Blog

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 24th June 2014.

Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am delighted to have been invited to speak at this prestigious event and to such a distinguished audience. I am particularly pleased to be here at the Mansion House, given the history of policing in the City and the work you do with the Government and others in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

Tonight I want to talk about the balance between privacy and security but in the full context of the threats we face – because too often, these important issues are discussed in a strange vacuum as if the debate was entirely academic.

The threats we face are considerable: the collapse of Syria; the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; Boko Harm in Nigeria; al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen; like minded groups in Libya; al Shabaab in East Africa; terrorist planning in Pakistan and Afghanistan; industrial, military and state espionage practised by states and businesses alike; organised crime that crosses national boundaries; the expanding scope of cyber. All these threats and many more should remind us of an obvious old truth. The world is a dangerous place and the United Kingdom needs the capabilities to defend its interests and protect its citizens.

This task is, of course, becoming more complicated. The evolution of the internet and modern forms of communication provide those who would do us harm with new options; they provide those who would protect us – the police, the security and intelligence agencies, the National Crime Agency and others – with new challenges. And they have kicked off new debates about the balance between privacy and security.

The role of the Home Secretary in approving surveillance

I want to start by telling you about a part of my job that nobody really knows about. It is a responsibility that is rarely discussed but it perhaps occupies more of my time as Home Secretary than anything else.

It is my statutory responsibility to give careful consideration to applications for warrants from the police, the National Crime Agency, the intelligence agencies and other law enforcement bodies to undertake the most sensitive forms of surveillance – surveillance that includes the interception of electronic communications and monitoring private conversations.

If the Security Service wants to place a device in the property of a terrorist suspect, or the National Crime Agency wants to listen to the telephone calls of a drugs trafficker, they need my agreement first. On the basis of a detailed warrant application and advice from officials in my department I must be satisfied that the benefits justify the means and that the proposed action is necessary and proportionate.

The warrant application gives me the intelligence background, the means by which the surveillance will take place, and the degree of intrusion upon the citizen. Neither the Security Service nor other intelligence agencies, nor the police, nor other law enforcement agencies, can undertake sensitive surveillance without providing these details and gaining my approval. Ministerial oversight – which I share with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland – is a crucial safeguard to make sure that the most intrusive powers are used only when they are necessary and proportionate.

In a typical week, I consider warrant applications against organised criminals involved in drugs, guns and money laundering. I consider warrant applications against people suspected of terrorism. Those applications include intelligence relating to modern slavery, gang violence, kidnapping, intimidation and corruption.

They inform me about terrorist plots that could kill innocent civilians and damage our economy. Many applications now relate to events in Syria and the plans young British people have to travel there to fight. Some applications concern attempts to proliferate chemical biological and sometimes even nuclear technology. Threats in cyber space – from organised criminals and hostile foreign states – are increasingly common.

I do not take my responsibilities lightly. I approve warrants only on the basis of detailed intelligence and a reasoned explanation of their likely benefit. Sometimes I demand more information before taking a decision or I make my approval conditional. On some occasions I refuse the application. But the lessons from this daily inflow of detailed intelligence work are clear.

Our country has faced these threats before and the intelligence agencies, the police and other law enforcement agencies have worked brilliantly to contain them. They have done so not through inspired guesswork but by using sensitive capabilities and skills developed over many years.

This government has preserved individual freedom while defending national security

So I make decisions about the specific use of capabilities every day. But I am also responsible for broader government policy that dictates what powers should be available to the authorities and what safeguards should be in place. And since the formation of this government in 2010 we have made a series of changes because we concluded that some powers were unnecessary and unduly intrusive.

We reduced the upper limit on pre-charge detention for terror suspects by half – from 28 days to 14 days. We replaced control orders – which had been defeated consistently and watered down in the courts – with new measures which better balance the need to control with the overriding priority to prosecute. We cut the time an individual can be examined at our ports and borders under counter-terrorism laws.

We have ended the indiscriminate use of no-suspicion stop-and-search powers granted by the Terrorism Act 2000. And one of the first things I did as Home Secretary was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database.

Where we believe the authorities need sensitive and intrusive powers we have increased oversight of their use. We have given greater authority to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to scrutinise in far more detail the operational activity of all the security and intelligence agencies – MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – and to publish their reports. We are making changes to the rules that govern undercover policing. We have new controls on the use of biometric material. We have stopped local authorities using electronic communications data and other surveillance techniques to deal with a raft of relatively trivial problems.

If we take this opportunity to take stock, it is fair to conclude that this government has performed well in preserving individual freedom while defending our national security. But you might not believe that if you listen to some of the things that are said in the debate about privacy and security.

It is alleged that there is a programme of mass surveillance on people in this country; that our intelligence agencies are acting illegally; that there is no effective oversight or control of their activities. It is said that our powers are not only disproportionate but ineffective, that they do not stop terrorist attacks or other serious crimes.

And while we are accused of overstating the threats we face, it is said that the theft and disclosure of sensitive material about the capabilities we have has caused no damage to our national security.

The public is at risk of being misled. It is important that people hear the truth about each of these allegations, because we cannot afford a loss of faith in the vital work of the security and intelligence agencies, and because we need public support and public trust if we are to win the argument about capability.

There is no programme of mass surveillance

Let me start by saying this: there is no programme of mass surveillance and there is no surveillance state. Surveillance of this nature would be illegal, and I only ever sign warrants for limited and specific proposals. If anybody ever attempted any form of mass surveillance, internal controls and external oversight would detect it and stop it and the perpetrators would be prosecuted.

We should be clear about what this accusation actually means. Mass surveillance would require the pervasive and thorough observation of huge numbers of people living in this country.

The very idea that we could or would want to monitor everyone and all their communications, trawling at will through their private lives, is absurd.

Signals intelligence relies on automated and remote access to data on the internet and other communications systems. Computers search for only the communications relating to a small number of suspects under investigation. Once the content of these communications has been identified, and only then, is it is examined by a trained analysts. And every step of the way it is governed by strict rules, checked against Human Rights Act requirements.

That is not mass surveillance.

You do not have to take my word for it. We have an Interception Commissioner whose job it is to monitor the use of powers of interception and collect communications data by all the agencies, including GCHQ. The Commissioner is a man of unimpeachable independent standing. He is the former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Anthony May.

His last annual report, which was published in April, explains that interception requires a warrant from a Secretary of State and must be for a purpose specified in law. There are three such purposes: national security, serious crime and economic well-being when it is related directly to state security. As Sir Anthony says, it would be unlawful to issue a warrant for any other purpose.

In fact, he concludes that “any member of the public who does not associate with potential terrorists or serious criminals or individuals who are potentially involved in action which could raise national security issues for the UK can be assured that none of the interception agencies which I inspect has the slightest interest in examining their emails, their phone or postal communications or their use of the internet, and they do not do so to any extent which could reasonably be regarded as significant.”

He could not be any clearer – there is no mass surveillance programme.

The intelligence agencies do not act illegally

Our critics also allege that the intelligence agencies take advantage of the relationship with their counterparts in the United States to seek intelligence which they cannot obtain legally in the UK.

It is certainly true that we benefit hugely from the intelligence relationships we enjoy with the US and other allies. They have often provided the crucial early warning of terrorist plots against us. They are essential to the protection of this country and we could not do without them.

In this country we do not just have laws governing the use of sensitive capabilities – we also have laws governing the acquisition of information from other countries. Our intelligence agencies – MI5, MI6 and, yes, GCHQ – cannot ask their counterparts overseas to undertake activity that would be unlawful if they conducted it themselves.

This matters, especially in the context of electronic communications. It has been alleged that our agencies rely on their counterparts overseas – notably those in the United States – to provide them with intercepted communications unlawfully. This is – quite simply – untrue.

And again, you do not have to take my word for it. The Intelligence and Security Committee reviewed GCHQ’s alleged use of interception material from the US PRISM programme and concluded that “in each case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception, signed by a Minister, was already in place, in accordance with the legal safeguards contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.”

Sir Anthony May has also looked at this allegation and he concluded: “British intelligence agencies do not circumvent domestic oversight regimes by receiving from US agencies intercept material about British citizens which could not lawfully be acquired by intercept in the UK.”

I know that some people have alleged that GCHQ is exploiting a technical loophole in legislation that allows them to intercept external communications – that is, communications either sent or received outside the United Kingdom – at will and without authorisation. This is also nonsense. The definition of external communications was set out clearly in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It is not new, it is not hidden and it is clear that the interception of external communications by GCHQ requires warrants. They are not signed by me but by the Foreign Secretary. And those warrants have to be accompanied by a certificate, also signed by the Foreign Secretary, that sets out what intelligence analysts in GCHQ are permitted to examine. So there is no loophole and no illegal activity.

There is effective oversight of the agencies

Many of the criticisms of the security and intelligence agencies are based on an assumption that there is only very limited – and ineffective – oversight of what they do. It is often implied that oversight is only provided by ministers and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. This is also wrong.

Safeguards are built into the system at every level. Oversight begins with each and every employee engaged in operational work in the agencies. Their training about legal issues and compliance is detailed and a matter of course. The agencies’ operating systems are designed to control and limit access to intelligence rather than facilitate it. The work that the agencies do is checked, double-checked and checked again.

I have already explained my role and the role of other ministers in approving applications for warrants. I have also mentioned the Interception Commissioner. There are also Commissioners for the Intelligence Services and for Surveillance. Like Sir Anthony May, they are also former members of the senior judiciary, they are entirely independent, and they publish annual reports. There is also the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation – a position established by statute, with a duty to report to the public on the operation of our counter-terrorism legislation. The reviewer is independent of government, but has access to the most sensitive security information. The position was occupied first by Lord Carlile and now by David Anderson, both of whom are as independent as they are expert in the law.

Last year, when we proposed new legislation relating to access to communications data – which is something I have mentioned already and to which I will return later – a Joint Scrutiny Committee of both Houses of Parliament was established to examine the case for the legislation. In doing so, they heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses, including from the security and intelligence agencies and of course the Home Office.

I have already noted how the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has been given an extended remit and more staff to inspect the work of the agencies. They are, for example, due to report on the circumstances surrounding the terrorist murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in May last year. Their investigation has been extraordinarily thorough and extensive, and the agencies have had to submit huge volumes of material. The agencies’ heads and staff have been questioned at great length. And of course the Committee is working on its own report on issues about privacy and security.

There is also an Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears complaints about the activities of the agencies. The Panel is about to consider a legal challenge against aspects of the interception and signals intelligence regime, for example. The Government has submitted and agreed to publish fifty pages of evidence.

This is a comprehensive system of checks and balances with a clear role for elected ministers and Parliamentarians to provide democratic accountability – and I do not believe it is surpassed by any other country.

Our powers and capabilities are necessary and effective

The fourth criticism of the security and intelligence agencies is that their sensitive powers and capabilities are not only disproportionate but ineffective, that they do not stop terrorist attacks or other serious crimes.

We have been asked repeatedly to respond to this criticism by laying out in public and in full our secret capabilities and the effects they have had. In particular we are asked where and when and how terrorist attacks have been stopped. We are asked to submit this information for scrutiny not in Parliament but in public; not by our elected representatives but by unelected, unaccountable and self-appointed arbiters of our national security; not with respect for the need for secrecy but with a cavalier and reckless transparency.

We cannot and will not do so. If we did we would only damage the capabilities we have to protect our country. What we have done and what we will continue to do is set out our capabilities and the benefits they bring – and we will set them out to the people who have the legal and constitutional duty to provide oversight of these necessarily secret activities.

Those people are the Interception Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. We will give the Committee all the information they need to do their job, and we will do everything we can to allow them to report on these matters in detail.

And the crucial fact here is that in all their recent reports and evidence, the Commissioners and the Intelligence and Security Committee conclude that the capabilities of the security and intelligence agencies are necessary, effective and used in a responsible way.

We can be more open and explicit about the benefits of communications data because some of this data – which is obtained by the police and others from communications service providers – can be used as evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service in our courts. As I have said before, it is estimated that communications data is used in 95 per cent of all serious and organised crime cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. And it has been used in every single major terrorist investigation over the last ten years. Access to communications data is vital for combating crime and fighting terrorism. We would not be able to keep our country safe without it.

The threat we face is real and it is deadly

For a long time, we have been criticised for overstating the threats we face. We need to remember some facts. Between September 2001 and the end of 2013, more than 2,500 people were arrested for terrorist offences in this country. Almost 400 people have been convicted for terrorism-related offences. We have disrupted more than one major attack in this country each year since 2005 and many more overseas.

The terrorist threats to this country and our interests are changing faster than at any time since 9/11. We continue to face possible attacks by al Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But we face further threats from Syria and now from Iraq where al Qaida, ISIL and others have created a safe haven with substantial resources including advanced technology and weapons. They are on the doorstep of Europe, just a few hours flying time from London, and they want to attack us – not just in Syria or Iraq but here in Britain.

Many hundreds of people from our country have travelled to Syria to fight against the Assad regime. They have ended up fighting for terrorist groups, often against other parts of the opposition rather than against the Syrian government. Some of them will present a real danger to us when they return to Britain.

The investigation of these people will require all of our sensitive capabilities and the skills and resources of the agencies and police. It will involve the further use of the powers I have through the Royal Prerogative to remove people’s passports to stop them travelling – and in a smaller number of cases, I am prepared to use my powers to deprive people with dual citizenship of their British nationality.

We need to focus all aspects of our counter-terrorist strategy on the problem – pursuing groups who are plotting against us; preventing people from being drawn into extremism and terrorism; and protecting our borders and infrastructure.

Organised crime is changing as fast as terrorism. Because of the nature of financial and economic crime, those of you who work here in the City are more aware of these developments than many others. Crime is moving online. Cyber techniques enable organised criminals to carry out crimes from remote locations, often in other countries. They operate at a scale and speed and from a distance that has not previously been possible. I have every confidence in the strategy we have developed to deal with organised crime and in the capacity of our new National Crime Agency. But the threats faced by the NCA are formidable.

In front of this audience I do not want to spend more time pointing out the inadequacy of the argument that the threats we face are overstated. But I do want to make this related observation: those who make this claim find it easy to argue that the disclosure of sensitive capabilities used by the police and intelligence agencies has caused no damage. If you don’t believe in the threat then of course you can be frivolous about the capabilities intended to contain it. Indeed, we are sometimes asked to believe that the disclosure of our capabilities has served a public good.

The fact is that since the theft of NSA and GCHQ documents, and since the allegations about their secret capabilities contained in those documents were made public, this country is at greater risk than it was before.

Maintaining capabilities in a digital age

It is right that we have a debate about security and privacy. But that debate must start with a sensible and considered assessment of the threats we and other democratic states face. As events in Syria and Iraq show, we cannot wish those threats away. If we do not base this hugely important debate upon the threats, nothing we do will seem necessary or proportionate.

We then need to be clear about our capabilities and the challenges we face in maintaining them in a digital age. I want to make three points about this.

First, we are living more of our lives online, using an array of new technology – IP telephony such as Skype and Facetime, social networking such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, chat rooms, anonymising services, and a myriad of mobile apps. This is hugely liberating and a great opportunity for economic growth, but this technology has become essential not just to the likes of you and me but to organised criminals and terrorists.

Second, the new technology is generally owned and operated not by states but by communications companies. They are global and they exercise considerable power. They collect data from their services about our online activity and they often use it for commercial purposes. It is often bought and sold. These companies affect – I might even say intrude upon – our lives and our privacy every single day. They can drive a car up your road and put an image of your home online for the world to observe. Of course, they do not need a warrant to do so.

Third – and I cannot emphasise this point enough – far from having some fictitious mastery over all this technology we, in democratic states, face the significant risk of being caught out by it. Governments have always reserved the power to monitor communications and to collect data about communications when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

It is much harder now – there is more data, we do not own it and we can no longer always obtain it. I know some people will say “hurrah for that” – but the result is that we are in danger of making the internet an ungoverned, ungovernable space, a safe haven for terrorism and criminality.

I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals. I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability – not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour – is the great danger we face.

And that danger is already upon us. We no longer have capabilities upon which we have always relied. Let me give one example. Over a six-month period the National Crime Agency alone estimates that it has had to drop at least twenty cases as a result of missing communications data. Thirteen of these were threat-to-life cases in which a child was assessed to be at risk of imminent harm.

The truth about the way the privacy and security debate has been presented is that it creates myths that hide serious and pressing difficulties. The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public.

That is why I have said before and I will go on saying that we need to make changes to the law to maintain the capabilities we need. Yes, we have to make sure that the capabilities can only be used with the right authorisation and with appropriate oversight. But this is quite simply a question of life and death, a matter of national security. We must keep on making the case until we get the changes we need.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on Chinese visas.  The speech was made at the UK Chinese Visa Alliance event on 16th June 2014.

I am very pleased to be joining you for this evening’s event.

Today the UK China Visa Alliance launches its report “Building on Progress” which examines ways the UK can continue to attract ever greater numbers of Chinese visitors to this country.

The spending power brought about by China’s economic revolution provides us with enormous opportunities. This week the Prime Minister will be welcoming the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang to the UK so that we can continue to strengthen the link between our two countries.

This continuing closeness is something we all want to see in many areas including tourism. Visit Britain estimates that every Chinese tourist to the UK spends on average £2500. So there is direct economic value. But there is also enormous value in increasing cultural ties, and the potential impact that holds for future education, investment and the success of British brands in the Chinese market.

I want to see increasing numbers of Chinese visitors enjoying all the fantastic tourist attractions across the UK from the Changing of the Guards at Buckingham Palace and the Lake District and the magnificent scenery in Scotland and Wales.

I know many of you here – hoteliers, restaurateurs, retailers, and all those involved in the tourism industry – work extremely hard to ensure that all tourist and business travellers have a great experience when they visit Britain.

So I want to thank you for all that you do to show them everything this country has to offer, particularly those of you that are part of the GREAT China Welcome programme.

We have a good story to tell

At the Home Office we have listened to the views of British businesses, travel companies and Chinese customers and have taken steps to improve our visa service – and as a result we are seeing record numbers of Chinese visitors flocking to the UK.

In 2013 we issued more than 290,000 visitor visas to Chinese nationals, up nearly 40% on 2012.

Chinese nationals who apply for a British visa are very likely to get one – with 96% of Chinese visit visas approved.

And of all the UK’s visa operations, in 2013 we saw the biggest increase in visitor numbers from China.

And I just want to address some of the myths we still hear about visas. It’s not true for example that last year we issued fewer visitor visas than Belgium. It’s not true that we are miles behind France – last year we issued only slightly fewer visas to Chinese tourists than they did. And in fact we are gaining ground on Schengen countries – because last year the number of visit visas granted by the UK grew faster than France in particular and Schengen countries overall.

So the message is clear: Britain is open to Chinese tourists and business travellers who are most welcome when they come here.

Our Chinese visa system provides an excellent service

Many of the changes we have introduced to our Chinese visa service are ensuring it really is first class.

We have upgraded, expanded and branded our Visa Application Centres in China to increase capacity and strengthen our welcome. We have 12 centres across the major cities – more than any other country.

We have made our processes less bureaucratic.

And we continue to provide a service that is easy to access, ensures fast-turn around times, and provides fast-track priority services for those that want them.

In fact – most Chinese nationals applying for a non-settlement UK visa will have one issued in just over seven days – with 98% of visit visas issued within our 15 working day target.

Moreover, Approved Destination Scheme visit visas are processed in an average of just over five days.

In the last year many of the initiatives we have introduced are proving increasingly popular.

Those who want their visa issued quickly can choose the 3 to 5 day priority visa service – in July last year 11,000 customers used this service.

We have brought in a Passport Pass Back service so that customers can retain their passport while their UK visa application is being processed.

And we have introduced a VIP Mobile Visa Service for high-value travellers who would like the convenience of visa staff going directly to them to collect the biometric data necessary for a visa.

Over the last five months we have delivered this service in three new locations in response to demand and we continue to expand and promote its reach.

All these changes are working. They provide greater flexibility and choice. And we know they have been welcomed by many travellers and tour operators in China. In fact, China Perfect Travel in Beijing told us: Chinese tourists are “very welcome” in the UK and that “obtaining a visa has become much easier.”

But there is more we can do, and we are doing it

But I know we cannot afford to rest on our laurels.

As China’s economy continues to grow, tapping into the potential that offers is vital to the UK. And we must ensure we can attract a healthy share of the increasing numbers of Chinese tourists. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, Chinese tourists spent nearly £63 billion on foreign travel in 2012, topping the tourist spend of any country. And this spend is set to rise substantially potentially to around £120 billion by 2015 according to Morgan Stanley.

I know many people have argued that Britain should join Schengen.

But I have been absolutely clear that I do not believe this is the answer.

The reason a Schengen visa is valid for 26 countries is because there are no border controls between these countries.

Our border controls in northern France and Belgium are absolutely vital in ensuring we only allow those we want to come to the UK to enter. We must ensure a migration system that commands public confidence, serves our economic interest, and protects the UK from immigration abuse.

The use of biometric data helps us to strengthen control of our borders, confirming identity and giving us greater assurance around the background of those who want to come here.

But while I have said we will not be joining Schengen, there are a range of other things we can do.

So today I want to tell you about our latest initiatives.

This August we will be launching a super priority 24 hour visa service which will dramatically speed-up the process for those who want to have a visa issued quickly. We are the only European country to offer this – a testament I believe to the Government’s determination to ensure we have a truly first class visa service on offer.

We have also made significant improvements to our online application process. Later this month we will trial a new application service in China. It will be simpler, more user-friendly, with translated and intuitive questions, asking customers only those necessary for their individual application. It will be launched on our new improved website, and is as easy to complete on a mobile or tablet as it is on a desktop computer.

Schengen

But most importantly, we are working to make it much easier for Chinese people to visit the UK and mainland Europe on the same trip.

Last year a pilot scheme which enabled tour operators to operate from a single application form in processing UK and Schengen visa applications proved highly successful. We will be extending it to all Chinese visitors applying to the UK starting this summer with independent travellers. Now those applying online will be able to automatically generate a partially completed Schengen form at the same time as completing their UK application.

This helps to align the process of applying for a UK visa with the Schengen visa process – and I would like us to seek further alignment with Schengen applications.

Talks are ongoing with European partners about further streamlining visa processes with Schengen arrangements to make trips to the UK even easier for Chinese visitors.

Currently, we are exploring the development of a “single Visa Application Centre visit” concept which would enable customers who visit a UK application centre to submit both UK and Schengen visa applications at the same time.

Although, of course, progress will be dependent on getting the agreement of a Schengen partner.

And finally, I am very pleased to announce a new joint British/Irish Visa Scheme – which will allow Chinese visitors with an Irish visa to travel to Britain, or with a British visa to travel to Ireland – without the need for a separate visa.

This arrangement will greatly improve both the British and the Irish offer to Chinese visitors and I hope will encourage ever greater numbers to explore both of these beautiful, vibrant, richly cultured island nations. The British/Irish Visa Scheme will also be launched in India.

As I said earlier, we have a good story to tell. The Government is playing its part. But by working together we can do more to improve our appeal to Chinese visitors.

The cross Government marketing campaign – GREAT – is helping to sell Britain as a great tourist destination to overseas travellers.

But I would like to see all those in the tourist industry helping to pitch Britain as a great place to visit – not only to increase the numbers of visitors, but to encourage those who do visit to stay here longer, and to spend more money in our hotels, at tourist attractions and on luxury goods. Alongside the group tours we know the Chinese independent travel sector is growing and we can do more to appeal to that sector too. It is important that we all provide a clear, unambiguous welcome.

Part of that appeal is making sure Chinese visitors know about the improved UK visitor visa service that’s on offer – and that all of us work together to dispel the persistent myths that we still hear and that can put people off.

Conclusion

Britain is a hugely attractive tourism destination – and these changes along with the fantastic visa service we already have in place will encourage even more visitors from China to discover it for themselves.

Having a visa system is vital to protecting Britain’s borders. But I want to make sure we have a system which is as efficient as possible in welcoming tourists and business people from around the world.

Britain is open to the brightest and best. And we are open to Chinese visitors who want to come and enjoy all the fantastic sights and experiences this great country has to offer.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference held at the Bournemouth International Conference on 21st May 2014.

The police must change and so must the Federation

This is my fifth address to the annual Police Federation conference. In each of my previous speeches, I’ve had to deliver some pretty tough messages. I know you haven’t always liked what I’ve had to say. And to be honest, you haven’t always been the easiest of audiences. But I want to start by saying this.

When I first addressed you, back in 2010, I explained to you that there would be tough times ahead. It’s easy to forget now, but when this government was formed, we had just been through the worst financial disaster since the war. We faced the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history. We had a higher deficit than countries like Portugal and Greece, both of whom had to be bailed out by the European Union and whose economies continue to languish.

So I told you that we needed to be honest about dealing with the debt crisis and that doing so would mean police spending cuts. But I also told you that as Home Secretary I would be tough on crime, I would give you the powers you need to get the job done, and, as a government, we would do everything possible to maintain a strong police presence on our streets.

I know many of you were sceptical. I know you meant it when you said that spending cuts would destroy the police as we know it, that the front line service would be ruined and that crime would go shooting up.

I know that delivering those spending cuts has been hard and of course they have come at a price. We’ve changed your pay and conditions, we’ve reformed your pensions, and, yes, there are fewer officers employed overall. I understand the sacrifices you have made. But today we can say with confidence that spending cuts have not ended policing as we know it, the front line service has largely been maintained, and most important of all – according to both recorded crime statistics and the independent crime survey – crime is down by more than 10% since the election. So I want to thank every police officer and staff member in the country for getting on with the job and helping to deliver that reduction in crime.

Officers remembered

And I want to take this opportunity too to remember the officers who have fallen while on duty in the last year. PC Shazahan Wadud; DC Adrian Grew; PC Andrew Duncan; and PC Mick Chapman. They died serving their communities, and we honour their memory.

Police bravery

It was good to be reminded by Steve Williams during his speech of the police bravery awards. What strikes me is not just the bravery shown by individual officers but the fact that everyone says in a matter of fact way they were just doing their job. The public owe all those who do that job day in and out a debt of gratitude.

Policing by consent

Nearly 200 years ago, Sir Robert Peel founded the Metropolitan Police and declared, “the police are the public and the public are the police.” Today, everybody in policing – from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to the newest recruit on the frontline – is familiar with those famous words. They are the unofficial motto of the British model of policing and they say very clearly that in this country we believe in policing by consent. It is a principle we all take pride in, and it is the duty of us all to protect and preserve it.

That’s why, if there is anybody in this hall who doubts that our model of policing is at risk, if there is anybody who underestimates the damage recent events and revelations have done to the relationship between the public and the police, if anybody here questions the need for the police to change, I am here to tell you that it‟s time to face up to reality.

For the Federation has gathered here in Bournemouth at a time of great difficulty for policing. In the last few years, we have seen the Leveson Inquiry. The appalling conclusions of the Hillsborough independent panel. The death of Ian Tomlinson and the sacking of PC Harwood. The ongoing inquiry by an independent panel into the murder of Daniel Morgan. The first sacking of a chief constable for gross misconduct in modern times. The investigation of more than ten senior officers for acts of alleged misconduct and corruption.

Allegations of rigged recorded crime statistics. The sacking of PCs Keith Wallis, James Glanville and Gillian Weatherley after “Plebgate”. Worrying reports by the inspectorate about stop and search and domestic violence. The Herne Review into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Special Demonstration Squad. The Ellison Review into allegations of corruption during the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Further allegations that the police sought to smear Stephen‟s family. Soon, there will be another judge-led public inquiry into policing.

Then there is the role of the Federation itself, which as Sir David Normington said in his review, needs to change from “top to bottom”. We’ve seen accusations of bullying, a lack of transparency in the accounts, questionable campaign tactics, infighting between branches, huge reserve funds worth millions of pounds, and a resounding call for change from your members – with 91% saying things cannot go on as they are.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to turn a blind eye to these matters, to let things go on as they are, to deny the need for change. It would be the easy thing to do, but it would also be the wrong thing to do, because I would be letting down the people in whose interests I am elected and you are employed to serve.

I say this not – as I‟ve heard it said by some of you before – because I want to run down the police, but because I want the police to be the best it can be. I want you – the representatives of the thousands of decent, dedicated, honest police officers – to show the public that you get it, that you want to take responsibility for the future of policing and you want to work with me to change policing for the better.

Police reform is working and crime is falling

When I became Home Secretary 4 years ago, I started a programme of radical police reform. At the time, a lot of people – the Federation, Association of Chief Police Officers, the Opposition and many others – questioned the need for that reform. But after 4 years of reduced police spending and falling crime, as well as the revelations I just listed, nobody questions the need for police reform any longer.

The abolition of all government targets, and putting operational responsibility where it belongs, with the police. Bureaucratic accountability replaced with democratic accountability, with crime maps, beat meetings and elected police and crime commissioners.

An inspectorate more independent of government and more independent of the police.

A College of Policing to drive up standards, improve professionalism and develop a better understanding of what works.

The National Crime Agency to get tough on serious and organised crime.

More powers and resources for the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Direct entry to inject into the senior ranks different perspectives, fresh thinking and new talent.

And new terms and conditions that will reward not just time served but skills, expertise and frontline service. I know not all of these changes have been easy. I appreciate that you’re not just police officers but mothers and fathers too. You have bills to pay and mouths to feed. Changes to your pay and conditions and your pensions were always going to be tough. But – when the debt crisis meant that the alternative was to lose officers in greater numbers – it was the right thing to do. And because the changes were not just about saving money but about encouraging and rewarding specialist skills and expertise, I believe they will serve the police well for many years to come.

Not all of the changes I’ve made should be so controversial and indeed many of them should be welcome to the police officers you represent. As Home Secretary I’ve resisted public and political pressure telling me to interfere with operational policing. I know locally-imposed targets still exist – and I am as frustrated by that as you are – but I have removed reams of bureaucracy and all targets imposed by government. I’ve increased the number of charging decisions you take. I’ve increased the number of prosecutions where the police take the lead instead of handing over to the CPS. I’m working with the NHS to reduce the time you have to spend dealing with people with mental health problems. And I’m changing the law to make sure that life really does mean life for people who murder police officers.

Our reforms have been crucial in helping you to cut crime even as we have cut spending.

If we hadn’t introduced police and crime commissioners and established the College of Policing, we wouldn’t have been able to break the unaccountable ACPO monopoly at the head of policing in this country. By introducing PCCs we have made police leaders more responsive to the people they serve, and by establishing the College we are improving the professionalism of policing and giving your members a direct say in its future.

If we hadn’t reformed the way the inspectorate works, we might not have been able to shine a light on the misuse of stop and search or the police response to domestic violence. By making HMIC more independent of government and of the police, and by increasing its resources, we will later this year see the first ever annual inspections of every force in the country – which will give the public accurate and understandable information about the performance of their force.

If we hadn’t set up the National Crime Agency, complete with the power to coordinate and task law enforcement organisations and assets, we’d still be nowhere near getting to grips with serious and organised crime. There is still a long way to go, but by creating the NCA we have made a start in tackling this long-ignored serious, national threat.

If we had tried to micromanage the reorganisation of the front line from Whitehall, we’d have ended up in a predictable bureaucratic mess. By freeing up chief constables and giving them the freedom to get on with the job, we have seen the proportion of officers in front line roles go up to 91%.

If we had tried to set policing priorities from the Home Office, we’d have had to keep the bureaucratic apparatus required to keep tabs on you – and we’d have fewer officers available on the frontline. By getting rid of all those government-imposed targets and much of that bureaucracy, we have saved up to 4.5 million police hours – the equivalent of 2,100 full-time officers.

If we had gone on with the same terms and conditions, we’d have chiefs without the flexibility to lead their forces through these difficult times – and we’d have fewer police officers in post. By making those difficult decisions, we have rewarded front line service – and saved police jobs.

If we hadn’t embarked on police reform, there is no guarantee that the front line service would, as HMIC reported, have been largely maintained. And there is no guarantee that crime would have gone on falling. So the lesson is clear – police reform is working and crime is falling.

The police must change

That is something you should all take pride in. But I’m afraid that this achievement – remarkable as it is – does not mean there is no need for further change.

I know that the vast majority of police officers are dedicated, honourable men and women who want to serve their communities and bring criminals to justice. But when you remember the list of recent revelations about police misconduct, it is not enough to mouth platitudes about “a few bad apples”. The problem might lie with a minority of officers, but it is still a significant problem, and a problem that needs to be addressed.

I can already hear some of you say, “but the opinion polls show confidence in the police hasn’t changed.” And that is indeed true. The opinion polls show consistently that about two thirds of the public trust the police to tell the truth. But that is no reason to rest on our laurels, because we should never accept a situation in which a third of people do not trust police officers to tell the truth.

And for different communities, the numbers can get very worrying indeed. According to one survey carried out recently only 42% of black people from a Caribbean background trust the police. That is simply not sustainable. Change is therefore required.

Many of the government’s broader police reforms will help. The College of Policing will improve the quality of leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police and of the government and therefore has greater credibility in reporting on police standards and performance.

But while these reforms are important they are not on their own enough to root out corruption and ensure standards are as high as they can be. That is why the College of Policing is establishing a Code of Ethics. It’s why the College is creating a national register of officers struck off from the police.

We’re making sure officers can’t escape scrutiny or censure by resigning or retiring early. We’ve increased the powers and resources of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I’ve asked HMIC to look at the anti-corruption capability of all forces. We’ve tightened the rules around the deployment of undercover officers. I will soon publish proposals to strengthen the protections available to whistleblowers in the police. I am creating a new criminal offence of police corruption. And I am determined that the use of stop and search must come down, become more targeted and lead to more arrests.

But there is still more work to be done. We need to go further and faster in opening up the police to outside talent and to people who might not ordinarily consider a career in policing. We need to look much more closely at standards of training and leadership. We need to do whatever we can to make sure police officers are representative of the communities they serve. And – as I have said before – I am willing to grant the IPCC more powers and reform the organisation further if that is what is needed.

Because it cannot be right when officers under investigation by the IPCC comply with the rules by turning up for interview but then refuse to cooperate and decline to answer questions.

Such behaviour – which I am told is often encouraged by the Federation – reveals an attitude that is far removed from the principles of public service felt by the majority of police officers. It is the same attitude exposed by HMIC when officers, called to help a woman who had suffered domestic violence, accidentally recorded themselves calling the victim a “slag” and a “bitch”. It is the same attitude expressed when young black men ask the police why they are being stopped and searched and are told it is “just routine” even though according to the law, officers need “reasonable grounds for suspicion”. It is an attitude that betrays contempt for the public these officers are supposed to serve – and every police officer in the land, every single police leader, and everybody in the Police Federation should confront it and expunge it from the ranks.

The Fed must change too

But it’s not just the police itself that must change, because the Federation must change too. This is something I know Steve Williams believes sincerely – and the vast majority of your members agree with him. I remember sitting on this stage last year when Steve gave a brave and thoughtful speech. In that speech, Steve said this: “Of course, we will fight for pay and conditions. But we will not be responsible for giving anyone the impression that our members are self-interested. They are committed to protecting the public and this must not be lost in the way we present ourselves as their representatives. I want to see us not as an organisation that’s stuck in the past but as an organisation that is looking constructively to the future.”

That is why Steve commissioned an independent review into the future of the Police Federation. The review was chaired by Sir David Normington, the former permanent secretary of the Home Office, and the other members of the review committee were Sir Denis O’Connor, the former chief constable and Chief Inspector of Constabulary; Brendan Barber, the former general secretary of the TUC; Linda Dickens, a professor of industrial relations; Dr Neil Bentley, the deputy director general of the CBI; and Kathryn Kane, the former chairman of the Police Federation in Merseyside. These are all people who want the best for policing in this country, and who want the Federation to serve its members well.

The Normington Review found a lack of transparency and openness in the affairs and finances of the Federation. It found only limited accountability to the Fed’s membership and to the public. It concluded that the Fed was unable to promote good behaviour and professional standards. Police officers had lost confidence in the organisation and the Federation had lost its ability to influence and represent its members. As the report itself said, “we have encountered some [Fed leaders] who are more interested in fighting internal battles and protecting their own positions.”

The Normington Review made 36 recommendations and, as I said at the time, it is vital that the Federation implements every one of them. Because the best thing that can happen for policing in this country is for you – the representatives of every police man and woman in the land – to show the public that you understand the need for change. I want you to show the public that you get it, that you want to take responsibility, that you want to make sure the Federation operates in the spirit of public service.

But since the Normington Review concluded, that is not what has happened. Federation staff have been forced out and there have been allegations of bullying and victimisation. Instead of embracing the need for reform, some members of the Fed seems to have reverted to the worst kinds of behaviour exposed by the Normington Review.

So the candidates who put themselves forward to replace Steve Williams, those who choose the new chairman, and you – the Federation’s representatives – have a choice to make. You can choose the status quo or you can choose change; you can choose irrelevance or reform; you can become another reactionary trade union or you can make sure the Police Federation becomes once more the authentic voice of policing in this country.

I do not want to have to impose change on you, because I want you to show the public that you want to change. I want you to show them that you have the best interests of the police and of the public at heart. But make no mistake. If you do not make significant progress towards the implementation of the Normington reforms, if the Federation does not start to turn itself around, you must not be under the impression that the government will let things remain as they are.

The Federation was created by an Act of Parliament and it can be reformed by an Act of Parliament. If you do not change of your own accord, we will impose change on you.

And there are three changes I plan to make even before we reach that point. First, it is not acceptable that when the Federation is sitting on vast reserves worth tens of millions of pounds, it is in receipt of public funds to pay for the salaries and expenses of the chairman, general secretary and treasurer. We have already said we would reduce this spending from £320,000 to £190,000 per year but I can announce today that this funding will be stopped altogether from August. Instead, the money will go into a new fund to accelerate the introduction of Police First – a new scheme designed to attract the brightest young university graduates into the police.

Second, I want Federation representatives to earn the right to represent their members. So in common with changes made elsewhere in the public sector, I plan to change the law so that officers will have to opt in to join the Federation. This will mean that officers no longer become Fed members by default.

I also plan to change the law so that officers who have chosen to become members also have to opt in to pay full subscription fees. Federation members already have the option of not paying full fees if they do not want to use all Federation services. But not many officers know this, and, again, the default position in practice is that officers should automatically pay full fees, regardless. I believe that’s wrong, and it promotes some of the worst problems exposed by the Normington Review.

Third, I want to make the Police Federation more accountable. That means, today and on an annual basis thereafter, the Home Office will use its existing legal powers to call in the Federation’s central accounts. I will also change the law so the Home Office can without any question call in the accounts for any money held by the Federation – including all so-called “Number Two‟ accounts. And I will bring forward proposals to make the Police Federation – that is, the national organisation and all the regional branches – subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Securing the British model of policing by consent

I know that some of you will find these changes unpalatable. In particular, I know that some of you will find the Freedom of Information Act an unwelcome intrusion. But the Police Federation is an organisation created by statute, it serves a public function and the Normington Review demonstrated very clearly that it is an organisation in need of greater transparency and accountability. So it is a change that I believe needs to be made.

Because my message to you today is that the police must change, and so must the Federation. I believe we have the best police officers in the world, and it is my privilege as Home Secretary to work with them. But it is our responsibility – yours and mine – to lead those officers through these difficult times, to show we understand the need to change, to keep improving the frontline service, to keep cutting crime, to show the public that they can have confidence in the impartiality, the fairness and the incorruptibility of the police. Only then will we be able to say we have secured the British model of policing, the model of policing by consent – and only then will we be able to say, with pride, that, in our country, the police are the public and the public are the police.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on 9th April 2014.

His Holiness Pope Francis has described modern slavery as “a crime against humanity”. There can be few descriptions that so aptly match the appalling nature of this crime. The men, women and children who are forced, tricked and coerced into servitude and abuse, are often the world’s most vulnerable.

Many endure lives and experiences that are horrifying in their inhumanity. Some are sold or betrayed by loved ones, others duped, tricked or lured by criminals with promises of a better life. Victims can be exploited and trafficked in their country of origin, or moved across borders. They are preyed upon by slave drivers and traffickers precisely because they are seen to be so defenceless.

Tackling this crime is an immense and complex challenge. The forms of exploitation are frightening. The numbers involved almost unthinkable.

The task is made all the more difficult because victims are usually hidden and rarely visible to society.

But the sheer horror and scale of the slavery and trafficking that takes place in so many of our countries, must not be allowed to overwhelm our determination to stamp it out.

Exploited

Stripped of their freedom, exploited for profit, victims endure violence, rape, hunger, and abuse. Some are forced into a life of crime, and kept in terrible conditions, with no means of escape. The emotional, psychological and sometimes physical damage is incalculable.

It is a crime which has no borders. Humans are moved around as though they are not human at all. This conference sends out such a powerful signal that international action is needed to fight this evil, and stamp out this misery.

I would particularly like to thank His Holiness Pope Francis for the leadership he has shown on this issue, as well Cardinal Vincent Nichols who I know shares my personal commitment to combating this crime. I would also like to thank Bishop Patrick Lynch for organising this conference and Bishop Sanchez Sorondo for hosting it.

Addressing modern slavery and human trafficking will require many different approaches. But as the presence of so many law enforcement chiefs here today from around the world demonstrates, the best way to protect and reduce the number of victims, is to disrupt, convict and imprison the criminal gangs behind much of the modern slave trade.

Anti-slavery legislation

Today I want to share with you the work the UK government is doing to ensure we save victims, put slave masters behind bars where they belong, and increase the number of prosecutions for this hideous crime.

As Home Secretary, I have given UK law enforcement a very clear message that they must make stamping out modern slavery and human trafficking a priority.

Last December, I published in the UK Parliament a draft Bill on Modern Slavery – the first of its kind in Europe – which will ensure the harshest penalties are available for offenders.

The draft Bill consolidates and simplifies existing offences. It toughens sentences for the worst perpetrators to a maximum of life imprisonment, and it introduces a vital policing tool to disrupt criminals involved in this crime. Anyone convicted of trafficking anywhere in the world can be stopped from travelling to a country where they are known to have exploited vulnerable people in the past.

It also creates a new role – an Anti-Slavery Commissioner – who will hold law enforcement and other agencies to account.

Once this Bill goes through Parliament I expect more ways of helping victims can be added before becoming law.

Law enforcement

In the UK, we recently launched the National Crime Agency. It has four commands: Border Policing, Organised Crime, Economic Crime and Child Exploitation and Online Protection. Many of you in this room will have worked internationally with our National Crime Agency officers.

The structure of the National Crime Agency means it is ideally placed to crack down on a complex crime such as slavery. At its heart is the intelligence hub. Everyone in this room will understand that good intelligence is vital in disrupting and prosecuting the crimes involved in modern slavery and human trafficking. That is why we are here today: to work together closely across borders; to share experience; to share intelligence and to work together for the same purpose – putting slave masters behind bars and freeing victims from a horrendous existence.

Police, border officials and others on the frontline must also do more to spot the signs of slavery whenever they come across it. Training is already mandatory for British Border Force officials and the UK’s College of Policing is developing training and guidance for police officers. I have also appointed specialist anti-slavery teams at our borders to help identify potential victims who are being trafficked into the country.

As I have said, modern slavery is an evolving, complex crime, in which criminals are quick to adapt, and change patterns. Expertise can be invaluable. The Metropolitan Police Service’s specialist Human Trafficking Unit led by Kevin Hyland, has built up substantial experience.

The unit is at the forefront of police practice in this field, and has forged relationships with anti-slavery charities leading to increased trust and confidence, and in turn the charities have encouraged more victims to come forward and give evidence, in order to help convict organised criminals.

Our efforts must also focus on going after the profits of those involved, and compensating victims with seized assets.

Protecting victims

But at the heart of everything we do, is the desire to protect and support victims and help them recover from the trauma they have endured.

And much more must be done.

Modern slavery and human trafficking touches the countries of all of us here, the criminals involved operate across our borders, their networks connect across our countries.

And while the scale of this crime shows no sign of decreasing, prosecution and conviction rates remain far too low.

So the message is clear: we must all do more to increase prosecution rates across the board.

Within Europe, traffickers abuse free movement. They con potential victims with promises of employment and opportunities elsewhere.

This is why it is so important that we work to crack down on the criminals and organised crime groups collaboratively.

And in Europe there is a mechanism to facilitate that.

The UK’s Metropolitan Police Service’s Human Trafficking Unit uses Joint Investigation Teams to work with colleagues in other European countries.

This is a valuable tool for tackling crime which stretches across different jurisdictions. And through this mechanism we have secured notable successes.

A few years ago, using the Joint Investigation Team mechanism, the Human Trafficking Unit was able to break up a criminal gang involved in sham marriages and the trafficking of over 100 vulnerable women to Britain for forced prostitution. 12 arrests were made in the UK and abroad, assets seized and nine convictions and three cautions eventually secured.

Numerous women were rescued from appalling slavery.

And the activities of a ruthless gang – who may well have gone on to exploit countless others – were stopped.

We owe it to victims to find practical policing solutions such as this. I believe we need to widen the type of collaboration we have in Europe to the rest of the world.

The spread of organised crime networks through many known trafficking routes, should compel us to work together, so that we can ensure slave drivers and traffickers know there are no safe havens.

Working together

The fight against modern slavery is gathering momentum. But much work remains to be done.

And international co-operation must be at the heart of that work.

This conference will focus on what we can do to fight the crime, support victims and raise awareness.

It is a crucial first step, and one that I hope we can build on.

Following this conference, an international group of senior law enforcement chiefs – the “Santa Marta Group” – will be set up.

Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in the UK, will lead this group.

And as a next step, the Commissioner and I would like to invite members of the Santa Marta Group, to meet again in London in November at a conference hosted by the British government and held in collaboration with the Catholic Church.

I do not believe anyone here is under any illusion about the enormity of the task ahead.

Stamping out modern slavery and human trafficking will not happen overnight.

But the chance to truly make a difference is here. Everyone in this room, and many more beyond, has a role to play. Around the world there is growing awareness that the horrors of slavery have not yet been banished.

Governments must set the lead. Faith organisations can provide guidance and support.

But law enforcement officers must catch the individuals and criminal gangs that trade in this human misery.

The chains of modern slavery may not often be visible, but the suffering is real. This is a moment when together we can take a stand against this evil.

In his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, His Holiness Pope Francis denounces modern slavery and human trafficking and makes the call: “Let us not look the other way.”

Your Holiness, the people here and many more around the world, will look straight into the eye of this crime and we will do everything in our power to free the vulnerable people who find their lives so cruelly stolen from them.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to the Thomsons Reuters Conference on 4th December 2013.

I would like to thank the Thomson Reuters Foundation and International New York Times for organising and hosting the Trust Women Conference.

It is a great honour to be invited to speak to such a distinguished international gathering of women and men, all working together to forge ideas, strategies and commitments to empower women, and to defend their rights across the world.

Can I first say I am proud of the effort being made by the Foreign Secretary to give prominence to women’s rights in foreign policy: from their inclusion in peace processes to his ground-breaking initiative to end warzone rape and sexual violence.

With this initiative, he has shown how it is possible to use the UK’s influence to rally almost the entire world to tackle a problem that it has been unwilling to confront. This campaign has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of millions of men, women and children.

That is what this conference is all about: ‘taking action’. This conference motto does strike a deep chord with me; never has action been more urgently needed to tackle modern slavery.

We will have all read, and been appalled by, the news referenced earlier of three women had been kept imprisoned for 30 years in horrific conditions, in London in the 21st century.

And, last week, seventeen, seventeen – people were rescued in Leeds, in the North of England. They were forced to live in poor housing conditions, with no access to local support services, and little, if any, income to exist on. And we all know that there are countless more examples of this hidden crime at this very second, in this very country.

So, taking your motto to heart, I want to talk today about the UK government’s efforts to wipe out modern slavery; a specific form of abuse of women’s rights and denial of their liberty. This horrific crime is a key priority for me personally and is also a priority for ministers across government.

Modern slavery is a brutal crime which knows no boundaries and does not discriminate on gender, age, creed, culture or race. Traffickers and slave masters exploit whatever means they have at their disposal to coerce, deceive and force individuals into a life of abuse, servitude and inhumane treatment.

Hidden crime

It is impossible to know the true scale of modern slavery in the UK, and indeed the rest of the world. It is a hidden crime and many victims suffer in silence. We do know that last year nearly 1,200 potential victims of human trafficking were referred to the UK’s central body for the collection of this information, the National Referral Mechanism – a number 25% higher than 2011 and set to increase.

We also know that in two-thirds of cases, the victims were women, often abused physically and sexually in the course of their enslavement. This is simply unacceptable in modern day Britain. We will not and cannot let this continue.

I am determined to do more. That is why I have committed to introducing a Modern Slavery Bill to strengthen our response and reduce the number of victims of this abhorrent crime. This flagship Bill will be the first of its kind in Europe, it sends a strong message, both domestically and internationally, that the UK is determined to put an end to modern slavery.

The Bill will clarify legislation, increase sentences for slave drivers and enable the courts to restrict activity that puts others at risk. This will mean that more traffickers are identified, disrupted and brought to justice. It will also create an important new role – an Anti-Slavery Commissioner – who will galvanise our collective response to these terrible crimes.

We will need to make sure that the Bill will have the impact we want, and I am keen to hear from the front-line workers who see the reality of trafficking everyday. They know what will really help victims and stop traffickers and that’s why I have asked Frank Field, a highly respected Parliamentarian, to lead a series of evidence sessions over the course of the autumn to hear from experts, on how we can make this Bill really work.

National Crime Agency

In addition to the Bill, earlier this autumn, I launched the National Crime Agency. Organised criminals are often behind modern slavery, and the National Crime Agency has created a strengthened central focus for the UK’s response to this disgusting crime.

Utilising its enhanced intelligence capabilities, the National Crime Agency will be able to identify the routes and the methods used by human traffickers. Working across law enforcement agencies – in the UK and internationally – the National Crime Agency will relentlessly pursue these organised criminal gangs. The new agency will also improve our international response to human trafficking, which is critical to stopping this horrific trade in human beings.

Working collaboratively

If we are to fight individuals who wish to enslave others, we have to work collaboratively across law enforcement agencies, and with the international community.

These measures focus on improving the law enforcement response to modern slavery, and, this is being done with the victims very much in mind. Indeed, at the Home Office, I have set up a Modern Slavery Unit, who will be dedicated to strengthening our efforts on this important issue.

The new Unit will include police officers, as I believe that by pursuing organised crime gangs we will be: stopping them at their source, controlling the routes that traffickers use, and tackling the demand for these illegal services. The result of which will be: more arrests, more prosecutions, but most importantly, more people released from slavery and more prevented from ever entering it in the first place.

Legislation is only one way of combating this. So, beyond the Bill I want to emphasise the importance of training, of awareness and of other non-legislative actions which will make a fundamental difference to how we tackle human trafficking and modern day slavery, and help those victims so desperately in need of our help.

We will be expanding our prevention efforts in source countries to alert potential victims and to disrupt the monsters who exploit them. We will work with foreign governments to strengthen their knowledge and understanding of modern slavery and empower them to stop it.

And, we will be lobbying for changes in countries’ laws and practices that allow this crime to flourish. There is much we can do internationally. I have asked Anthony Steen, CEO of the Human Trafficking Foundation, to report back to me following a series of international visits on how we can work multi-laterally to strengthen the global response to Modern Slavery.

I hope that you can see that my government is seriously committed to developing a comprehensive approach and response to tackle this growing evil. However, this is not an easy task. Addressing human trafficking and modern slavery brings with it great complexities and challenges and I believe it is important to be honest about these.

But at the heart of everything we do, we must remind ourselves of the vulnerable men, women and children who are being enslaved against their will.

Being a victim of this heinous crime is unique. Perversely, victims do not always recognise that they are victims or that they have been trafficked. Victims are bought and sold as commodities, kept in servitude and they have little chance of escape. Because they are often forced into a life of crime, they fear not just their traffickers but the people who should be there to help them – the police and the authorities.

When victims are identified, we have found that there are a number of issues that often need to be addressed. Most have been subject to horrendous psychological, physical or sexual abuse. They may have been betrayed by their family or friends who were involved in their enslavement. And in some cases, they may be worried that their family or friends will be in danger if they speak to the authorities. This can lead to victims missing out on vital support that is available to them.

The needs and interests of the victim

That is why at the heart of tackling this heinous crime, must be the needs and interest of the victim. What choices the victim can make and what we can do to support them.

The National Referral Mechanism, or the NRM, which I mentioned earlier, is a key to this. It was set up to ensure that victims of human trafficking and modern slavery are identified and given the support they need. I want to make sure that the NRM is operating as effectively and as supportively as possible. That is why I will be reviewing the operation of the NRM, including its structure and decision making process.

If an adult is identified as a potential victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, they are given access to tailored government-funded support and assistance which is coordinated by The Salvation Army. A victim is required to have a minimum of 30 days of this. However, we are funding an additional 15 days on top of that. But of course, we need to keep looking at the right length of time for this. At the end of this time, a final decision – known as a conclusive decision – is made on their victim status. Since this government came into power, more victims have received support than ever before, helping them to recover from their terrible ordeal. Where the victim is a child, local authorities have well-established child support arrangements and a statutory duty under the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in need of protection, including trafficked children.

We have put in place a major programme of reform to transform the care system. We want to see: stable permanent placements; high quality education and health support; and better support to care leavers as they make the transition to adulthood. We will ensure that as we implement these programmes we take account of the particular needs of trafficked children.

We will also be doing more to help victims return home to ensure they resettle in the best way possible, and in a way that mitigates the risk of re-trafficking.

What more can we do together?

This is what the UK government has committed to do. What more can we do together?

We want the private sector to play its part. Companies must be confident that they do not conduct business with suppliers involved in trafficking. The Home Office will work with businesses and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to prevent the exploitation of workers. But I would also like companies to take the initiative themselves. Household names such as Ford, Coco-Cola, Microsoft and Hilton are already doing so. And, I would like this list of businesses to grow and grow. I do not think any of us want to rely on legislation. We would all like to see immediate action. We would like a commitment from each and every business in this room to look into their supply chain and make sure that there are no instances of labour exploitation.

The travel industry also has a role to play. With the help of Virgin Atlantic and Thomas Cook, we have developed a human trafficking training package for flight attendants, who will be more empowered to report unusual behaviour and I would strongly encourage others in the travel industry to follow the excellent example set by these two companies.

We urge the voluntary sector to play their part too. It is absolutely vital that we are all joined-up, that means that third-sector organisations must look at how best to share intelligence with the police, for the sake of current victims, for the sake of future victims and for the sake of justice.

This is why it is absolutely vital that there is an Anti-Slavery Commissioner to ensure that everyone is doing as much as they can to cut Modern Slavery. We need a more cohesive and joined-up approach, leading to better outcomes thanks to the efforts of the private sector, charity sector, but also to frontline staff in law enforcement, health and local government. This will ensure all who are involved in combating this evil are doing all they can to reduce the number of victims.

Serious and Organised Crime Strategy

A few weeks ago the Home Office published its Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, in which tackling human trafficking was a key component. However, given the importance of the issue and to demonstrate my commitment and the commitment of this government, I can announce today that I will be publishing a new strategic action plan in the spring that sets out what we are doing across government to address this issue.

The steps we are taking will help this country reach the point where we never ignore this evil, never allow slave masters and those who look to exploit other women, men and children to think that the UK is a safe space for them to operate in and never allow the needs of victims to go ignored.

We have the tenacity and focus to get us where we want to be. I urge all who are involved in combating modern slavery to continue doing the excellent work you are doing, but to also work more closely with Government, and law enforcement agencies. Because together we can do so much more.

I know there are people here from all over the world and as I said earlier, no-one is immune from this disease. But we in the UK are working on a cure and I’d urge you all to go back to your countries and call upon your governments to do the same. I am in this for the long term. Each step that we take contributes to the eventual eradication of slavery from our country.

Together, we’re going to shine a light on slavery and its evil. And the world is going to be a better place for it.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to the 2013 National Conservative Convention on 19th March 2013.

It’s just 47 days until the local elections.

Many of you in this room will be on the ballot paper on 2 May…

…Others will be knocking on doors and delivering leaflets for those who are.

After 2009, when these councils were last up for election, the map of county councils was a sea of blue.

We won Lancashire and Derbyshire for the first time in 28 years.

Staffordshire for the first time in 32.

And Somerset and Devon from the Lib Dems.

In 47 days’ time, we’ll be defending those councils and the great work they’ve done.

This time, we’re in government, and taking the tough choices needed to turn our economy around.

But we’re on the right course.

The deficit is down by a quarter.

Benefits have been capped.

And businesses have created over a million new jobs.

So there’s a clear choice on 2 May…

…the Labour Party, led by Ed Miliband, who got us into this mess – and whose answer to the debt crisis is more spending, more borrowing and more debt…

…or the Conservatives, led by David Cameron, who are dealing with the deficit so we pay our way in the world, and supporting aspiration – so people who work hard can get on in life.

We are delivering on crime

Those tough choices aren’t stopping us from delivering on the things that matter.

At the Home Office, we are cutting spending by 23 per cent.

That’s involved some hard decisions.

But we’ve also cut the thing that really matters – crime.

Since the election, recorded crime is down by more than 10 per cent.

Under the Crime Survey for England and Wales, it’s at its lowest ever level.

And I want it to keep falling.

When I became Home Secretary, I told the police I was scrapping all the national targets Labour used to give them, and setting the police just one objective – to cut crime.

They’re doing precisely that.

And rather than watching over their shoulder from Whitehall, we’ve introduced Police and Crime Commissioners – a single, local figure who you can hold to account.

For the first time ever, people in England and Wales have a local law and order champion – one person who sets the budgets and the priorities, and brings people together to get things done.

To help people measure how well they’re doing, we’ve brought in street-level crime maps.

The Police.uk website went live two years ago. Since then, it has received over 548 million hits.

At the click of a mouse, it has given you the information you need to hold your local force to account and ensure that crime continues to be driven down.

Recently, we’ve added a new ‘draw your own area’ function allowing you to create your own crime map.

So rather than trawl through meaningless statistics, you can now check the safety of your village, estate, or route to work…

…Or even your county council division.

One of the crimes we’re tackling is the growing problem of metal theft.

It’s a crime which blights communities across the country, delaying commuters on their way to work, and desecrating cherished buildings like churches, village halls and war memorials.

We’re acting to stamp it out.

We’ve stopped the ‘no questions asked’ cash payments which allowed unscrupulous traders to evade checks.

We’ve increased the financial penalties for illegal traders – who now face fines of up to £5,000.

And we’re creating a tougher, locally administered licence regime.

But there’s more.

Two weeks ago, the Scrap Metal Dealers Act became law.

It was introduced by a Conservative MP – Richard Ottaway – and backed by the Government.

For the first time, it will allow local councils to suspend or revoke metal trader licences where they suspect illegal activity.

Thanks to this Conservative law, the metal thieves who blight our communities won’t be able to profit from their ill-gotten loot.

So thank you, Richard.

Just as PCCs are working hard to fight crime at a local level, so we’re making sure that our police can rise to the national – and international – challenges we face.

We’ve set up the College of Policing.

It will help to forge a police force fit for the 21st century…

…building on the professionalism of our police officers and ensuring that our police remain the envy of the world.

We are also creating the National Crime Agency.

I’m afraid that Labour neglected the problem of organised crime.

For too long, large numbers of organised criminals have been able to get away with it.

That’s something the National Crime Agency is going to change.

More than 30,000 people and 5,000 gangs are involved in organised crime in the UK. They cost our economy up to £40 billion every year.

Ours is the first Government to have an organised crime strategy. It will enable us to bring to bear the full power of the state against organised criminals.

We’re already recovering more criminal assets than ever before. And later this year, the National Crime Agency will take on the organised criminal gangs directly.

So: whether it’s the petty criminals who make life a misery in your neighbourhood…

…or the gangs arranging crime on a global scale, we are on their case – and we are delivering.

We are delivering on immigration

We are also delivering on one of the issues that matters most to voters: immigration.

It’s an issue I hear about on the doorstep too.

Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain – the difference between people coming and people leaving – totalled more than 2.2 million.

That’s more than twice the population of Birmingham.

When we came to power, we made a clear promise to the British public…

…After thirteen years of uncontrolled mass immigration, this government would reduce and control immigration.

Since then, we’ve taken action across the board.

We’ve capped economic migration, reformed family visas, and cut out the widespread abuse of the student route into the country.

And the results show that our policies are working.

The most recent set of official statistics were published just over a fortnight ago.

They showed that annual net migration is down to 163,000.

That’s down by almost a third since the election

I see that Yvette Cooper has tried to rubbish that achievement.

She claimed that the recent falls are due to British people leaving the country.

But the facts don’t fit.

The Office for National Statistics made clear that net migration is down because the number of people coming to Britain is ‘significantly lower’ than the year before.

So Yvette needs to check her facts.

But I’m not surprised she doesn’t want to believe them – because Labour still won’t back our policy of reducing the level of net immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.

And they’ve opposed all the measures we’ve taken to do it.

So there’s a clear choice. The Labour Party, who let immigration get out of control, and who still haven’t learned…

…or the Conservatives, who want to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, and who’ve already cut it by a third.

There was more good news in the recent immigration statistics.

The number of people in work is up by well over half a million compared to last year…

…And in sharp contrast with what happened under the last government, 88 per cent of that increase was ccounted for by British-born workers.

We want to make sure that our immigration system works in the national interest.

We have always been clear that we want Britain to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world…

…the top academics, the brightest students, the best businessmen, investors, skilled workers and entrepreneurs

who will contribute to our society, our economy and our way of life.

But that is not what the system we inherited from Labour did.

They claimed they had introduced a points-based system that would only let in highly-skilled workers.

We looked into some of those people.

A short investigation revealed that thirty per cent of people here on a visa supposedly reserved for the ‘highly killed’ were working as shop assistants, security guards, supermarket cashiers and care assistants.

One was working as the duty manager at a fried chicken restaurant.

Those are all valid jobs – but they’re not highly-skilled, and we have people here already who could do them.

That’s why we replaced Labour’s system with a simple requirement…

…for a work visa now, you need a proper job offer with a minimum salary.

Our reforms to economic migration have a clear message: If you have skills we need, and a company is willing to give you a job, come to Britain.

If you have an investment to make, do it in Britain.

And if you have a great business idea, bring it to Britain.

But Britain doesn’t need any more unskilled immigration. And our reforms to the immigration system have already reduced it very significantly.

We’ve taken the same approach to student visas. Again, the system we inherited from Labour was a mess.

Students were coming to Britain not to study but to work. Many colleges were selling not an education but immigration.

And students, supposedly temporary visitors, were staying here permanently.

When we came to government, we found ‘students’ turning up at Heathrow unable to answer basic questions in

English or even give simple details about their course.

These students weren’t the best and the brightest, they weren’t coming to Britain to study, and they weren’t making a meaningful contribution to our economy.

So we clamped down on that abuse.

We required any institution that wanted to bring foreign students to Britain to pass inspection checks to prove they were selling education, not immigration.

We changed the immigration rules to make clear that if you want to study here, you have to be able to speak English, support yourself financially without working, and prove that you’re studying a legitimate course at a genuine college or university.

And to prevent people switching courses – a tactic that kept some students here for years – we set maximum time limits for study.

But while our reforms have been stripping out abuse, we are making sure that Britain remains open to the brightest and the best.

So while the overall number of student visas has fallen, there has been an increase in applications to the university sector.

Because we have always been clear that in cutting out the abuse of student visas, we want the best minds in the world to come to study in Britain, and we want our world-class universities to thrive.

Just like our changes to economic immigration, our changes to student visas strike a balance, and send a clear message…

…If you can speak English, and you can get a place on a legitimate course at a genuine university, you can come to study in Britain…

…But student visas are not a backdoor route into working in Britain, and we will not tolerate the kind of abuse we saw under Labour.

I know a lot of people are concerned about the ending of transitional controls on Romania and Bulgaria at the end of this year.

From January, people from those two countries will be able to exercise their right to free movement – just as Britons can travel freely across the EU.

Back in 2004, when Poland and other Eastern European countries joined the EU, we campaigned for transitional controls – but Labour refused, allowing more than a million workers into the country.

Labour left us exposed – and we all saw the results.

This time round, we have had restrictions – Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 – but we’ve extended them for as long as we can.

And it’s important to remember that we won’t be the only country relaxing them at the end of the year.

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and Spain will all be lifting them by the end of this year.

But we’re not simply sitting back and waiting like Labour did.

The last Government spent their time trying to predict how many people might come to the UK – and got their guesswork horribly wrong.

We’re spending our time tightening up the ‘pull factors’ which attract people to Britain for the wrong reasons.

We’re making sure our benefits system sends the message that Britain is not a soft touch for low-skilled or unemployed migrants.

We’re making clear that the NHS is a national – not an international – health service.

We’re pushing local authorities to publish the number of people from overseas who are taking social housing ahead of those who have waited a long time in the queue.

And we’re working with other European governments to cut out the abuse of free movement and other scams such as sham marriages.

So when the transitional controls are lifted at the end of this year, we will have a clear message to Romania and Bulgaria, as to the rest of the world:

Britain is an aspiration nation – a place where those who work hard can get on in life – but we are not a soft touch.

And we will not tolerate abuse of our immigration system.

When Labour were in Government, they let immigration get out of control and ignored people’s concerns.

Now that the Conservatives are in Government, we are getting a grip on immigration and answering those concerns.

We listened. We promised to cut immigration. And the figures show that we are delivering.

So as you return to that sea of blue councils – whether you’re battling to defend a seat, or fighting to gain it – take pride in that record.

Crime cut by 10 per cent.

Net migration down by a third.

And a quarter of the deficit already cleared.

That’s a record to be proud of.

A record of delivery.

And one worth fighting for in May.

Below is the text of a speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, in the House of Commons on 12th February 2013.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police.

We are fortunate, in Britain, to have the finest police officers in the world. They put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. They are cutting crime even as we reduce police spending. And the vast majority of officers do their work with a strong sense of fairness and duty.

But the good work of those thousands of officers is undermined when a minority behave inappropriately. In the last year, we have seen the Leveson Inquiry, which cleared the police of widespread corruption but called for greater transparency in policing, and the shocking report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

We have seen the sacking of PC Simon Harwood and the investigation of several chief officers for misconduct. And yesterday, I told the House about the investigation now led by Chief Constable Mick Creedon into the work of undercover officers from the Metropolitan Police.

Mr Speaker, I want everyone to understand that I do not believe there is endemic corruption in the police, and I know that the vast majority of police officers conduct themselves with the highest standards of integrity.

This was confirmed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in their report last year. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that when it does occur, police corruption and misconduct undermines justice, lets down the decent majority of officers, and damages the public’s confidence in the police.

We need the police to become much more transparent in their business. We need clearer rules for how officers should conduct themselves. We need to open up the top ranks so policing is less of a closed shop. We need to make sure officers who do wrong are investigated and punished. And we need to make sure that the organisations we ask to police the police are equipped to do the job.

Now, many of our existing police reforms address these challenges. The new College of Policing will improve the quality of police leadership and drive up standards. Police and crime commissioners are making the police more accountable to their communities. Direct entry into the senior ranks will open up the police to talented outsiders. HMIC is more independent of the police and for the first time it’s led by a non-policing figure.

These reforms will help but we also need to take further, specific measures to root out corruption and misconduct from the police.

First

First, and in line with the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson, national registers of chief officers’ pay and perks packages, gifts and hospitality, outside interests including second jobs, and their contact with the media will be published on-line.

Second

Second, the College will publish a new code of ethics, which will be distributed to officers of all ranks. In addition, the College of Policing will work with chief officers to create a single set of professional standards on which officers will be trained and tested throughout their careers.

Third

Third, to prevent officers who lose their jobs as a result of misconduct being recruited by other forces, we will introduce, for the first time, a national register of officers struck off from the police. The list will be managed and published by the College of Policing.

Fourth

Fourth, to introduce a sanction for officers who resign or retire to avoid dismissal, hearings will be taken to their conclusion notwithstanding the officer’s departure from the force. And where misconduct is proven, these officers will also be struck off by the College of Policing.

Fifth

Fifth, the College will establish a stronger and more consistent system of vetting for police officers, which chief constables and police and crime commissioners will have to consider when making decisions about recruitment and promotions. And every candidate for chief officer ranks will need to be successfully vetted before being accepted by the Police National Assessment Centre.

Sixth

Sixth, Lord Justice Leveson’s report made several recommendations in respect of policing, focused on providing greater transparency and openness and the Government accepts what has been recommended and the College of Policing, ACPO and others have agreed to take forward the relevant work which falls to them. I will place details of the Government’s response to each of the Leveson report’s recommendations on policing in the libraries of the House.

Finally

Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to make sure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is equipped to do its important work. Over the years, its role has been evolving and the proposals I announce today develop it further. Public concern about the IPCC has been based on its powers and its resources, and I want to address both issues.

Regarding its powers, last year Parliament legislated – with welcome cross-party support – to give the IPCC the ability to investigate historic cases in exceptional circumstances. In the same legislation we gave the IPCC the power to compel police officers and staff to attend interviews as witnesses.

In addition, I have already said that we will legislate as soon as Parliamentary time allows, to give the IPCC the power to investigate private sector companies working for the police, along with other powers the IPCC has asked for to improve its effectiveness and increase public confidence. I am prepared to consider any further legislative changes that the Commission says it needs.

But I believe the main difficulty for the IPCC is its capacity to investigate complaints itself. Last year, the Commission investigated just 130 of the 2,100 serious or sensitive cases that were referred to it independently, whilst supervising or managing another 200. Individual police forces investigated the remainder. But 31 per cent of appeals against forces’ handling of complaints were successful and that is simply not acceptable.

I will therefore transfer to the IPCC responsibility for dealing with all serious and sensitive allegations. I also intend to transfer resources from individual forces’ professional standards departments and other relevant areas to the IPCC to make sure it has the budget and the manpower to do its work.

Mr Speaker, the Government’s police reforms are working well. Crime is falling. Corruption and misconduct are thankfully the rare exception and not the norm in our police, but that does not mean we should not act. I believe this is a comprehensive plan to address public concern about the integrity of the police, and I commend this statement to the House.

Below is the text of the speech made by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, on the subject of immigration. The speech was made on 12th December 2012.

A clear promise

Two and a half years ago, the coalition government was formed, and we made a clear promise to the British public. After thirteen years of uncontrolled mass immigration, this government would reduce and control immigration.

As yesterday’s census statistics show, the legacy we’ve been left with is a substantial one. Between 2001 and 2011, more than half of the growth in the population of England and Wales was accounted for by immigration.

Since we came to government, we’ve taken action across the board. We’ve capped economic migration, reformed family visas, and cut out the widespread abuse of the student route into the country.

And the results of those changes are beginning to show. Official statistics, released two weeks ago, show that in the year to March, we cut net immigration to Britain by one quarter – that is, by 59,000 people. That’s the biggest fall in net migration since 2008.

And we can expect immigration to continue to fall. Home office visa statistics, which are more recent than the net migration figures, show falls of four per cent in work visas, fifteen per cent in family visas, and 26 per cent in student visas.

The benefits are beginning to show. The number of people in work is up by more than half a million compared to last year. But in contrast with what happened under the last government, 87 per cent of that increase was accounted for by British-born workers.

So our policies are beginning to bite – but we are not yet all the way there. With annual net migration still at 183,000 we have a way to go to achieve my ambition to reduce that number to the tens of thousands by the end of the parliament.

I want to talk today about the measures we’re taking to make sure that the immigration system truly works in our national interest, by bringing down net migration to sustainable levels, while still attracting the brightest and the best talent from around the world.

In particular, I want to talk about measures we’re taking to make us more discerning when it comes to stopping the wrong people from coming here, and even more welcoming to the people we do want to come here.

Why we need to control immigration

But before I do that, I want us to remember why it’s important that we do control immigration. I believe there are three main reasons: its effect on social cohesion, on our infrastructure and public services, and on jobs and wages.

First, social cohesion. The debate around immigration often focuses on its economic costs and benefits, but the social consequences are often ignored. This is a big mistake, because not only is the social impact significant and important in itself, it’s often what bothers the public the most.

As Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator of the financial times, says: ‘The desirability of sizeable immigration is a matter more of values than of economics. It is not a choice between wealth and poverty, but of the sort of country one desires to inhabit.’

The point is quite simple. It takes time to establish the personal relationships, the family ties, the social bonds that turn the place where you live into a real community. But the pace of change brought by mass immigration makes those things impossible to achieve. You only have to look at London, where almost half of all primary school children speak English as a second language, to see the challenges we now face as a country.

This isn’t fair to anyone: how can people build relationships with their neighbours if they can’t even speak the same language? After years of mass immigration, we now face the enormous task of building an integrated, cohesive society. Allowing more and more immigration would make that impossible.

The second reason we need to control immigration is its impact on infrastructure and public services. It seems obvious that immigration should have an impact on things like the availability and cost of housing, the transport system, the National Health Service or the number of school places. But in the past, government impact assessments didn’t measure the effects of more immigration or determine where its effects would be felt the most.

That’s something I plan to fix – but in the meantime we are left to deal with the consequences of more than a decade of uncontrolled, mass immigration.

One area in which we can be certain mass immigration has an effect is housing.  More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration.  And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be ten per cent lower over a twenty year period.

Facts like these need to be carefully considered, and I look forward to seeing the results of the work we’re doing in the home office, but I think we can already be confident that mass immigration puts pressure on infrastructure and public services.

Even if you accept that immigrants contribute to an increased tax take, there will be a ‘congestion effect’, that is, a significant lag between the increased demand for services and the distribution of those funds. And services in the parts of the country that experience the most sudden and sustained increase in immigration will suffer the most.

The third reason we need to control immigration is its effects on jobs and wages.  Again, when we arrived in government, we found that the official impact assessments assumed that the job displacement of British workers by immigrants was zero.

Now, we all know that the ‘lump of labour’ argument – that there is a fixed number of jobs to be divided up and handed round – is wrong, and that things are far more complicated than the idea that all immigrants come to Britain and ‘take British jobs’. But it was surely wrong that those impact assessments assumed absolutely no job displacement of local workers.

So we asked the migration advisory committee to look at the effects of immigration on jobs, and their conclusions were stark. They found a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK.

Between 1995 and 2010, the committee found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.

So, there is a ‘lump of labour’ fallacy in the immigration debate, but there is also a ‘zero displacement’ fallacy. And government must never again make the mistake of falling for it.

There is evidence, too, that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages.  Drawing on several academic studies, the committee found that immigration can increase wages for the better-off, but for those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.

The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.

So uncontrolled, mass immigration is damaging to social cohesion, puts pressure on public services and infrastructure, and can lead to job displacement and undercut wages, particularly for the lowest paid.

And yet one of my predecessors used to talk about the ‘purity of the macroeconomic case for migration’. As a result of that mistaken belief, the last government presided over total net immigration of 2.2 million – the equivalent of two cities the size of Birmingham.

That is evidence of an immigration system that does not work in the national interest.

But to say we want to reduce and control immigration is not to say that we want no immigration. We have always been clear that we want Britain to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world – the top academics, brightest students, the best businessmen, investors, skilled workers and entrepreneurs who will contribute to our society, our economy and our way of life.

Family visas

So when we reformed family visas, we introduced a new requirement to the immigration rules. If you want to sponsor a spouse or partner who wishes to come to Britain, they will have to prove they can speak English, and you will have to prove that you can provide for them. A minimum income level for family visa sponsors – of £18,600 for a spouse or partner with additional requirements for children – will protect the taxpayer by making sure that family migrants pay their own way.

Work visas

We wanted to make sure that economic migration works in the national interest too. But that is not what the system we inherited did.

To be frank, that system was a joke. Tier one of the points-based system – supposedly reserved for high-skilled immigrants only – allowed people to work in unskilled jobs. I remember the ‘highly-skilled’ immigrant who we discovered was working as the duty manager at a fried chicken restaurant. But he was no one-off – we found that thirty per cent of people here on a tier one visa were working as shop assistants, security guards, supermarket cashiers and care assistants.

That’s why we closed down the tier one general route and said if you want to come to Britain on a work visa, you need to have a proper job offer with a minimum salary. Business told us they prioritised the tier two route – for skilled workers with specific job offers – and we listened.

So even though we delivered our manifesto promise to cap economic migration, and bring the overall numbers down, by clamping down on the abuse of tier One we were able to set the tier two limit at 20,700, higher than the number of people who came to Britain through tier two the year before.

Business also told us they valued intra-company transfers, and we took the decision to exclude them from the limit. But to make sure that these transfers would not be abused, we raised the salary limit for intra-company transferees coming to Britain for more than a year to £40,000.

As a result, ICT numbers have remained steady and business tells us that our ICT system is one of the most user-friendly in the world.

And, to make sure that we could still attract the best experts, scientists, artists and performers, we created a new route, consisting of a further 1,000 visas for people of exceptional talent. Take-up in that route has been low, and I’m looking forward to working with UK trade and investment to encourage more exceptional people to take advantage of it.

But I also want to build on the principle of appealing to exceptionally talented people, so I intend to add a further 1,000 places a year for MBA graduates who want to stay in Britain and start up businesses.

We also want to be more proactive in attracting the wealth creators of the future.  We have made changes to the investor and entrepreneur routes to make it easier for major investors to settle in the UK. We have introduced a new prospective entrepreneur visa and a graduate entrepreneur visa. And last week, the chancellor announced that we will work with UK trade and investment to extend the graduate entrepreneur scheme to the best overseas talent.

And we want to make sure that people in emerging markets continue to see Britain as a place to visit and do business.

That’s why we’ve made it easier for Chinese visitors to come here, by simplifying documentation requirements, establishing a new business network across China, extending our express visa service, and introducing a new passport pass-back scheme for visa applicants.

So our reforms to economic migration have struck a balance, and they send a clear message. If you have skills we need, and a company is willing to give you a job, come to Britain. If you have an investment to make, do it in Britain. And if you have a great business idea, bring it to Britain.

But we are also clear that Britain doesn’t need any more unskilled immigration. The abuse of tier one has been ended. And work visas are capped, with the number of visas down by four per cent in the last year.

Student visas

The principles we applied to work visas we have applied to student visas too.  Again, the system we inherited was a mess, and it was abused on an industrial scale.

Students were coming to Britain not to study but to work. Many colleges were selling not an education but immigration. And students, supposedly temporary visitors, were staying here permanently in huge numbers.

When the last government capped unskilled economic immigration at zero, all that happened was student visas rocketed by thirty per cent to a record 303,000. The surge in numbers meant that in some parts of the world the Border Agency had to suspend student applications altogether.

When we came to government, we found ‘students’ turning up at Heathrow unable to answer basic questions in English or even give simple details about their course.  We found colleges that sent students on ‘work placements’ hundreds of miles away from where they were meant to be studying.

And of course, in each case we’re not just talking about one bogus student working in Britain – often they would bring their whole family with them, who would also work here, use public services here, and accrue the legal right to settle here.

These students weren’t the best and the brightest, they weren’t coming to Britain to study, and they weren’t making a meaningful contribution to our economy. So we changed student visas to make sure that while we still attract the brightest and the best, and we still protect our world-class education establishments, we eradicate this kind of abuse from the system.

The first thing we did was to require any institution that wanted to bring foreign students to Britain to pass inspection checks to prove they were selling education, not immigration.

Overnight, more than 150 colleges – one third – chose not to undergo the checks.  To date, almost six hundred institutions have been removed from the tier four sponsor register.

We also took action to make sure that students who want to come to Britain really are students. So the new immigration rules make clear that if you want to study here, you have to be able to speak English, support yourself financially without working, and prove that you are studying a legitimate course at a genuine college or university. In addition, there are new restrictions on the right to work and bring dependants. To prevent switching courses – a tactic that kept some students here for years – we set maximum time limits for study.  And to make sure that only those who contribute can stay at the end of their study, we set a minimum salary level of £20,000 and a requirement to get a real graduate job for students who want to work in Britain after their studies.

Our policies are starting to bite, and they prove the massive scale of abuse in the student visa system. Just by cutting out abuse, we have reduced the number of student visas by 26 per cent – that’s almost 74,000 – in the year to September.  And what is more, we have cut the overall numbers at the same time as the number of foreign students coming to our universities has increased.

Because we have always been clear that in cutting out the abuse of student visas, we want the best and the brightest minds in the world to come to study in Britain, and we want our world-class universities to thrive.

So today I can announce a further measure to encourage top students to come to Britain and, if they have something to contribute, to stay in Britain.

In future, all PhD students who have completed their studies will be allowed to stay here for longer to find skilled work or set up as an entrepreneur within the rules.  From April, all such students will be allowed to stay in Britain for twelve months after they have completed their PhD before having to find a job or start a business.

We want to work with our universities to continue to protect not just the integrity of the immigration system but the reputation of the British education system around the world. We will continue to monitor strictly the adherence of universities as well as colleges to our rules that make sure only legitimate students come here.

Where universities don’t meet those standards, we maintain the power to suspend highly-trusted status, as we did with the Teesside university and Glasgow Caledonian university, and even where appropriate to revoke a university’s right to sponsor foreign students, as we did earlier this year with London metropolitan university.

Since then, as a result of their compliance checks, colleges and universities have informed the border agency of some 90,000 notifications about foreign students whose circumstances have changed and who may no longer have any right to be here. We will work with those universities – and indeed the whole sector – in a system of co-regulation to make sure we enforce student sponsorship obligations and protect the interests of legitimate students.

Welcoming legitimate students and identifying and rejecting bogus students is at the heart of our changes to the student visa regime. And I want to announce today a further change in the border agency’s operational policies to make sure we get even tougher on bogus student applications.

Last year, I instructed the border agency to undertake pilots in which high-risk student visa applicants would be interviewed, rather than undergo the usual paper-based checks. Starting first in Pakistan and moving to other countries, more than 2,300 prospective students were interviewed. The lesson from that pilot was clear – abuse was rife, paper-based checks weren’t working, and interviews, conducted by entry clearance officers with the freedom to use their judgement, work.

So I can announce that, from today, we will extend radically the border agency’s interviewing programme. Starting with the highest-risk countries, and focusing on the route to Britain that is widely abused, student visas, we will increase the number of interviews to considerably more than 100,000, starting next financial year. From there, we will extend the interviewing programme further across all routes to Britain, wherever the evidence takes us. I believe this new approach will help us to root out the abuse of British visas, and improve the integrity of our immigration system.

So, as with our changes to economic immigration, so our changes to student visas strike a balance, and send a message. If you can speak English, and you can get a place on a legitimate course at a genuine university, you can come to study in Britain. There is no cap on the number of students able to come here – and there are no current plans to introduce a cap.

But we are also clear that student visas are not a backdoor route into working in Britain. We are clamping down on that kind of abuse. Colleges have lost their right to sponsor foreign students. Bogus students have been turned away. And, through more and more interviewing, we are getting better at identifying and rejecting people we don’t want to come to Britain.

The official statistics show that we are achieving what we set out to achieve.  The number of student visas issued is down, while the number of successful applicants to study at British universities is up. That success means we can now look forward to a period of stability on student migration policy.

Tackling some misconceptions

But those statistics also show that there are some misconceptions about our immigration policies that need be corrected.

One, that all foreign students coming to this country are good for the economy. In fact, many so-called students have been applying for low-grade courses at bogus colleges in order to work here in low-skilled jobs.

Two, that foreign students are only temporary visitors, so they’re not really immigrants. In fact, one in five foreign students are believed to stay here for more than five years.

Three, that our student visa regime is damaging Britain’s universities. In fact, while we have cut the number of student visas, just by tackling abuse, the number of foreign applicants to British universities is up.

Four, that the cap on economic migration is hurting British businesses. In fact, because of the abuse of the old tier one system, we’ve been able to set a reasonably generous limit for tier two visas, and that limit has not yet been reached.

Five, that you can’t control immigration without hurting the economy. In fact, uncontrolled, mass immigration displaces British workers, forces people onto benefits, and suppresses wages for the low-paid. Controlled immigration means you can attract the brightest and the best who genuinely contribute to our economy and society.

Six, that wanting to control immigration in future is an attack on people who have already settled here or their children. In fact, the evidence suggests that recent immigrants and ethnic minority Brits are amongst those who lose the most from mass immigration.

Seven, that you can’t control immigration because you can’t do anything to restrict European immigration. In fact, net British and European migration is broadly in balance. And we can introduce transitional controls on new member states, we can take action to restrict the demand for European workers from British employers, and we can be smarter about the benefits and services we provide for foreign nationals. These are all issues I plan to return to in the new year.

Conclusion

But overall, the biggest misconception is that by saying some immigration can be good for Britain, we shouldn’t try to control it at all.

Our record is disproving that false belief. We’re proving that it is possible to get the immigration system to work in our national interest. We are bringing down the numbers to sustainable levels, and we are continuing to attract the brightest and the best talent from around the world. And we are doing that by making the system much more discerning – we’re welcoming the people we want to come to Britain, and we’re stopping the wrong people from coming here.

With family visas, the applicants must speak English, and the sponsors must prove they can provide for them.

With work visas, if you have the skills we need and a proper job offer, you can come to Britain. If you have an investment or a business idea to bring here, you can come to Britain. But we don’t need any more unskilled immigration, and we are closing down the routes – both formal and informal – for unskilled workers to come to Britain.

And with student visas, there is no cap on the number of legitimate students able to come here to study legitimate courses at genuine institutions. But we’re cutting out abuse and stopping the student visa system being used as an easy route to working in Britain.

The evidence is vindicating the government’s policies. The rise in employment over the last year has benefited British workers, not migrant workers as has happened in the past. Net immigration is down by one quarter in a single year. The visa statistics suggest further falls in net immigration to come.

Two and half years ago we made a clear to the promise to the British public. We still have some way to go, but we’re delivering on that promise.

Thank you very much.