore convene a meeting with ACPO, the police and representatives from the social media industry to work out how we can improve the technological and related legal capabilities of the police.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Social networking has obviously been heavily involved in the organisation of the disruption. However, open social networks such as Twitter have also provided the police, including Kent police, with an opportunity to dispel rumours and myths about where future disturbances will happen. There is more of a problem with closed networks such as BlackBerry Messenger. Will the Home Secretary congratulate forces that have used social networking to their advantage and concentrate on the closed networking opportunities that have been used by others?
Mrs May
I certainly congratulate forces that have used social networking to their advantage. Kent police are one example and the Metropolitan police have also used social networking. That is why what should be done in relation to social networking is not an easy open-and-shut case. There are positive uses of social networking sites as well as negative uses. That is why it is important that I convene the various parties involved to sit down and talk this matter through in a sensible way. Among the issues we will discuss is whether and how we should stop people communicating via such websites and services when we know that they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
Mrs May
There is a limit on Back-Bench speeches and I have already spoken for more than half an hour, so if hon. Members will bear with me, I think that I should finish my speech and give Back Benchers the opportunity to speak.
A further difficulty, not just in the past week’s disorder, but in other recent operations, has been face covering by criminals. The police already have a power to require people to remove face coverings in certain limited circumstances. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows officers to force their removal only in a specific geographical location for a limited time, linked to a threat of violence. That does not leave discretion to individual constables or allow officers to nip trouble in the bud early. We will change the law to allow police officers to remove face coverings if they have a reasonable belief that they are related to criminal activity, under any circumstances. As the Prime Minister has said, we will also consider the use of existing dispersal powers and whether any wider power of curfew is necessary.
We often say in the House that there can be no liberty without order and the events of the past five days have shown that more clearly than ever. The tide is turning, and order is returning to our streets. Since Saturday, more than 1,200 people have been arrested and more than 400 have been charged. Courts in London, the west midlands and Manchester have worked through the night and offenders are already starting to be prosecuted. I am clear that the perpetrators of the violence must pay for their actions, and the courts should hand down custodial sentences for any violent crimes.
The tide is turning because communities throughout the country have said that enough is enough. It is turning because the thugs are being arrested and locked up. It is turning because of the bravery and dedication of the men and women of our police forces. We ask police officers to put themselves in harm’s way on a routine basis. We ask them to go into dangerous situations that most of us hope we will never experience. We have the best police officers in the world and we owe them all a debt of gratitude.
Yvette Cooper
I think it was right to increase the number of police officers and to introduce police community support officers. PCSOs have done an excellent job across the country, working with police officers and communities, and have been an important part of addressing some of the tensions, concerns and difficulties that we have faced in the past few days.
Today, the Prime Minister again ruled out reopening the police budget. I implore him to think again. The newspapers report that Ministers now have doubts, and I urge him to listen to them.
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is making much of a point about police cuts that was made by a number of her right hon. and hon. Friends during questions to the Prime Minister. Will she clarify for us the Opposition’s policy on police cuts? Do the Opposition still support police cuts of 12%, or do they want a review of or a moratorium on that? Will she guarantee police numbers, or will she not?
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary will know, because we have had this debate in the House many times, that we believe it is important to give the police enough resources to sustain the number of police officers. We maintain that position now.
The HMIC gave its view that the police could sustain a reduction of about 12% in their budget over the course of the Parliament. The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), also said that his assessment when he was in office was that 12% could be sustained over the course of the Parliament and that that would allow the police to sustain the police numbers that we believe are so important. Instead, the Government are cutting by 20% and the steepest cuts are in the first two years. They are cutting more in the first few years than we would have done over the course of a Parliament. That is why the police, despite making immense efficiencies and taking immense actions to deliver savings, are finding that the number of police officers is being cut. That includes some of the most experienced police officers in the country, who are being forced to take early retirement against their wishes—officers whom we need and whose experience and contributions we need now.
London Bombings (Government Response to Coroner's Inquests)
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
In my written ministerial statement on 9 May, Official Report, columns 26-27WS, I undertook to inform the House of the Government’s response to Lady Justice Hallett’s report following her inquests into the 7 July attacks.
All responses have been published on the inquests website earlier today. The Government have not asked for any part of their response to be withheld.
The Government and the Security Service have carefully considered the coroner’s report and fully accept the three recommendations directed to it—namely recommendations 1, 2 and 9. The Government response sets out in full the next steps which have been or will be taken to address these three recommendations.
The Government response also provides full consideration on areas of concern that were raised by the coroner, but which were not attached to formal recommendations, and considers the broader UK implications of those recommendations addressed to London-based organisations.
Lady Justice Hallett has identified important areas where the Government and local partners, including the emergency services, can work to improve our ability to respond to emergencies. Through the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, and the wider Resilience Programme led by the Cabinet Office, we will work to implement swiftly the actions set out in the Government’s response.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Library of the House.
Metropolitan Police Service
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 9 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 will make a statement on the resignations of Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates, the Metropolitan police investigation into phone-hacking, and allegations of police corruption. I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for the late receipt of the statement. As I am sure she will appreciate, events have been changing rather rapidly through the day.
As the House will know, last night Sir Paul Stephenson resigned as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. As I told him last night, I am sorry that he took that decision. He has led the Met through difficult times, and, although current circumstances show there are still serious issues to be addressed, the Met is stronger operationally today than it was when he took over. I will turn to those difficult circumstances in a moment, but first I wish to update the House on today’s developments and on the next steps for the Metropolitan police.
I have already started work with the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan police to arrange an orderly transition and the appointment of a new commissioner. I have agreed that Sir Paul Stephenson will leave his post as swiftly as possible. In the meantime he will remain commissioner, in post at New Scotland Yard and in operational command. Sir Paul will be replaced by Tim Godwin, who will again become acting commissioner, a role that he filled very effectively during Sir Paul’s illness between December and April this year. With Tim Godwin as acting commissioner, the Mayor and I are clear that additional resilience is essential from outside the Metropolitan police. I am therefore pleased to announce that Bernard Hogan-Howe has agreed to take on the responsibilities of deputy commissioner on a temporary basis. We are seeking to expedite the process for selecting and appointing the next commissioner.
The House will know that within the last couple of hours Assistant Commissioner John Yates has also resigned. I want to put on record my gratitude to John Yates for the work that he has done, while I have been Home Secretary, to develop and improve counter-terrorism policing in London and, indeed, across the whole country. I can confirm to the House that Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick will take over his role.
I want hon. Members, Londoners and the whole country to know that the important work of the Met—its national responsibilities such as counter-terrorism operations as well as its policing of our capital city—must and will continue. That important work includes the related investigations Operation Weeting and Operation Elveden.
Operation Weeting, the investigation into phone hacking led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, is now going through the thousands of pieces of evidence relating to the allegations. Unlike the original investigation into phone hacking, Operation Weeting is proceeding apace, with officers interrogating evidence that was neglected first time round, pursuing new leads, and—as we saw once again at the weekend—making arrests.
Operation Elveden, also led by Sue Akers, is investigating allegations that police officers have received payments from the press in return for information. This investigation has independent oversight by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. At this stage, it is a supervised investigation—which means that the IPCC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report—and as soon as individual suspected officers have been identified, IPCC investigators, overseen by an IPCC commissioner, will take over and lead a fully independent investigation of those officers.
In the future, both these matters will be considered by the Leveson inquiry established by the Prime Minister. In the meantime, I can tell the House that Elizabeth Filkin, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has provisionally agreed to examine the ethical considerations that should in future underpin relationships between the Metropolitan police and the media, how to ensure maximum transparency and public confidence, and to provide advice. The management board of the Met has agreed a new set of guidelines relating to relationships with the media, including recording meetings and hospitality and publication of information on the internet.
These allegations are not, unfortunately, the only recent example of alleged corruption and nepotism in the police, so I can tell the House that I have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties. I have asked HMIC to make recommendations to me about what needs to be done to address that.
There is nothing more important than the public’s trust in the police to do their work without fear or favour, so at moments like this it is natural that people should ask who polices the police. I have already asked Jane Furniss, the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, whether she has the power and the resources to get done the immediate work at hand. She has assured me that she does, but additional resources will be made available to the IPCC if they are needed.
I can also tell the House that I have commissioned work to consider whether the IPCC needs further powers, including whether it should be given the power to question civilian witnesses during the course of its investigations. Given that the IPCC can at present only investigate specific allegations against individual officers, I have also asked whether the commission needs to have a greater role in investigating allegations about institutional failings of a force or forces.
Finally, I want to say one last word about the future of the Metropolitan police. The Met is the largest police force in the country, and has important national responsibilities beyond its role policing our capital. The next Metropolitan Police Commissioner will lead thousands of fine police officers, community support officers and staff, the great majority of whom have spent their careers dedicated to protecting the public, often at risk to their own safety. Just three nights ago, hon. Members will know that in Croydon an unarmed Metropolitan police officer was shot as he tried to arrest a suspect. I know that the whole House will agree with me that it is for the sake of the many thousands of honourable police officers and staff, as well as of the public they serve, that we must get to the bottom of all these allegations. Only then will we be able to ensure the integrity of our police and public confidence in them to do their vital work. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and also for her apology; I understand the timing pressures she faced. May I also join her in paying tribute to the Metropolitan police officer who was harmed during the course of duty in Croydon?
The Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to the work of Sir Paul Stephenson. He has done excellent work in London, backing neighbourhood policing and taking action to cut crime in the capital. The Home Secretary also recognised the vital work of John Yates on counter-terrorism. She referred to Sir Paul Stephenson’s decision to resign. It was an honourable decision, to protect the ongoing operational work of the Met from the ongoing speculation, but his departure raises very serious questions for the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, Home Office Ministers told the press that the Home Secretary would make a statement today on her concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis. Today she has been completely silent on that issue in this House. The truth is that the Met commissioner and the head of counter-terrorism have now gone because of questions about this crisis and about the appointment of the former deputy editor of the News of the World, yet the Prime Minister is still refusing to answer questions or apologise for his appointment of the editor of the News of the World. The judgment of the Met has been called into serious question for appointing Neil Wallis, but so has the judgment of the Prime Minister for appointing Neil Wallis’s boss, Andy Coulson. People will look at this and think there is one rule for the police and one for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister agreed with that this morning. He said this morning:
“The situation in the Metropolitan Police Service is really quite different to the situation in the Government, not least because the issues that the Metropolitan police are looking at, the issues around them, have had a direct bearing on public confidence in the police inquiry into the News of the World”.
But the Prime Minister runs the country. The issues that he is looking at and the judgments that he makes have a direct bearing on public confidence in the Government’s ability to sort this crisis out.
The Home Secretary is right to have had serious concerns about the appointment of Neil Wallis, but it would have been better if she had told us what they were today. She is also right that she should have been told about the potential conflict of interest in the Met. This does raise serious questions for the force, but the Met commissioner has said that he could not tell her or her boss because of the Prime Minister’s relationship with Andy Coulson. So how did it come to this? The most senior police officer in the country did not feel able to tell the Home Secretary about a potential conflict of interest for the force because of the Prime Minister’s compromised relationship with Andy Coulson—it was an ongoing relationship, as they met at Chequers in March, months after the new police investigation began. This morning, she refused to defend the appointment of Andy Coulson and today the London Mayor refused to defend the appointment of Andy Coulson. They all seem to have forgotten rather quickly what Andy Coulson used to say—they are “all in this together”.
The Home Secretary has been absent from this crisis, despite the serious allegations that have been made about phone hacking potentially affecting criminal investigations, the serious questions for policing and the growing cloud over the national and international reputation of British policing as a result of this crisis. She has said nothing and done nothing for two weeks. We welcome many of the announcements that she made today, but they are precisely the things that we called for last week.
I called last week for five things, three of which the Home Secretary has now done. First, I called for new standards for the Met to govern the relationship between officers and the press. Secondly, I called for a review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary into the wider concerns about leaks of information, payments for the press and corruption in other forces too. Thirdly, I called for work to strengthen the Independent Police Complaints Commission and an independent complaints procedure to deal with failed investigations in future. We welcome those, just as we welcome her agreement to the judicial inquiry that we called for too, but she should have announced two further things that we also called for.
First, the Home Secretary needs to call for immediate openness and transparency across the Met in respect of all the dealings between senior officers and members of the press, including those at the News of the World—that needs to cover private as well as public meetings. Secondly, she needs to review her decision to go forward with elected police and crime commissioners. The nearest that Britain has to an elected police chief is the London Mayor, and that did not stop the problems at the Met—instead it made them worse. Boris Johnson described the phone-hacking allegations as “codswallop” and said that it
“looks like a politically motivated put-up job by the Labour party”.
What backing does the Home Secretary think Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates would have expected from the Mayor if they had decided to reopen an investigation that he had described as “politically motivated”?
Instead of their tackling this problem, we have had an AWOL Home Secretary, a “codswallop” Mayor and a compromised Prime Minister. There is a problem—it is one of leadership. The work of police officers across the country is too important to be tarnished by her failure to get a grip of the problems now. The Home Secretary will not answer all the questions, so I leave her with just one. She knows the importance of leadership to get the country through this crisis and she has criticised the misjudgment of the Met in taking on Neil Wallis, so will she now apologise to the House for the Prime Minister’s misjudgment in taking on Andy Coulson, so that the Government can now move forward, exercise some leadership untarnished and sort the crisis out now?
Mrs May
I say to the shadow Home Secretary that from the response she has just given one could have been forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister had not been anywhere near the House of Commons in the past week, but he stood at this Dispatch Box last week, he answered questions in this House, he answered all the points that the shadow Home Secretary has made and he will be in this House again on Wednesday.
The right hon. Lady asked a long list of questions. She asked why I had not said anything about openness and transparency across the Met, as I had promised to. I made specific reference in my statement to the management board decisions taken by the Metropolitan police to publish details of meetings held by senior officers with members of the press, and they will be available on the internet.
The right hon. Lady asked about the difference between the Met and the Government. Of course there is a difference. The Metropolitan police were investigating allegations of wrongdoing at the News of the World, and it is absolutely right that there should be a line between the investigators and the investigated. The issue I raised with Sir Paul Stephenson—which she is aware of because it was made public last week—was the fact that I had concerns that he had not informed us about a conflict of interest. The police in this country should be able to act against crime and criminals without fear or favour, but when they think there is a conflict of interest that should be made transparent.
The right hon. Lady asked about the impact of elected police commissioners. I think everything that has happened shows not that we should be going slow on reform of the police but that we need to ensure that we reform the police.
We then have the extraordinary situation in that the shadow Home Secretary appears in one breath to be saying that I have been absent and doing absolutely nothing and in the other breath saying that I am doing everything she asked for. She cannot simultaneously claim that I am doing nothing and doing something—that is the have-your-cake-and-eat-it opportunism of Opposition politics to which I note that both she and the shadow Chancellor belong.
Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr John Robertson, calm yourself. It is very injurious to your health and I do not want to see the effects. That is very undesirable.
Mrs May
Finally, let me remind the shadow Home Secretary of a few things. In 2002, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport reported that the press were making illegal payments to police officers and called on the then Home Secretary to take steps to review, and overhaul if necessary, the guidance and measures aimed at preventing such behaviour by the police and media. Labour took no action. In May 2006, the Information Commissioner reported that the trade in confidential personal information was
“a pervasive and widespread ‘industry’”.
Labour took no action. Just two weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) revealed that he had thought about getting Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an independent investigation into the Met’s handling of phone hacking, but Labour took no action. And, if the shadow Home Secretary wants to keep talking about Andy Coulson, she will have to expect to answer a lot of questions about the Labour party’s communications director, Tom Baldwin.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the officer shot in Croydon and to all officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.
Will the Home Secretary join me in urging the Metropolitan police to move urgently to rebuild their senior team to focus on next year’s Olympics and security concerns surrounding the games? Will she strengthen the proposed checks and balances that will apply to elected police and crime commissioners to ensure that neither elected police and crime commissioners nor chief constables can get embroiled in any scandals of any nature once those commissioners are elected?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend talks about checks and balances. As he will know, we have strengthened the checks and balances that will be provided by the police and crime panels to the police and crime commissioners as the Bill has progressed through the House of Commons and House of Lords. We have made important improvements to those checks and balances.
As regards the senior leadership of the Met, it is entirely right that we move quickly to reinforce it. The additional resilience of bringing in somebody from outside in Bernard Hogan-Howe is important and the immediate step was to ensure that the counter-terrorism post is filled. I can assure the House that the work on the security and safety of the Olympics carries on under Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, in particular, and he has been doing an extremely good job.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
If the allegations in relation to the hacking of the phones of victims of the 7/7 attack in London are true, the editor of the News of the World at the time was working in 10 Downing street, while his deputy, Neil Wallis, was working in New Scotland Yard, just at the time when the quest for the truth became more intense. I did not know, as Home Secretary, that Neil Wallis had been appointed. Did the Home Secretary know, did anyone at the Home Office know and did anyone in 10 Downing street know?
Mrs May
The first I knew of the appointment of Neil Wallis was when I heard from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police and from the Mayor last Thursday that this had been brought to the Mayor’s attention. It was at that time that I wrote to the commissioner and expressed my disquiet and concern that this issue had not been raised earlier, at a previous stage. I indicated last Thursday that that was a concern, and it remains a concern.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The IPCC is renowned for the long, drawn-out nature of its inquiries. Those of us who are interested in restoring public confidence in the police would like to know from the Home Secretary when she expects the IPCC to report.
Mrs May
I have asked the IPCC to undertake a number of reports. It will report to me by the end of the summer on the report I asked it to undertake last week into allegations it has received about corruption in the police force previously and any lessons that need to be learned in relation to that. It will, of course, pursue investigations against any individual officers who have been named. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is right and important that that is done properly and fully. I understand the point he is making, but I am sure that none of us would want the results of those inquiries to be in any way jeopardised by a desire to do them speedily rather than fully and properly.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I underline the comments that have been made about the reputation of Sir Paul Stephenson, who was a very fine chief constable of Lancashire police before he moved on to be deputy commissioner and then Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, which he pursued with similar very high standards? Will the Home Secretary explain the point about conflict of interest? Was it not entirely proper and consistent with Sir Paul’s level of integrity that, unusually, he decided that he could not disclose information to the Home Secretary because of what he perceived to be a conflict of interest at the heart of government? Why is she trying to shuffle off responsibility for this when it is at that point that the conflict exists?
Mrs May
As I said earlier, I believe that the police should be able to investigate every allegation and to chase evidence as far as it takes them without fear or favour. When a conflict of interest arises—if the Metropolitan police feel there is a conflict of interest—that should be made transparent and that is why I believe I should have been told earlier. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan police did not make the appointment of Neil Wallis known to previous Home Secretaries—notably previous Labour Home Secretaries—either.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the biggest questions during the whole of the phone-hacking saga relate to the failures on the part of the police to investigate, as well as to what has been going on in newsrooms, particularly why the police appeared never to interview a single journalist who was named as a client of Steve Whittamore in the Motorman case and why they did nothing to look at the enormous amounts of material seized from Glenn Mulcaire? Does she agree that it would be unsatisfactory if these matters could not be looked at until the beginning of the second part of the judicial review? Will she consider inviting the IPCC to begin examining these questions now?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he says, part of the inquiry that is led by Lord Justice Leveson will involve looking at the first investigation by the Metropolitan police. It is not impossible for it to start doing some work while the current investigation is going on, but that would have to be done carefully in order not to jeopardise the current investigation. I am sure that we all want to see a proper investigation and a proper inquiry with answers about what happened in that first police investigation and about why matters were not taken forward in a way that people now feel they should have been. We also want to ensure that the current investigation is not in any way prejudiced by that work because we want people who have been guilty of criminal offences to be brought to book.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
What pressure did the Prime Minister exert on the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London to bring about the resignations of both the commissioner and the assistant commissioner, which today, apparently, the Home Secretary regrets?
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government’s failure to do anything about the Information Commissioner’s report in 2006 was compounded by the fact that they backed down under the lobbying of the Society of Editors over clause 77 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which means that a fine of £150 is the average fine for someone found guilty of stealing personal information? Will she review the section and see whether the offence should be made punishable by imprisonment?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us that at stake are some very serious issues, not just about the operation of the police and of the press, but in relation to personal information. I will certainly look at the issue he raises. As I said, the trade in personal information was raised previously by the Information Commissioner as something that should be looked at, and we should take that forward.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary ask Elizabeth Filkin, as part of her investigation, to report to the House of Commons on how many occasions the Chief Commissioner of Police did not brief the Prime Minister or herself because of information relating to the Prime Minister’s relationship with Mr Coulson? Can she confirm that News International began to co-operate with the police inquiry only after Mr Coulson’s resignation from Downing street?
Mrs May
In relation to Elizabeth Filkin and how she will undertake the role that she will be performing for the Metropolitan police, it is up to her to decide what she wishes to look at and how she wishes to undertake that. I detected, when I announced her name, a certain murmuring in the House. The reputation that Elizabeth Filkin has for challenging the establishment, challenging practices and ensuring that practice is appropriate and proper, and what she did here in Parliament, are such that she is an excellent choice as a candidate for the role.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the serious allegations concerning a royal protection officer selling personal and private details of members of the royal family, including our Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen? What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the director of the Security Service concerning this incident? Is it not the case that the Security Service should have known about this? If it did not know, why not, and if it did know, why did it not do something about it?
Mrs May
Matters relating to appropriate royal protection are dealt with by a committee chaired by Sir Richard Mottram, which sits in the Home Office. All those considerations are undertaken independently by Sir Richard Mottram and his committee in relation to how royal protection should be carried out. Obviously, the issue will be looked into to see the truth or otherwise of those allegations.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Home Secretary knows, both Sir Paul and Mr Yates are due to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee tomorrow, when Members will explore their resignations further. I welcome the appointment of Tim Godwin and Bernard Hogan-Howe, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that Mr Hogan-Howe was the only applicant for the post of head of the National Crime Agency? Will she now have to look for a new person to head that organisation? Will she answer the question that I put to the Prime Minister last week? This information is coming out because of Operation Weeting and the excellent work by Sue Akers. Could we please give her the resources she needs in order to go through the 12,870 names that are still on the books but have still not been contacted?
Mrs May
I will make an announcement on the appointment of the head of the national crime agency when appropriate. In relation to resources for Sue Akers, as has been made clear and as the Prime Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, this is one of the largest investigations taking place in the country. I am sure that everyone would agree that Sue Akers is pursuing the investigation with the appropriate degree of vigour, and I am sure that the Metropolitan police are ensuring that she has the necessary resources.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
The commissioner placed great emphasis on the word “integrity” in his resignation statement, and yet in the eyes of some of my constituents payments and hospitality to police officers are no different from the £12,000-worth of hospitality that Sir Paul received. Was the commissioner in breach of the Metropolitan police code of conduct, and if not, what steps can we take to restore the integrity of the Metropolitan police?
Mrs May
Of course, Sir Paul made reference to this issue in the statement he published yesterday. As I indicated in my earlier response and in my statement, the Metropolitan police have been looking at the code that should be followed by officers and strengthening it in relation to the information that should be made available and should be publicly available.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Since Sir Paul Stephenson said in his resignation statement that he could not speak to the Prime Minister about Neil Wallis because of the Prime Minister’s employment of Andy Coulson at No. 10 Downing street, and since the Prime Minister took Andy Coulson into his employment after Coulson had confessed to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that he had committed criminality—namely, making payments to the police—ought not the Prime Minister be considering his position?
Mrs May
No, I have made very clear the difference between the Metropolitan police and the Government in relation to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman premised his question with the fact that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister had not been told about the conflict of interest within the Metropolitan police on Neil Wallis, but he will note, as I said earlier, that former Labour Home Secretaries were not told about the decision to appoint Neil Wallis either.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Time and time again the Metropolitan police have failed to deal successfully with sensitive issues ranging from cash for peerages all the way through to the phone-hacking scandal. Is it not perhaps time to split the Metropolitan police between the day-to-day duties of policing London and those of carrying out more complex and detailed investigations, such as those that the special operations directorate conducts every day?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his innovative approach to these matters. I have to say that there is no intention to split the Metropolitan police. It has been able to take on their national responsibilities, and it has those responsibilities not simply because of the issues that it is responsible for across the country, such as counter-terrorism, but because, as the police force of the nation’s capital, it has of course national responsibilities that are greater than those of any other police force. I must say, as I said earlier, that the thousands of police officers and staff who day by day go about their duty protecting the public and fighting crime are doing a good job, and we should encourage them and ensure that they can continue to do so.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that the fire-storm that the Prime Minister referred to a few days ago has turned into a raging inferno around the Government’s head? Murdoch’s people are resigning and people are being arrested all over the place, and yet only one area remains intact: millionaires’ row on the Government Front Bench. When is dodgy Dave going to do the decent thing and resign?
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Home Secretary referred to the interaction between the inquiries she has set up and the Leveson inquiry, and her references to the relationship between the police and the media are the right approach. Does she agree that, in the interests of clarity and accountability, to refer merely to the press in the Leveson inquiry would be unsatisfactory and that 17 Select Committee Chairmen, the chairman of the 1922 committee, the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the leaders of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that the Leveson inquiry should be extended to the media as a whole?
Mrs May
The terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week were agreed not only by the Government but in consultation with the Opposition and, as I understand it, with the Leader of the Opposition, and of course with Lord Justice Leveson himself.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
In her statement, the Home Secretary said that she is asking the chief inspector of constabulary to look at some serious issues at the Met, namely “instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships with the media and other parties.” That must involve a number of illegal actions and/or misconduct. Any chief officer who is aware of such things—illegal actions or misconduct—is legally obliged to refer the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Why is the Home Secretary not referring these matters there, where they can be properly investigated?
Mrs May
I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have slightly misunderstood the reference I made in my statement. I have asked HMIC to look widely across policing—not just at the Met—at issues of, as he says, “undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangements and other abuses of power”. As he says, if any officer is aware of an individual officer who has undertaken something that is an abuse of power, a complaint should be made to the IPCC, which will investigate complaints against individual officers. It does not currently have the power to investigate complaints about wider issues in relation to forces as opposed to individual officers. As well as asking HMIC to look at these issues more widely, because there are other examples of this sort of concern in other constabularies, I am asking the IPCC whether it needs further powers and what we should be doing to ensure that it can investigate more widely across forces rather than just individual officers.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
By any reasonable international comparison, the probity and integrity of our policemen and policewomen is unsurpassed, and the Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to them today. Does she agree that we should lose no opportunity to articulate our support for them since their morale and self-confidence are likely to be severely dented by this crisis?
Mrs May
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said at the police bravery awards a couple of weeks ago, we have the finest police officers in the world—I believe that—but it is our duty to all those honourable, hard-working police officers and staff across the country to ensure that we get to the bottom of these allegations and sort this all out.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The year 2012 was always going to be a very challenging one for the Metropolitan police, with the Olympic games, with convicted terrorists returning home from prison, and with relocated suspects being allowed to go back to their own homes. Given the events of the past 24 hours, will the Home Secretary now give urgent consideration to delaying the implementation of the new, weaker terrorism prevention measures in order to reduce risk and give the new commissioner time to prepare properly?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the package that was agreed involves not just the TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—but extra money, with tens of millions of pounds for the Security Service and the police to put in place extra surveillance so that they are able to mitigate any risk that has come about through the change in those orders. Yes, next year will be a challenging year. The Met police have themselves accepted and said publicly that it will be a very challenging time for them in having to ensure the security and safety of the Olympics. That has been worked on for several years—it is under the very competent leadership of Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison—and extremely good work has been done, but we continue, of course, to ensure that we are putting in place what is necessary to do what we all want to do, which is to ensure that everybody can enjoy a secure and successful games.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
For decades, all across the country, the media have had the uncanny ability to show up at an arrest or another police incident. While I am sure that most of the police would never take part in this, can the Home Secretary assure me that we will be looking across the country, wherever this happens, and keeping an eye out for other such suspicious coincidences of a TV camera showing up just in time?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
At this time of unprecedented chaos within the Metropolitan police, and given the Met’s national responsibilities for national security, are not the public right to feel concerned that it has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to protecting citizens against terrorism? What is the Home Secretary going to do to reassure people that the Met is on top of its game in terms of protecting the public against the threat of terrorism both here in the United Kingdom and from abroad?
Mrs May
The work that has been done by the Met, indeed led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, on counter-terrorism policing has been important. Counter-terrorism policing has improved over the years and extra resources have been put in, which has been beneficial in keeping this country safe. The Metropolitan police have moved quickly to ensure that there is an immediate appointment to replace Assistant Commissioner John Yates in Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick. I am sure that she will take this work forward every bit as effectively as has been done previously. I assure people that the eye has not been taken off the ball; we are very conscious of the duty to protect the public, be it from criminals or terrorists.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and welcome her comments about strengthening the powers of the IPCC. However, given that the circumstances surrounding these resignations will have further undermined public confidence in the police, will she tell the House what steps the Met will be taking to put things right as we await the outcome of the public inquiry?
Mrs May
Indeed. When Tim Godwin takes over as acting commissioner, he will obviously want to consider the steps that the Met can take, as he already has been doing, such as being more transparent about relationships with the press. Crucially, Elizabeth Filkin is being brought in to advise the Met on such matters, so that it can show the public that it has changed the way it deals with these things and increase the public’s confidence. It is also important to have the additional resilience that is brought by somebody coming in from the outside, so Bernard Hogan-Howe will take on the responsibilities of a deputy commissioner to enhance that work.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The Guardian produced abundant evidence several months ago that in handling phone hacking at the News of the World, the police had cut short their original inquiry, suppressed evidence, misled the public and the press, concealed information and broken the law. Why did the Home Secretary not take action then, when it was already perfectly clear that something was going terribly wrong at Scotland Yard?
Mrs May
The initial Guardian story that required investigation actually came in July 2009 under the last Government. That was looked at to see whether there was fresh evidence and a decision was taken that there was not. In September 2010, a question was raised about stories that had appeared in the American press. Again, that was looked at to see whether there was fresh evidence. At the time—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) asks what I did. I will tell him what I did. At that time, I came to this House and said that it was up to the police to investigate the matter and that it was not for politicians to tell police officers who or what to investigate. I said that the police should investigate any evidence, wherever it took them, and ensure that anybody who was guilty of criminal offences was properly brought to justice.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
This scandal has run over two Governments and three Prime Ministers. Does the Home Secretary agree that the focus of every Member of this House should be on trying to get to the truth and to find a solution to this problem—we are on the front foot finally—rather than on playing the clapped-out political blame game so beloved by the Labour party?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She reminds the House that our prime duty and responsibility is to restore confidence in the police so that people feel that the police are doing their job appropriately and properly. There are thousands of honourable policemen and women who are continuing to do their job and we should support and encourage them. We need to get to the bottom of these allegations so that the public truly can have full confidence in what the police are doing.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given the Home Secretary’s fulsome praise for Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, should I assume that she will back his call for a delay in cuts to specialist posts, particularly public order posts, until after the Olympics?
Mrs May
Of course we have reviewed the requirements for Olympic security, and we did an audit of it when we came into government. In the run-up to the Olympics we will continue to ensure that the resources that are available and the measures that are taken will provide a secure and safe games.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary aware of the statement that Sir Paul made at the conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers in July 2009, which suggests that it was not John Yates who limited the review then to less than a day but the commissioner himself?
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary have any concern that the basic principle that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty in a criminal court has been thrown out of the window?
Mrs May
That is an important principle on which we must base what we do. That is why I try not to comment on things until I have seen the evidence on matters of concern. It is of course true that these investigations must be followed through properly and fully, so that those who are guilty can be brought to justice and any speculation about those who are innocent can be cleared up.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The allegations that payments were made improperly to the police were first made in 2003. The House needs to know what action was taken by the Home Office and by successive Ministers over the period since that date. Will the Home Secretary do a review and make a report to Parliament?
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Metropolitan police have had the names of thousands of UK citizens whose phones have been hacked into for a very long time. Have all the people who have had their phones hacked into been informed of it by the police?
Mrs May
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan police’s current investigation has made it clear, as I understand it, that it is going through the names on lists. I caution him on his assumption that everybody whose name appears on a list has necessarily “had their phone hacked into”, in his terms, but that is being looked into by the current investigation. It is clear that it is alerting people when it finds evidence.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
In May 2006, five-plus years ago, the Information Commissioner issued a report stating that the trade in confidential personal information was “pervasive and widespread”. In view of the rather self-righteous tone taken by the Opposition, is the Home Secretary surprised that the then Government did not order an inquiry into the matter?
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
Returning to the security of the Olympics, is it not time that a pause was taken, given the evidence presented to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee by Assistant Deputy Commander Osborne that it would take 12 months to get the resources in place to deal with the new TPIMs? Is it not time, now that we have lost the two most senior officers in counter-terrorism, to call a halt to those measures until after the Olympic and Paralympic games?
Mrs May
We have of course been discussing with the Metropolitan police and the Security Service the arrangements that will be in place as a result of the extra finances available for surveillance when the TPIMs come in. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have discussed the matter with the Metropolitan police, and it is clear that measures will be in place for an appropriate transition from control orders to TPIMs.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for paying tribute to PC Wayne Stevens, who was shot while on duty on the streets of Croydon on Friday night.
As a London MP, my concern is that the Met has sufficient resources to do the job of patrolling the streets of London, and that the two investigations are robustly pursued so that we find out exactly what happened and anyone guilty of a crime is brought to justice. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, working with the Mayor, she will ensure that that is the case?
Mrs May
I can assure my hon. Friend that we do of course talk to the Metropolitan police about the resources that it has available and the way in which it chooses to police the streets of London. If I may say so, one thing that Sir Paul Stephenson did was significantly to increase the amount of time available for patrol by moving to single patrols, which has been a very important step in improving the time for which officers are actually out on the front line.
I again pay tribute to the police constable who was shot three nights ago. It is very easy for the House to forget the danger that police officers put themselves in day in and day out to keep the public safe, and we should thank them for it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In the Home Secretary’s statement, she said that she was sorry that Sir Paul Stephenson had to resign. Does that mean that she thinks he should not have resigned and that he should have carried on, despite this cloud around his head? Could she explain what her thinking behind that is, or is it crocodile tears to cover the fact that she asked him to resign?
Mrs May
On the last point, can I assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not ask Sir Paul Stephenson to resign? As far as I am concerned, nobody asked him to resign: the decision was taken by Sir Paul Stephenson. I am sorry that he decided to resign—I have said that several times, and have made that clear. Under his leadership, the Met has done excellent work in protecting the public, and in cutting and fighting crime. He led the Met through some very difficult times. He took it over at a difficult time, and I think he has made the force operationally stronger.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
In the light of the concerns raised by this issue, what action does the Home Secretary expect of police authorities outside London to root out inappropriate practices and to restore public confidence in the independence of their forces?
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary says that she did not know about the appointment of Mr Neil Wallis to the Metropolitan police. Did Andy Coulson know, and did the Prime Minister know?
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
The whole House will remember when Damian McBride planned to smear the wives and families of Opposition Members. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agree that those who live in glass houses should be more careful about throwing stones?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
In view of the remarks of the Mayor of London—he said that the phone hacking allegations were “politically motivated” and “codswallop”—does the Home Secretary believe that he is a fit and proper person to be involved in the appointment of the commissioner of the Metropolitan police?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Given that Sir Paul and Mr Yates resigned from the Metropolitan police, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clarify whether they can take up any other policing position, including with ACPO or any other policing agencies?
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
May I first echo the words of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)? Obviously, our thoughts are with our police officer from Croydon and his family at this difficult time.
May I put it to the Home Secretary that many Londoners are confused about the respective roles of the Home Secretary, the Mayor and the Metropolitan Police Authority? Who in our democracy is ultimately responsible and accountable for the conduct and integrity of the Metropolitan police?
Mrs May
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the legislation under which Londoners are confused was introduced by the Government in which he was a Minister. This Government are now clarifying the position under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. We will streamline the arrangements that exist in relation to appointments and the position of the police and crime commissioner in London. However, the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioners will remain, as it is today, a final decision of the Home Secretary.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As I understand it, Lord Justice Leveson’s terms of reference are restricted to phone hacking. I wonder whether it is possible for the inquiry to look also at hacking into e-mails and the illegal acquisition of information such as medical documents.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is not the first to raise the issue of the remit of the Leveson inquiry. It will cover the culture, practices and ethics of the press, as well as the relationship of the press to the police and issues of regulation. So I would expect that it would indeed be able to look wider than just the issue of phone hacking.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I note that the Home Secretary did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) about whether the Prime Minister knew that Neil Wallis was working for the Met and/or whether Andy Coulson knew the same. Could she perhaps respond and let us know that answer to that question?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
An experienced columnist from The Guardian said on the BBC yesterday that to the best of her knowledge she believed that the passage of information between journalists and the police was common and widespread. Does the Home Secretary agree that the police investigation should go wherever it leads and follow through all leads on that matter?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that, whatever the evidence shows, the police investigation is able to follow the leads to the rightful conclusion without fear or favour, and that they ensure that wherever it leads proper action is taken and people who have committed criminal offences are properly brought to justice.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Mayor of London said this morning that Sir Paul had taken a very brave individual decision. Is the Home Secretary confident that that is the most accurate, appropriate and apposite description of the events leading up to that resignation?
Mrs May
I have made my position on Sir Paul Stephenson’s resignation absolutely clear. In his time in office at the Metropolitan police he has strengthened the force operationally, and under his leadership it has been effective and done excellent work in cutting crime and protecting the public.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given that the Mayor of London actively discouraged the reopening of the police inquiry by referring to the phone-hacking allegations as “codswallop” and a Labour plot, what inquiries will the Home Secretary make into what advice the Mayor took before making those views known and using his influence in that way?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
When did Mr Ed Llewellyn pass on the Guardian dossier to the Home Office?
Mrs May
I am not aware that there was a Guardian dossier. There was information that was generally available to the public, as I understand it. There is an issue here about the role of the Home Office that Opposition Members sometimes fail to grasp. It is not the job of politicians to tell the police who to investigate or arrest. It would be a very sorry day for our police and our democracy if we ever went down that road.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Did the Home Secretary raise any concerns to anyone about bringing Andy Coulson into the heart of Government and, if not, does she now regret that failure to speak up?
Mrs May
I have made clear the difference between the Metropolitan police and the Government. The Prime Minister has answered the point about Andy Coulson. He did that last week and he made it absolutely clear that he gave Andy Coulson a second chance. That did not work out and Andy Coulson resigned again.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Home Secretary finally made us aware that she was not told if the Prime Minister knew about Neil Wallis’s employment. Can she confirm whether Andy Coulson knew about the employment of his former deputy by the Metropolitan police?
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Before Wednesday’s debate, would the Home Secretary have the kindness to place in the Library details of all communications, in writing or by phone or e-mail, between Andy Coulson and her private office since she took up the post of Home Secretary?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman, like a number of his colleagues, is seeming to focus purely on Andy Coulson. I say to him and Members of the House that we have a serious job to do—to ensure that we restore confidence in the Metropolitan police and the police generally and to deal with allegations over the operations of the police. We owe it to the public and to the honourable police officers in the Met and other forces in the country to do that seriously, to consider all the allegations and to ensure that they are followed through and dealt with.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Were there any meetings between Neil Wallis and Andy Coulson while the latter was working for the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street? If the Home Secretary cannot give us that information now, will she undertake to give it to us later?
Mrs May
No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. It is not the sort of information that is available to me. I would point out to him that for the first part—considerable part—of the period when Neil Wallis was in his advisory capacity to the Metropolitan police, the Labour party was in government.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
May I make a statement of the obvious? The Home Secretary has been chasing this issue from day one. She got it wrong on phone hacking, she got it wrong on a judge-led inquiry and it has taken two high-profile resignations to place just a semblance of respectability on an affair that every dog on the street knows stinks. Is it right that Sir Paul Stephenson resigns for Neil Wallis, but the Prime Minister gets off scot-free for hiring not the monkey but the organ grinder, Andy Coulson?
Mrs May
I am not sure that there was actually a question in all that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, in 2002, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee reported that the press were making illegal payments to police officers and called on the then Home Secretary to review and, if necessary, overhaul the guidance and measures aimed at preventing such behaviour by the police and media. The Labour Government did absolutely nothing.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am afraid that I welcome the two resignations today because I think that Assistant Commissioner Yates, by his own admission, misled Parliament; because the relationship between the News of the World and the Metropolitan police became so close as frankly to be collusive; and because we had this ludicrous situation in which Andy Hayman was leaving the employment of the Metropolitan police to work for News International and Neil Wallis was leaving News International to work for the Metropolitan police. That cannot be good for the Metropolitan police in the end. I know that the Home Secretary cannot tell anybody what investigations to undertake, but will she ensure that there is a proper investigation into the Surrey police and what happened between the police officers in charge of the investigation following Milly Dowler’s disappearance and death and News of the World and other journalists at the time? I do not think that the collusion was only in the Metropolitan police.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary rightly said in her statement that confidence in the police—for both the public and serving police officers—must be of paramount concern in getting to the bottom of these allegations. She has just shared with the House information about other police forces, but has she had any contact with the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, about how these types of inquiry can range across Scottish police forces as well as those for which she is directly responsible?
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Looking ahead to Wednesday, may I urge the Home Secretary to have a word with the Prime Minister to ensure that as well as making a statement he will also lead the debate?
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady has sought to distinguish the probity of the appointments made by Sir Paul Stephenson and those made by the Prime Minister on the grounds that there is a proper distance between those being investigated and those doing the investigation. Does she agree that there should also be a proper distance between the law-makers in this country and those suspected of lawbreaking?
Mrs May
I say what I said earlier about the difference between the Government and the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan police were in the process of investigating —or had been investigating—the News of the World for alleged wrongdoing. It is right, therefore, that we should look at drawing a line between the investigators and the investigated.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
There seems to have been an exchange of staff between the Metropolitan police and News International. Last week, I asked the Minister of State, Cabinet Office whether former police officers were subject to the rules of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. He has written to me saying that he does not know. Can the Home Secretary say what the current rules are and whether Mr Hayman followed them?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If Sir Paul Stephenson was right when he said that he made an error of judgment in his appointment of Neil Wallis at a time when he had not been implicated in phone hacking, what does that say about the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Andy Coulson at a time when he had already resigned once over the very same issue?
Mrs May
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman could have listened to the answer that I have already given—on a number of occasions now—about the difference between the Government and the Metropolitan police. Of course, the point is that the Metropolitan police are responsible for investigating allegations of potential wrongdoing at the News of the World.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The stench that arises from the rotting drains underneath this Chamber seems to be an apt background to a lot of the debate that we have had today. Over the weekend, we had the arrest of Rebekah Brooks, ahead of her giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Tuesday. I appreciate that the Home Secretary says that it is not up to her to say who is arrested or when, but is it not time that we clarified the role of police investigations and investigations conducted by Select Committees for those investigations being conducted in both places?
Mrs May
I think the hon. Lady will find that Select Committees are very clear about the role and the powers that they have. What is important is that police investigations that could lead to criminal charges and prosecution are not prejudiced in any way by other investigations that take place. That is why we are being very careful in relation to the inquiry that is being led by Lord Justice Leveson. The hon. Lady also refers to needing to clear out the drains. Obviously the drains have not been cleared out for a number of years, but this Government are doing it.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Which individual police officer made the decision to employ Neil Wallis’s company?
Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (Independent Reviewer Annual Report)
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to announce that Mr David Anderson QC has completed his first annual report as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in 2010, which will be laid before the House today.
I am grateful to David Anderson for his detailed report and will carefully consider his recommendations. Following consultation within my Department and with other relevant Departments and agencies, I will place the Government’s response to his recommendations in the Library in the autumn.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 9 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 16 March, I made a remedial order under the powers conferred on me by section 10(2) and paragraph 1(1) of schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998. That order replaced stop and search powers previously available to the police under sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000, with a significantly circumscribed set of powers, and provisions for an associated code of practice.
As required by paragraph 4(2) of schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act, I have placed a statement in the House Library to summarise the representations made during the 60 days since that order was made.
Direct Airside Transit Regime (Yemen)
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have written to the Government of the Republic of Yemen announcing that on 14 July 2011 we will be imposing a Direct Airside Transit Visa (DATV) regime on Yemeni citizens who wish to transit at a UK airport.
Britain is a major hub for transit passengers travelling on long-haul flights. Since 2003 we have required certain nationalities to obtain a visa (DATV) before they travel even if they are arriving at and leaving from the same airport. This was introduced as an immigration tool to prevent people destroying their documents before claiming asylum (possibly using a false identity or nationality) on arrival at a UK airport.
The implementation of the first DATV regime helped to export the UK border and allowed us to run comprehensive checks on those transiting the UK. Since the original introduction of the DATV there has been a noticeable fall in transit passengers destroying their travel documents before claiming asylum. And where they do, the information we have collected as part of the application process (including biometrics) makes identifying and re-documenting them simpler.
Since the introduction of the DATV regime a number of countries have been added to the list of those required to obtain clearance before transiting the UK. This has been done in response to emerging counter-terrorism threats to the UK. We are already committed to reviewing the whole DATV regime when we conduct the next visa waiver test.
Recent events have highlighted Yemen as being of real and pressing concern to the international community. It was in Yemen that the Detroit bomber received his training and it was the source of the bombs disguised as toner cartridges in cargo aircraft last October. We feel that imposing a DATV regime on those Yemeni citizens who are transiting the UK is a sensible and proportionate response to the threat.
Serious Organised Crime Agency
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 10 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 Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has today published its annual report and accounts for 2010-11. I have laid a copy before the House and made arrangements to place copies in the Vote Office.
UK Threat Level
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Yesterday, 11 July, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) changed the UK threat level from international terrorism from severe to substantial. This means that a terrorist attack is a strong possibility.
The change in the threat level to substantial does not mean the overall threat has gone away, there remains a real and serious threat against the United Kingdom and I would ask the public to remain vigilant.
The decision to change the threat level is taken by JTAC independently of Ministers and is based on the very latest intelligence, considering factors such as capability, intent and time scale. “Substantial” continues to indicate a high-level of threat; and that an attack might well occur without further warning. The threat level is kept under constant review.
Contest (UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism)
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I have today published a revised version of Contest: The United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
International counter-terrorism work has made very significant progress over the past 10 years. Al-Qaeda is weaker than at any time since 9/11. It has not conducted a successful attack here since 2005. It has played no role in recent political change in north Africa and the middle east. Its ideology has been widely discredited and it has failed in all its objectives. Continued international pressure can further reduce its capability, and the UK must work with other countries to seize those opportunities in the coming months and years.
But al-Qaeda continues to be a significant threat and other terrorist groups, some affiliated to al-Qaeda—notably in Yemen and Somalia—have emerged over the past two years to be a substantial threat in their own right. The threat from Northern Ireland related terrorism has also increased. The scale of the threat and of activity to contain it is reflected in the number of arrests and convictions here for terrorist related offences. These figures remain high. The Government will continue to give the highest importance to their counter-terrorism work.
The aim of our counter-terrorist strategy is to reduce the risk to the UK and UK interests so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence.
The scope of the strategy has been broadened to cover all forms of terrorism and has been changed to reflect the Government’s security and counter-terrorism policies.
Under our “Pursue” work, the purpose of which is to stop terrorist attacks, we have already reviewed the most controversial counter-terrorism and security powers which have been in place here and made significant changes to them. They are now more effective and more proportionate. We will work hard to maintain intelligence coverage of terrorist-related activity here and give the intelligence and security services and the police the capabilities they need. We will continue to try to prosecute or deport more of those who have been engaged in terrorist-related activity; and we will support foreign Governments in building their capacity to deal with terrorism overseas.
We have revised work on “Prevent”—which aims to stop people being drawn into terrorist activity—and have already published a comprehensive assessment or work to date and a statement of our future strategy. Like Contest as a whole “Prevent” has increased in scope to deal with all forms of terrorism and also to more clearly tackle extremism which is conducive to terrorist activity and can draw people towards it. We will make a clearer distinction between our “Prevent” work and our programmes to support integration. Our focus will be on challenging ideology, supporting vulnerable people, and working with key sectors where radicalisation may occur.
In our “Protect” work, we will continue to respond to recent threats to aviation security. We will further strengthen our borders—notably through the formation of the National Crime Agency—and the protection of our critical infrastructure. For “Prepare”—our contingency planning—we have learnt lessons from previous terrorist attacks. We will continue to build our capabilities to respond to a Mumbai style attack; to address the highest impact terrorist risks, including an attack which might make use of unconventional weapons; and to resolve issues of interoperability between the emergency services.
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games will be the biggest sporting event in our history. Terrorism poses the greatest security threat to the games. Ensuring the security of the Olympics will be an absolute priority over the coming year.
The threat endures but al-Qaeda is significantly weaker than it has been for 10 years. There are opportunities for us and our allies to seize the opportunities we have now to further enhance our security and reduce the threats we face. This strategy is intended to enable us to do so.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
Theresa May Excerpts(12 years, 10 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 Bill be now read a Second time.
Since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect in January 1986, it has been widely recognised by the police and the courts that time spent on bail does not count towards the maximum permitted period of detention without charge. That is entirely right and proper. Being held in custody in a police cell is clearly not the same as being free on police bail, even with conditions attached.
For more than 25 years, the sensible interpretation of the law has enabled the police to investigate crimes and keep the public safe, but on 19 May, in a judicial review, Mr Justice McCombe gave an oral judgment that it was his view that a district judge—as we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), Judge Feinstein—had been right to refuse a routine application for a warrant of further detention of Paul Hookway, a suspect in a murder investigation.
I should stress to the House that at the time of the oral judgment on 19 May, it was not at all clear what the implications of this case would be. Indeed, in his oral judgment, Mr Justice McCombe himself said that “the consequences” of this ruling
“are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases”.
At that time, it was not clear whether the ruling was restricted to the details of the Hookway case alone, whether it had a limited application or whether it was restricted to warrants of further detention beyond 36 hours. It was not until the complex written judgment was received on Friday 17 June—and considered in detail with the advice of counsel—that it began to become clear that this case had wider implications for police detention and bail.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the Government for their speedy action on this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why we are here today is that judicial interpretation in recent years, as so often, has been in favour of the criminal rather than the victim? Does not this legislation shift the balance in the right direction?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but he tries to tempt me down a path of discussion which I think is probably inappropriate for today’s debate, although I have been on record in this House in commenting on previous judicial decisions. I know that there are those who do indeed feel the way my hon. Friend does, but we had better not get into that in today’s debate.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary and thank her for giving evidence about this matter to the Select Committee on Tuesday. She mentioned the legal advice sought by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Has the Home Office sought its own independent legal advice? I see the Solicitor-General sitting beside the right hon. Lady. Presumably, the Home Office, independent of ACPO, is satisfied that everything is in order so far as the legal advice is concerned.
Mrs May
Given his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers never confirm or deny when asked what legal advice or opinion they have sought. However, I can tell him that the Home Office is satisfied that the legislation is necessary. If it were not, we would not be introducing it.
One hour and two minutes after the Home Office received ACPO’s professional, legal and operational advice on Thursday 30 June, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice delivered an oral statement to the House in which he announced our intention to introduce emergency legislation. The police’s professional and operational judgment, backed up by the legal expertise of two leading QCs, has guided the Government’s decision. Only fast-track primary legislation can give the police the necessary certainty and immediacy in restoring the law as it was understood to operate. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), what we seek to do is return things to how they have been for the last 25 years.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
What many Opposition Members find difficult to deal with is the time scale. The Home Secretary says that the Government acted as speedily as possible, but Ministers did not meet representatives of ACPO until 24 June. The right hon. Lady could have read what was said by Michael Zander on 18 June, when he made it absolutely clear that we would need an appeal or emergency legislation. If she is the person in charge, why did she know nothing about that, and why did she not meet ACPO representatives until 24 June?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman asked me the same question earlier this week when I appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. The issue has also been raised by a number of other Opposition Members, who are doing their best to suggest that there was a delay. There was no delay. It was necessary for all the parties concerned to examine in detail the judgment that had been made available on 17 June. Professor Michael Zander is well respected in this field, in which he has considerable expertise, but I think that if I had come to the House and proposed to the Opposition that the Government introduce emergency legislation on the basis of an article that had appeared in a journal, the Opposition would have rightly told the Government that they should take a rather more professional approach.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday not to grant a stay in the case has made the legislation all the more vital and all the more urgent. I welcome the support for it that has been promised by Opposition Front Benchers, as well as the support given by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It is clear to me, at least, that the Government acted with alacrity, but perhaps the Home Secretary can help me by explaining earlier events involving Greater Manchester police. Why, despite the discussion following the judgment, did they not apply for a certificate for an appeal on 19 May, and why did it then take so long for that to happen? In particular, why was no reliable written note taken of the oral judgment?
Mrs May
The answer to the question about the written note is that we were waiting for the judge who had made the decision to produce his own written judgment, so that it would be absolutely clear to us what we would need to interpret. What Greater Manchester police were dealing with was the oral judgment that had been delivered on 19 May. As I have just said, Mr Justice McCombe himself indicated that he did not think that the consequences would be especially severe. Only after further consideration did Greater Manchester police conclude that it would be necessary to appeal against the judgment.
It is important to understand that it was not simply a question of looking at the legal judgment. It was for the police to consider, in operational terms, whether they were able to work within that judgment. When the written judgment was made available to them, the operational implications became clear. It is those operational implications that give cause for concern, and they are the reason for the Bill that we are introducing today.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been dealing with issues relating to the emergency legislation. Will she tell us why the Attorney-General did not immediately join Greater Manchester police in applying for a stay of judgment as well as joining them in applying for an appeal?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady has already raised a number of questions relating to this matter, including the question of the stay of judgment. She has claimed that there was a considerable delay before we came to the House, but, as I said earlier, one hour and two minutes after we received the formal and final judgment from ACPO on the basis of advice from the two QCs whom it had been consulting, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made his statement here. As for her previous question about why the Home Office did not join the police in requesting a stay, the answer is simple: we had no locus standi. We were not part of the initial legal proceedings, and it was not open to us to be party to that request.
Let me add—just in case the right hon. Lady intends to ask about this—that she has implied in the past that if Greater Manchester police had applied for a stay earlier, a different decision would have been made and everything might have been okay. However, it is now clear, both from the decision that the Supreme Court issued earlier this week and from what has been said by leading legal commentators such as Joshua Rozenberg, that it is not even certain that the Supreme Court has the power to order a stay in relation to such an appeal.
Yvette Cooper
Did the Attorney-General consider joining the case for both the appeal and the stay as soon as he was made aware of the position? In the end the Supreme Court asked him to do so, but did he consider doing so as soon as he was told, and when was he told?
Mrs May
I thought I had made the position clear to the right hon. Lady. Those who were party to the initial legal proceedings were able to grant a stay, and Greater Manchester police were able to make a decision—which they did at a certain point in the timetable—on whether to apply for one.
If the right hon. Lady is trying to play party political games with the question of the application for a stay, she should consider the comments that have been made and the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as I have just said, suggests that there is considerable doubt not about the timetable for a stay, but whether the court even has the power to order one in this case. The right hon. Lady should think about that very carefully.
I think it important that the Home Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and also, fortuitously, an opportunity to ask me questions about it during the evidence session that I held with the Committee on Tuesday. I also note the support of leading legal figures such as Professor Michael Zander—who was mentioned earlier—and Liberty, which has said:
“Liberty supports the Government’s intention to amend the law as proposed. In our view the proposed reform is clarificatory and would do nothing more than return the law to the original intention of Parliament and the way in which it has been interpreted—by judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers—for the best part of 25 years.”
I could not agree more.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I fully support the Bill, but may I take the Home Secretary back to the last session of Home Office questions and her surprisingly dismissive comments about the Joint Committee that had been considering her proposals for emergency legislation in relation to pre-charge detention? The Committee had described those proposals as unsatisfactory and unreliable.
In the light of the experience of the last few days, is the Home Secretary beginning to revisit her views on the role of emergency legislation in dealing with pressing and urgent issues? In particular, will she tell us what she would have done if all this had happened two or three weeks later, and the House had been in recess?
Mrs May
The premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I was dismissive of the Joint Committee’s views at Home Office questions, but I was not. Indeed, I have not been dismissive of its views because I have made it clear that we are accepting one of the points it raised on the emergency legislation, and I hardly think accepting one of its points can be described as being dismissive of its views.
The Bill seeks to restore the law on police detention to the position as it has been understood for the last 25 years. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge.
Paul Goggins
I am sorry to exasperate the Home Secretary, but I was rather hoping she would address the point I made at the end of my intervention: what would have happened if all this were taking place when we were in recess?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to debate hypothetical situations. It is right that we are introducing this legislation today, precisely so that it can be debated on the record and, we hope, receive Royal Assent before the House goes into recess. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well about the debates we have had on the emergency legislation for pre-charge detention and what would be applicable and possible for Parliament to do during a recess, and I am sure we will continue to have such debates. As I have said, I have accepted one of the Joint Committee’s points on this issue, and that can hardly be described as dismissing its views.
As I was saying, PACE set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge. It provides that once a person is arrested and brought to a police station, that person must not be detained for longer than 96 hours in total without being charged with an offence. Within the overall maximum permitted 96-hour period, continued detention must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent after the initial 24 hours, and by a magistrate after the initial 36 hours, with fresh warrants required at 36-hour intervals.
There are numerous other safeguards. For example, ongoing detention must be subject to periodic review, and an individual can challenge their detention at any time by bringing an action for habeas corpus in the High Court. The idea some have put forward that this judgment means the police should in some way just “work quicker” to gather evidence ignores the reality of policing and the necessity of the police being able to, for example, take forensics tests, and identify, contact and interview witnesses. The judgment effectively takes away police time in which to do such things.
The Bill seeks to reverse the effect of the High Court’s ruling, but it only seeks to reverse that. It amends PACE to make it explicit that in calculating any period—whether a time limit or a period of pre-charge detention—any periods spent on bail shall be disregarded. The Bill also amends PACE to make it clear that periods of police detention before and after a period of bail are to be treated as if they form a single continuous period. This is an important safeguard that the High Court judgment had overturned, and, again, it restores the position to what it has been understood to be for the past 25 years.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Home Secretary clearly regards police bail as an important tool for bringing people to justice. It often applies to people accused of serious crimes, and they can be required to live at locations well away from their home address so that they do not mix with any associates who might be involved in crime. Will the Home Secretary therefore explain why in the terrorism Bill that has just left Committee she is proposing that the restrictions for those suspected of being involved in terrorism should be weaker than the restrictions in this Bill for people suspected of being involved in serious crime who are on police bail?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is asking me to talk about a Bill that is entirely separate from the one we are addressing today. As I think she knows, in replacing control orders with the terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—we have put together a package that includes both the measure itself and increased funds available to the Security Service and the police for surveillance. That is the basis on which we are going forward with that measure and that Bill.
The Bill before us today provides that the amendments to PACE should have retrospective effect. That means that they are deemed always to have had effect, despite the High Court’s judgment in the Hookway case.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I support the Bill, but the purist in me is slightly anxious about the concept of retrospective legislation. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about how normal that is and whether this step might be opening a door for rather more concerning retrospective legislation?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend sneaked in with his intervention as I was nearing the conclusion of my speech. Perhaps I use the term “retrospective” a little loosely. This is not retrospective legislation in that it merely corrects the decision that has recently been made and puts the situation back to what it had been understood to be. That is supported by Liberty, which has said:
“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden. They would, in our view, not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law rule against retrospective penalties.”
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Home Office, any other part of Government or the Association of Chief Police Officers have any figures to show how many people have been on police bail for, let us say, more than six months and then are not charged?
Mrs May
I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what has been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I am not necessarily opposed to restoring the position to what it was before the court judgment, but I am always anxious about our rushing through all the stages of a Bill, as we are doing today. The Home Secretary has been very dismissive of critics, but my view is that if there was more time, those critics, who may or may not have a very reasonable case, would be able to put their case to Members and there would be further deliberations before we rushed into making law. I have many hesitations in my mind because, as the Home Secretary herself has admitted, when we have previously rushed through legislation, it has not always proved to be useful.
Mrs May
I understand the point that there have in the past been occasions when emergency legislation has been felt to have had consequences other than what was intended. This is a different kind of emergency legislation however, in that it simply reinstates the situation to what it was understood to be for the past 25 years in terms of the operation of PACE and detention and bail. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done what we can to ensure that there has been an opportunity for the Bill to be considered. I made the draft Bill available to Members and others on Monday, and it was formally introduced on Tuesday. We therefore made it available early so that people would have an opportunity to look at it. It is a very short Bill, and it does not need to be more than a short Bill because, I repeat, it is simply reinstating the situation to what it has been for the past 25 years.
The judgment in the Hookway case significantly impairs the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. I am not prepared to stand by and ask the police to fight crime with one arm tied behind their back. The Bill will restore vital powers to the police that they have operated under, without complaint from the courts, for the past 25 years. I commend this Bill to the House.
Yvette Cooper
The point is that the Home Office should have prepared. Immediately after the oral judgment was issued, it was possible that there would be concerns and Professor Zander knew enough about the judgment to write a considered view in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 17 June. He was clearly extremely worried and on that basis he was already offering advice. Home Office officials should have sought information and should have been concerned even on the basis of the oral judgment.
Mrs May
On a point of clarity, will the right hon. Lady confirm the time line? She just referred to Professor Michael Zander in a way that might give Members the impression that his article was written off the back of the oral judgment. Will she confirm that it was made available after the written judgment?
Yvette Cooper
The article was published on 18 June, following the written judgment becoming available on 17 June. He will have needed time to write it, however, and to seek more information and details about the case; Home Office officials, however, chose not to do that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Government Benches might think that this is amusing or a case for dismissing the argument, but they ought to consider the serious consequences for domestic violence victims and police operations across the country. Faced with such circumstances, Home Office officials are obliged to consider that risks are involved. They might not have known the final details until the written judgment arrived, but they should have been preparing, asking for further information from the judge and starting to work out options in case Home Office Ministers needed to act fast when the full information became available.
Keith Vaz
I am sure that there would be a vote against it, probably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
It is important that Parliament is kept informed. The fact that this legislation had to be scrutinised in this way meant that the Home Secretary’s presence this week was very helpful.
Government Members need to be mindful of the fact that Opposition Front Benchers are supporting the Government on this matter. Government Members were a little unfair to the shadow Home Secretary. It is right that she is able to raise issues concerning the time line. Select Committee members from both sides of the House necessarily raised that issue with the Home Secretary on Tuesday, and indeed with the chief constable of Essex and the commander in the Met who deals with these matters. I commend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for their speeches. Although they disagreed on issues concerning the time line, there was absolute agreement with what the Government propose, just as there is unanimous support for it in the Select Committee.
I want to raise two issues with the Home Secretary. The first relates to the position of the Attorney-General and the importance of Law Officers being involved in this process. As the Home Secretary said and as I know from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s Department in the last Government, advice given by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General is by its nature confidential to the Government. However, when this case was first decided on in Salford, I think it was incumbent on Greater Manchester police, who had conduct of this matter, to inform Home Office officials about it, and I am sure that they did. I have not checked the time line, but I am sure that is what they said they did. The Home Office officials should then have consulted the Law Officers. After all, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have superintendence over the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose role is extremely important in these matters.
I am sure that if the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he will talk about the role of ACPO in this matter. Of course we are interested in the role of ACPO, because under the new landscape of policing, ACPO will be reformed. In making this legislation, we are putting a lot of faith in the advice given to ACPO by two Queen’s counsel, and in the advice that it gave Ministers. The chief constable of Essex clarified after the evidence session that he finally told the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice last Thursday that it was time to go back to the House to pass legislation, which is what the Minister told the House last Thursday. The chief constable had originally told the Committee in open session that it was the day after when he finally made up his mind.
I do not think that these issues ought to be left to ACPO. They are serious issues that ought to occupy the time of Home Office officials. I hope that Home Office officials in this case did alert the Law Officers. I am not asking for a time line from the Minister when he replies, but it would be nice to know whether that happened. I believe that the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department have a role in this, because at the end of the day, it is they who have to go to the courts to represent the Government. I accept what the Home Secretary says and that she has no locus standi in these matters, but this needs to be kept under review. If we look to the future rather than the past, and accept that what the Government have to do, as outlined by the Home Secretary, is the right approach, we should be aware that these things may well happen in the future. I know about the points made by Professor Michael Zander. I have not put down a parliamentary question to ask whether Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, where he wrote his article, is standard reading in the Home Office or the Law Officers’ Department.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is setting out his concerns in relation to the time line, and much has been made by his right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter. Every reference is being made to the legal advice. I am sure that with his immense experience at the Home Affairs Committee, he will accept the role that ACPO had, not only in seeking its own legal advice, but in looking at the operational implications. Understanding whether the police could operationally work within the judgment was a crucial part of the decision making in this matter.
Keith Vaz
The Home Secretary is absolutely right; the operational decisions have to be taken by ACPO. I just say to her that in her new landscape, ACPO’s role will change. She may therefore want to consider whether this area should be led by whatever ACPO becomes or whether it should be another part of the new landscape. This issue might happen again. I want to make it absolutely clear that none of this is the fault of Ministers. We raise the time line only—at least I raise the time line only—because should this happen again, we may need to look at the way in which things develop.
On that note, I will terminate my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can earn some brownie points for the future.