Passenger Name Records

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman always paints a happy prospect of life ahead. I am grateful for his support and on the data protection issues I can say that the British information will be dealt with by the British Government, so we will not see the random international sharing of information that he suggests—I agree that that would be bad for data protection issues. On the e-Borders system, we are indeed proceeding with letting the new contracts. We already have more than 90% of routes outside the EU covered by e-Borders and we hope that within the next 12 months that coverage will be more or less complete, so that will proceed quickly. Clearly the biggest single gap in the e-Borders coverage is within the EU, which is what this directive is very precisely going to help us with.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister rightly says that the directive will make Britain safer, but will he say a little more about the safeguards? Specifically, will he confirm that the data will not be used for profiling and that the UK’s data protection standards will apply?

[Damian Green]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that specific assurance that the data will not be used for profiling. Indeed, the amount of sensitive personal data that will be put on the system is one of the liveliest matters for negotiation. I entirely share his instincts, which I know to be that although data need to be collected and stored for the protection of our citizens, that must done proportionately. In many ways, the ideal situation is that we collect and store the exact minimum of data that we need to enhance the security of the people and do not drift into the situation that the previous Government fell into. They believed that they made us safer by collecting and storing more and more data and keeping them for longer. That did not make any British citizen safer but it did amount to an assault on our civil liberties.

Trafficking in Human Beings

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I agree that there have been severe difficulties in that regard. My hon. Friend will know that there tends to be a concentration of child victims of trafficking in certain local authorities, and one of the things that encourages me is the way in which local authorities—particularly those that are the most affected—are now learning best practice from each other and getting a grip on the problem of disappearance, which has afflicted many child victims of trafficking. For instance, Hertfordshire has, by adopting new systems, reduced the number of children who disappear from 36 to two in 12 months.

Great improvements are clearly needed, but we have already seen them being made in some local authorities, which are developing the kind of systems that are effective in enabling them to fulfil their statutory duty to protect children. They have comprehensive systems in place to do this, and adding another guardian to that framework would risk creating another level of complexity in arrangements that are already strong and that ensure the best interests of the child. Even worse, it would risk creating confusion for children themselves if plans for their care were not effectively co-ordinated.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What would be the difference between having an independent reviewing officer and advocate, and having a guardian? Is it the Minister’s view that the combination of an IRO and an advocate amounts to a guardian?

[Damian Green]

That is exactly my view, and having another guardian would be confusing and potentially bureaucratic. Indeed, in discussions with the very energetic all-party group on human trafficking, one of its leading officers, the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, made the point that when the directive talks about a guardian, it does not, in her view, mean a guardian ad litem—a legal representative of the child—who would deal with the courts, as happens in “normal” child protection issues. The truth is that the concept of the guardian in the directive is slightly vague, and slightly declaratory, and we believe that our present system is already achieving what the directive wants us to achieve.

Another provision that has generated great interest is the idea of a national rapporteur on human trafficking. Again, we believe that we have equivalent mechanisms in place that fulfil that purpose, in the form of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, for data collection, and the inter-departmental ministerial group, for oversight. I recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members and others that this function should be carried out by an independent body, and I will keep those arguments under consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am very pleased that we are having this debate. The fact that we are doing so is a tribute to Members on both sides of the House and others, including the Minister for Immigration, the Home Secretary, the members of the all-party group on human trafficking, Anthony Steen and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). It is a collective achievement, therefore.

As Members will know, in Europe alone the estimated value of trafficking is £3 billion, and about 140,000 people are being held in conditions of effective slavery in Europe. This morning, I had a meeting with Croydon Community Against Trafficking, which has done very good work in identifying brothels. From its research, it concluded that there were 65 brothels in Croydon. It passed that information to the police in Croydon, who had identified only eight brothels. This shows the scale of the problem we are facing both in European terms and at the local level, and it highlights the fact that human trafficking, especially for the sex industry, is a significant issue.

I want to thank the Home Secretary again. We have had an extensive exchange of correspondence on this matter over the past three months or so, and there are a couple of points on which I seek clarification relating to the impact the EU human trafficking directive will have in the UK and any additional measures the Government might intend to take. When I intervened on the Minister on the topic of guardians, he said he was confident that the combination of an independent reviewing officer and an advocate was, in effect, a guardian or the equivalent thereof. I am sure he is right, and I hope so too because when we have to respond to the petition on guardians with 600,000 signatures that ECPAT is apparently going to be handing in on Thursday 12 May, it will be much easier if all Members can collectively say that the matter has been addressed. It will save us a significant amount of pain if we are in a position to say that.

It is my understanding that forced begging is already a crime in the UK. I ask the Minister to clarify either now or later whether a comparable legal penalty is attached to that, and whether as a result of the implementation of the human trafficking directive we will follow other countries in recording the figures for forced begging so that we can draw straight comparisons. In my mind at least, there was also some confusion as to whether other offences that are not currently covered in the UK are addressed by the directive and therefore whether we might now have other offences as well as forced begging.

Victims of trafficking receive free medical care, but what support in respect of accommodation, and especially safe accommodation, is there, and does the Minister expect that to be provided to all victims?

On the protection of victims in criminal proceedings, the Home Secretary confirmed that special measures such as witness protection and anonymity are not guaranteed, but are granted on a case-by-case basis. I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that they will be available in cases where that is clearly necessary. Also, there is a suggestion in the response that if legal aid is not available, victims should seek help from non-legal professionals or legal voluntary organisations such as citizens advice bureaux. Given the nature of these crimes, will the Minister consider whether victims should, in fact, receive proper legal support when they require it?

I referred in my opening comments to Croydon Community Against Trafficking, and I congratulate that voluntary organisation on the work it is doing. Following promptings from Anthony Steen, it is trying to expand its network to all the London boroughs. Many of its activities are based on following leads from adverts as they appear in newspapers. I am sure that Members will welcome the fact that Newsquest—which produces many of the local newspapers around the country, including my own, the Sutton Guardian—has given a guarantee that it will not carry these ads. That is not the case for others, however, such as the Advertiser group. I am afraid that on occasion its papers are in the bizarre situation of featuring on the front page articles about raids on brothels that have resulted in their being shut down, while on the back pages carrying adverts for the services of those brothels. I hope the Minister will address that. He has welcomed the actions of Newsquest, and I wonder whether he might like to put a challenge to other newspaper groups in respect of the adverts they continue to carry.

I also ask the Minister to set out how he sees the time scales developing from now on, in respect of any other measures that might be taken or hoops that might have to be jumped through, before we can finally say that the EU human trafficking directive has been adopted in its entirety and we can once again commend all the actions that have collectively been taken to ensure this becomes part of the UK’s legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Starting on Wednesday, when the House of Lords Committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill begins, there will be proper and due consideration of every aspect of the Bill. However, it is our intention that police and crime commissioners will be introduced across England and Wales.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Accountability of police forces to the public is essential, but so are robust checks and balances to challenge the actions of any commissioner who exceeds their powers or seeks to interfere in operational policing matters. Will the Home Secretary consider seriously the request from the other place that the new accountability arrangements be piloted and the checks and balances strengthened?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the previous question, there will be proper and careful consideration of all these issues as the Bill goes through Committee and its further stages in the House of Lords. I am aware that issues have been raised about the police and crime panels and how they use properly the checks and balances in place to hold police and crime commissioners to account. It is our intention to introduce commissioners across England and Wales.

Government Reductions in Policing

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government are facing up to reality. The most challenging financial circumstances that this country has faced since the second world war have made me acknowledge that the quality of policing cannot simply be about the number of police; it must also be about how well they are deployed. Government Members have always been clear that police forces can make savings, while protecting front-line services and prioritising the visibility and availability of policing.

There may be no agreement on that between the Government and the Opposition, but at least there is agreement on police budgets. Let us be clear: the Labour party admits that it would be cutting police funding, that it could not guarantee police numbers, and that it could not guarantee that police staff would not be lost. That is not only because of the cuts to police funding that it had proposed, but because, irrespective of the plethora of targets that operated when it was in power, it still could not dictate to chief constables exactly whom they did or did not employ.

At the moment, the police are crippled by bureaucracy and spend more time on paperwork than on patrol. That frustrates the police, who want to do their job, and the public, who want to see more police on the streets. The coalition Government are scrapping unnecessary bureaucracy to save police time. The Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos both said that we would reduce time-wasting bureaucracy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are helping the police to make savings, and to ensure that resources are focused on the front line.

[Graham Jones]

Would the hon. Gentleman not add cutting crime to that list? He has listed bureaucracy, but surely the purpose of the police is to cut crime. Will that be in his speech at some point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is the second point on which we can agree: the police should, indeed, cut crime.

The police could also make savings from consolidating IT services, as the Home Secretary said. The police have no fewer than 2,000 separate IT systems. Surely that is a good place to look for savings. We can do much more with technology to help the police use their time more effectively, and all parties agree that we need to do much more to ensure smarter procurement.

Another point on which the coalition partners agree, but on which Labour opposes us, is the terms and conditions of police officers. The Government were right to set up the Winsor review of police pay and conditions, and of course the coalition Government will work in co-operation with the police negotiating bodies on the matter. To fight crime, we need a modern and flexible work force to help chief constables manage their resources properly, maximise officer time and improve the service to the public. We are clear, of course, that the police must be fairly compensated for their work, which is difficult and often dangerous, as we have been tragically reminded over the weekend following the callous murder of Ronan Kerr.

What are the key facts behind what the coalition Government are doing? It is true that Government funding for the police is being reduced, and will be reduced throughout this Parliament. However, as the Home Secretary said, the police also receive precept funding, and the Government’s freeze in police pay will make a substantial contribution to maintaining budgets.

I acknowledge that the picture across the country is complex, and it is clear from the reports that we are getting from different forces that some are finding the situation tougher to address than others. However, as Members have said, some police forces are actually increasing the number of front-line officers, such as Gloucestershire police, which is moving up to 15% of police officers into more visible roles. Many Members have quoted the HMIC report, which revealed that some forces have twice the visibility and availability of policing of others. It is clear that all forces can make improvements to the visibility of police officers.

The same report showed that a third of resources are not on the front line, and highlighted the great differences in the visibility of police officers at different times. Some 16% are visible on a Friday morning at 9 o’clock, but only 9% are visible and available on a Friday night. Again, it is clear that there are things that forces can do to increase the visibility of police without necessarily touching police numbers. They can provide police at the time when the public want to see them. I am sure all Members have been accosted by constituents who ask them why police officers and safer neighbourhood teams are out patrolling at 9 o’clock on a Monday morning rather than in the town centre at 9 o’clock on a Friday night. Improvements can therefore be made to rotas.

The Labour party’s record is worthy of some scrutiny. As Opposition Members may well know, in 2009 just 14% of all officers’ time was spent on patrol, compared with 22% on paperwork. In one year alone, from 2007 to 2008, the amount of time spent on paperwork increased by 22%. The Home Secretary referred to the comment of Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, that Labour had a political obsession with numbers of police.

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

Perhaps one could argue that the Liberal Democrats had that obsession too. I am very happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I may have pre-empted his point.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful. In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, does he regret the commitment that he stood on last May of 3,000 additional police officers?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and I apologise for pre-empting it. However, I said at the beginning of my speech that the circumstances that we are in have required all parties to reappraise any prior commitments in their manifestos. Quite simply, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, there is no money.

I turn back to the previous Government’s record. Jan Berry, as the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned, said about police bureaucracy:

“I would estimate one-third of effort is either over-engineered, duplicated or adds no additional value.”

She was the person whom the previous Government chose to examine bureaucracy, and that was her assessment of police effort.

[Keith Vaz]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would have been sensible if Jan Berry had been asked to continue the work that she started? She produced an excellent report, but I understand that her work has now been transferred to the chief constable of the West Midlands, a serving chief constable. Surely it would have been better if Jan Berry had been allowed to monitor the results of her recommendations.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I am absolutely certain that the work that Jan Berry has already done will inform what the chief constable and the Government are doing to address bureaucracy.

A previous Labour Home Secretary, when he was asked in April 2010 whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall, said that he could not. The shadow Chancellor is on record as saying that under his plans,

“you will lose some non-uniformed back office staff”.

It is interesting that the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Chancellor cannot even agree among themselves what their position on the Winsor review is. The former has attacked the Government for initiating the review, but the latter has said that overtime and shift work savings are something that

“any sensible government would look at”.

I suggest that they need to get their house in order first.

[Yvette Cooper]

To clarify, we have criticised the Government many times for pre-empting the Winsor review, not for commissioning it. We have criticised them for announcing their views on the amount of money that should be cut, and for criticising the police in the newspapers, in advance of the Winsor review rather than after it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary, but maybe she would like to intervene again and confirm whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that overtime and shift work savings are something that

“any sensible government would look at”.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is inviting interventions, because we have said that it is right to examine how the police work. However, will he confirm that his party’s pledge of 3,000 additional officers was made when the now Deputy Prime Minister said that although financial circumstances were extremely difficult, the position of the police was so important that there would be 3,000 additional police officers as part of his party’s manifesto commitment?

[Tom Brake]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for intervening and putting on record the Labour party policy on policing—that it is right to examine how the police work. That is as close to a policy statement as we are going to get tonight.

The debate could have been an opportunity to discuss the coalition’s programme of police reform and budget reductions, and to contrast that with the Opposition’s track record and future plans. Regrettably, the Opposition did not grasp that opportunity. Instead, we had the usual “too fast and too deep” or, alternatively, “too far and too fast” line from the shadow Home Secretary, peppered with lame police and justice themed jokes, recycled from an earlier speech. When will she accept that saying that the coalition is going too far, too fast does not amount to a policy for the Labour party? If she wants to be taken seriously, she will have to work out her party’s policy before she next stands at the Dispatch Box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

This is the fourth time in my short career in the House that I have spoken in a policing debate and, sadly, the second time I have done so while a murder investigation is ongoing in my constituency. That makes it a good time for me to pay tribute to the police for their hard work. Large-scale and difficult investigations like this one after the senseless murder of young Jia Ashton in Somercotes a couple of weeks ago help us all to appreciate how hard a job the police sometimes have.

It is important to put our debate on policing into context. We are debating the subject in the shadow of the most difficult public finance situation in peacetime history. As we look through these large and confusing numbers, it is important to realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) just explained, that the Opposition’s last financial plan when they were in government involved them in about 90% of the spending reductions for this financial year—a difference of only £2 billion, which they spent many times over. They cannot get away with saying that if they were in power we would not have to face the huge savings that need to be made or the huge cuts that need to be found. In fact, neither of the main parties at the last election pledged to make no reduction in police funding or police numbers. Moreover, the last Labour Home Secretary—we have already had three shadow Home Secretaries in this Parliament—admitted that police numbers would fall under Labour as well.

The public do not much enjoy listening to us throwing blame around the Chamber. They want to hear us talk about what the Government should be doing to ensure that we have the efficient and effective policing that we need. The Government might have passed a Bill stating that there would be no reductions in uniformed police officers, but I am not sure whether we could have recommended such a Bill or whether it would have worked or been at all sensible. We have all seen the awful trend of having uniformed officers working at back-office functions for which they are not trained and which they are probably overpaid to do. What we need is something different. We want the highly trained police officers to be out on the streets, not doing support or back-office roles, however we want to define them.

The Government clearly can and should do certain things. I would like to talk about three particular examples: the funding for each force, reforms to pay and conditions and taking steps to strip away bureaucracy. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is still in the Chamber. She has heard me say this before, but I think it is important to bear in mind the difference in funding levels. Let me point out yet again that for many years Derbyshire has lost about £5 million a year —which equates roughly to 160 officers—because the last Government did not implement their own funding formula establishing the requirement for each force.

I realise that it was not possible for any Government to solve the problem in the time available, but I urge the Home Secretary, when the next funding round arrives, either to start to implement the existing funding formula or to introduce a new one. It cannot be right for us to keep saying “Here is a formula; here is the amount that you want; oh, sorry, you cannot have it”. That simply is not sustainable. We are led to believe that some forces do not have to work under the same financial pressures as Derbyshire and several other authorities in the east midlands.

I may gain more agreement from my colleagues on the Front Bench when I speak of the need to reform pay and conditions. The point has been well made that at a time when more than 75% of police budgets is spent on pay, there is a clear link: if we do not reform pay and conditions, we shall have to accept a smaller head count. Although imposing a two-year pay freeze is not a pleasant task, reforming police allowances and overtime payments must be the way forward. I say that cautiously, as the police service parliamentary scheme enables me to spend Wednesdays touring Chesterfield with members of the police force. I hope that, if they read the report of my speech, they will understand what I was trying to say. I am happy to debate the issue with them.

I urge the Government to make some progress on the Winsor review. The last thing that any of us want is for police forces to have to make cuts and savings and then, when the final recommendations of the review are published, to discover that the problem was not as bad as had been feared, and that they need not have made those savings. A degree of certainty on pay and conditions and the pension position will help everyone. I do not think that any of us work at our best with a huge amount of uncertainty hanging over us for longer than necessary.

We also need to strip away bureaucracy, and during their 11 months in power the Government have made considerable progress in that regard. We all want as many man hours as possible to be spent on the front line. I believe that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary defines the front line as officers

“who directly intervene to keep people safe and enforce the law”.

I do not know whether others agree with that definition, but it strikes me as a reasonable form of words.

The abolition of the police pledge, the reduction of bureaucracy and the granting of more discretion to the police to fight crime should be hugely welcomed. Talk of absolute police numbers is not the clearest way of discussing the issue; I think that what the public want to see is the right number of officers engaged in the right duties at the right times and in the right places, working in a smart manner.

[Tom Brake]

One issue that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, other Members should consider is the amount of time spent by safer neighbourhood teams on petrol stations. I was appalled to discover that one BP garage in one ward was using 20% of the safer neighbourhood team’s time to deal with drive-outs and shoplifting. I suggest that Members with petrol stations in their constituencies ask how much of the local safer neighbourhood teams’ time is being spent in that way because they have not, for instance, ensured that CCTV is up to scratch, and that staff are properly trained to prevent shoplifting from becoming rife.

[Nigel Mills]

The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible point. I hope that the Government’s decision not to increase fuel tax even more will not provide any further encouragement for thefts from petrol stations.

Various reports have been quoted as saying that in 2009 only 14% of police officers’ time was spent on patrol and 22% was spent on paperwork. That cannot be right: there must be scope for the police to work in a far smarter manner. According to Jan Berry’s report—which has been referred to—about a third of police time is ineffective, and that demonstrates the scope for savings.

I commend the work that Derbyshire police have done, and continue to do, in their “Moving Forward” savings programme. I recently had an opportunity to quiz the chief constable, the officer in charge of the change programme and various others about how they were approaching it, and to challenge them by suggesting some additional things that they could think about. I was impressed by how well on track they were, and how well they had thought everything through. They have managed to save £700,000 already by putting sergeants back in charge of evidence gathering and case preparation, and they have saved about £1 million through increasing regional collaboration, so there are things that all forces can do.

Disturbances (London)

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. After such events, it is important that we take the appropriate time to consider all the issues that have arisen and give proper consideration to whether we need to give the police any further powers to enable them to do the job we want them to do in this new environment.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Home Secretary commend the overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters and the police for their measured response, urge the police to maintain their close-proximity approach to policing and reject calls for a policing approach that is based on distance and relies on water cannon and cordoning off large sections of a city?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the way in which the main march was policed was a good example of, and a tribute to, the British model of policing. It was important that the police were able to do that in co-ordination with the organisers of the march, who had been in discussions with them about it in advance of the event.

Student Visas

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This is an issue in which he has taken a long-standing interest. I will give two answers to his question. The e-Borders system, which is being put in place, is partly working at the moment; complete application will come in 2015. In the next couple of months we will also make proposals on settlement, in which I know he has taken a particular interest.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that higher education in the UK is world class, and that our top institutions should remain open for business to genuine students, but that bogus colleges, which provide nothing more than an excuse for entry into the UK, should be forced to close their doors promptly?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package that we have introduced today will protect our universities, which provide a world-class education. Students should want to come here for that quality of education, and we need to crack down on bogus colleges. It gives the UK a bad name when people see that they can come here supposedly as students but not get a proper education.

Quilliam Foundation

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who has put forward a strong and effective case. He has made a very specific proposal that £150,000 should be provided by the Government. He made it clear that it should not be a blank cheque and specified that the funding would be for 12 months starting next month. What he did not do was to set out precisely what conditions and objectives might be attached, perhaps because he cannot conduct negotiations on Quilliam’s behalf, or he does not want to conduct negotiations here. He indicated clearly that at the end of the 12-month period, Quilliam would have to be self-financing, albeit perhaps having secured grants from Government for specific projects. However, other conditions might have to be attached if the Government were minded to go down that route.

The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that today’s discussion on the future funding of Quilliam is not just about the funding streams of that UK-based think-tank; it is about the Government’s current and developing policy stance on counter-terrorism—what we fund and why and how we should continue to move forward post-Prevent. Is our nation’s security to be based on ideology and on which groups emphasise or downplay certain aspects of Islam, or on reality and on the evidence of policies that have worked and continue to produce results?

As the right hon. Gentleman said, Quilliam’s funding streams are well documented and a loss of substantial funding early in its inception led to its being funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, which illustrates exactly why there is a need for Quilliam to continue. It lost funding by being vocal in opposing extremism in whatever form and from whatever source. As he said, a funder withdrew support early on in Quilliam’s life as a reaction to the organisation’s stance against suicide bombings in Israel. Quilliam’s public stance on that issue was not particularly to do with Islam, but it was part of its consistent, clear and vocal opposition to all forms of terrorism. However, the resultant situation—Quilliam being funded largely by two Departments—clearly raises issues about bipartisanship and credibility.

Quilliam is not the only organisation that publicly and vociferously challenges extremism in all its guises, whether anti-Jewish, anti-Islam or anti-western; nor is it the only organisation in which former extremists have played an active part in educating peoples, Governments and policy makers on how to recognise and counter the type of radicalisation that results in extremist behaviours. The Street project in Brixton was previously funded by Prevent and has also experienced funding cuts. It is a non-sectarian group that works from a mosque and does measurable work in combating the kind of radicalisation that can lead to extremism. Similarly, the Cordoba Foundation has produced projects with a focus on preventing radicalism from becoming extremist action. In about a week’s time, an initiative called “Learning to be a Peacemaker” will be held in this place by an organisation called Initiatives of Change, which is also working in that field.

It is true, however, that Quilliam is distinct and unique in important respects. It is the only organisation that challenges extremist views and activities by effectively straddling both the Muslim perspective and the liberal, secular, mainstream vernacular of modern Britain. It represents the swathes of British Muslims who are Muslim by birth and culture first and foremost, but who understand and adhere to the division between Church and state, which is second nature to mainland Britain. Quilliam sits within the diverse and, at times, conflicting dialogue about Islam that is both acceptable and normal practice among faith-based Muslim groups, but unlike any other organisation of its size and impact, Quilliam also sits comfortably within the traditional western liberal dialogue, which separates to a large extent the personal faith of individuals and the secular, cultural interpretation of those personal faiths.

As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East set out, Quilliam started life as a think-tank, but the very nature of its work—outreach in universities, and research and policy advice—is much more akin to that of an effective and proactive non-governmental organisation. Quilliam’s vocal stance against terrorism that claims to be inspired by Islam has had solid results, which are measurable. Accurately signposting Government to specific individuals with an inclination for extremist action is invaluable in our fight against terrorism. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it remains one of the few groups—occasionally the only group—that consistently challenge and publicly condemn terrorism, from whatever source. As it sits within the Muslim dialogue, it has first-hand access to, and shared understanding of, the dialogues taking place at grassroots level and online that can lead to extremist action. That position is unique and invaluable to the Government’s fight against terrorism.

However, the criticism levelled at Quilliam, and indirectly at the previous Government for funding the group, is worth examination and raises important questions that need to be addressed in relation to any decisions about funding. The first is about its perceived dominance of the mainstream view. Many individuals and organisations are discouraged by an organisation that purports to be the arbiter of what is, or is not, mainstream. That is further complicated by the coming to light of a list produced by Quilliam that seems to many to suggest that some other Muslim organisations, which consider themselves mainstream, are breeding grounds for civil unrest because of ideological perspectives shared to a greater or lesser extent with radical extremist groups.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. However, is it not the case that when taking part in an ideological battle, all groups describe themselves as mainstream? Indeed, even Islamist extremists describe themselves as mainstream, because they are trying to say that everyone who disagrees with them is an apostate. There is nothing unusual, therefore, about Quilliam at one end of the spectrum calling itself mainstream, while other groups at the centre of the spectrum call themselves mainstream, and groups on the radical Islamist end of the spectrum call themselves mainstream. That is not really a valid criticism.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is very experienced in these matters. Maybe on that particular point we will have to disagree on whether my comment is appropriate.

The funding of a think-tank by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will inevitably contribute to a perceived lack of plurality of voices heard by Government on how best to combat extremism. Lack of funding from other agencies will raise questions about how and whether Quilliam can critically engage with Government, and will cast doubts about its credibility as an independent body with the capacity to critique Government plans and policy on tackling radical extremism. It is true to say, however, that that position conveniently forgets the numerous groups that receive funding from the Government’s Prevent strategy to undertake or continue work to counteract extremist activity. It also overlooks the many Muslim groups that are frequently invited to put their views to Government, most recently a couple of months ago at a conference I hosted here with Murtaza Shibli, when we invited Muslim organisations to share opinions and advice on how best the Government can go forward with the post-Prevent agenda.

No one can doubt the achievements of Quilliam as an NGO. The debate about funding should, therefore, rightly concern itself with levels of funding at a time of financial austerity, and not about whether we should forgo that important insight into extremist narratives. Although I support the continued funding of this much-needed organisation, Quilliam, like other NGOs and agencies working under the vital remit of social cohesion, needs to look hard at how best to make effective decisions within tighter financial constraints. Quilliam also needs to continue to pursue other avenues of funding—as it is doing—to continue, with credibility, a bipartisan relationship with Government and other Muslim groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The debate this morning is an attempt to ensure that Quilliam does not slip through the net, and I know that Ministers in the Department are seized of the issues. We all recognise that these are difficult financial times and that difficult decisions have to be made across the Government, and I want to explore that a little with the Minister, perhaps with some specific questions later. We recognise that these are not easy times. The Home Office, which has taken a significant reduction in its expenditure, clearly needs to economise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has set out a specific proposition for £150,000 of transitional funding to enable Quilliam to pursue the other applications that it has made, which ought to get us to a reasonable position. I recognise that having an organisation solely dependent on public funds is not tenable in the long term.

[Tom Brake]

The right hon. Lady has been familiar with the organisation for several years. Is she aware of whether Quilliam was previously given an indication that it should go to other organisations to find funding? If it was but has not been successful in achieving self-sufficiency, the Government would have strong reservations about putting money in again.

[Hazel Blears]

This did not become a significant issue until we were facing the current financial circumstances which pertain across Government. I certainly was not aware of a major drive, which was unsuccessful, to press Quilliam to find funds in other sectors. Clearly, the situation now is that economies need to be made. Quilliam has been put into that pot, but I want to explore with the Minister what other organisations are funded and what cuts have been made—I shall come shortly to the Research Information and Communications Unit. We need a better, broader picture of the total resources available, and what decisions have been made about funding priorities. In a few weeks, we are expecting the Prevent review, which will give us more insight into what the balance of organisations ought to be. We absolutely need a balance.

This is not a partisan issue by any measure—it transcends party politics. It relates to the security and safety of our country, and nothing can be more important than that. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are pursuing the matter to try to get a reasonable settlement.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, I was the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism at the time of the 7 July 2005 bombings. Even now, I can feel the sense of devastation and shock that there was across the nation when that happened. People were asking who committed the bombings, why they would want to do that to innocent men and women and their families, and what led them to be prepared to take their own life to fulfil what they presumably believed to be their mission and destiny. I do not think that any of us really understood—we still do not—the many and varied factors that lead people down such a path, that lead them even to contemplate taking such steps.

We are better informed than we were then. Several organisations that have been active in this field have helped the Government and policy makers to come to a better analysis of the factors that lead people to extremism, but we do not have all the answers. I entirely accept that, although some of the measures in the Prevent programme were successful, some were less successful, but what we were doing in that area was innovative and, in many ways, experimental.

I have spoken to people in the United States, France, Germany and countries across western Europe who say that this country has been at the forefront of trying to drill down to determine what the factors of extremism are, and how to build resilience among young people so that they can resist such messages. My sense is that those other countries are just beginning to take the first steps. Indeed, that was reaffirmed for my right hon. Friend and me when we went to the United States just last week. Many of the Congressmen and women and Senators acknowledged that they are very much at the beginning of thinking about a counter-radicalisation strategy, whereas this country is well ahead. This country’s position has been aided enormously by the different groups that we have funded to help us. They have had programmes and have been able to develop an evidence base about the best way to counter extremism, and the Quilliam Foundation has been at the heart of that process for the past three years at least.

As everyone knows, Quilliam was formed by Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz, both of whom had been in the grip of extremists. They had been right at the heart of Hizb ut-Tahrir and knew what it felt like to travel down that path. Therefore, their voices and the voices of others at Quilliam who have been able to set out the emotional process that happens to people on that journey have been enormously powerful and valuable in working out strategies to counter extremism. They were certainly instrumental, when I was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in my decision to set up the Young Muslims Advisory Group and the Muslim Women’s Advisory Group.

It was the first time in this country that we had people at national level who were able to advise Ministers about what it felt like to be a young person in the community with strong feelings about foreign policy and contentious issues, and with the many pressures that face them at that time of their life. What could the Government do to try to help them to grow up with a sense of this country’s values but also, of course, their important personal identity and heritage? The Muslim Women’s Advisory Group was a fabulous opportunity to find out about women’s lives, and how women could influence the young men in their families to withstand the extremist narrative. We can celebrate the huge amount that we achieved, but, obviously, we have much more to do.

Going around the country after 7/7 with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was probably one of the most testing experiences I personally have ever undergone. The sense of anger, bewilderment and shock in communities was palpable, but the message that came across to me time and again was that the overwhelming majority of people in the Muslim community totally rejected the violence that had taken place, and believed that killing innocent people was never justifiable. Unfortunately, the extremism that leads people to contemplate and sometimes adopt violence is with us now—there is no getting away from that—and is likely to be with us for many years to come. Life has changed, and we ought to recognise that the circumstances are very different. That is why it is so important that we have the capacity to tackle that ideology and the way in which people seek to groom others to take the path of violence.

I want to mention a report which I think is relevant to this debate. “Fear and HOPE”, which was published last week by the Searchlight Educational Trust, is about the new politics of identity. Many people who are susceptible to extremist narratives are struggling with their sense of identity: who am I, where do I fit in, where do I belong, what is my value set?

The report, which was based on 5,000 interviews of people across the country who were asked more than 90 questions, provides some fascinating results and evidence. What gives me optimism and hope is that there is widespread rejection of political violence. It is interesting that the vast majority of people who were questioned considered white anti-Muslim extremists to be as bad as Islamist extremists. That tells me that a core part of our communities and population are basically saying, “A plague on both your houses. We want no part of extremism, whether far-right extremism, Islamist extremism or anti-Semitism—we reject all that.”

It gives me great hope for the future that if we can build, sustain and make that heart of our community strong, it will empower and give confidence to young people to say, “I reject the extremist narrative. I reject such ideologies and share the broad values of this country.” That prize is so precious and valuable that the investment of £150,000 to enable Quilliam to move to other sources of funding over the next few months is a small price to pay, considering the scale of the challenge that we face. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that we need a broad range of organisations to help with the agenda at every part of the spectrum. It is without doubt that Quilliam has been prepared to be at one end of that spectrum, to speak out, not to be intimidated, and to state the case for pluralism, inclusion and British values of democracy, tolerance, free speech, and particularly the rights of women. It has been extremely effective in doing that.

Obviously, we must support other organisations, and I will come to that, but it is only three years since Quilliam was established, and to have gained its reputation in the world within that period marks it out as a special organisation that has helped us to build that evidence base. Its report on radicalisation on campuses was extremely good and contained a series of recommendations. We know that there is a problem on some of our university campuses, and the report’s practical recommendations could help us significantly. It produced a report on the use of the internet to promote Jihad. We are now seeing preachers such as al-Maliki on the internet urging people to take matters into their own hands without having a group around them, and to carry out individual acts of terrorism. That report on the use of the internet was a good piece of work. The role of television in influencing young minds is crucial.

Quilliam has produced excellent reports, and done project work—for example, its work in Pakistan, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East mentioned, which was funded by the Foreign Office, with road shows prepared in challenging and sometimes intimidating circumstances to make the case fearlessly. It has a tremendous record. It is seeking other sources of funding. It recognises that the current situation cannot continue ad infinitum, but it must be given the chance to do that work.

I have some questions for the Minister, and if he cannot answer them during the debate, I would appreciate it if he got back to me later. The Research Information and Communications Unit was established in the Office of Security and Counter-terrorism in the Home Office three or four years ago. My recollection is that that was a fairly well resourced unit. It received contributions from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it brought together a series of people with the skills to develop a counter-narrative, to publish documents, and to do research and much of the work that Quilliam has been doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow that outstanding speech by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). Her work and that of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) as Ministers on this topic excited the admiration of many of us when we were on the Opposition Benches. It continues to excite my admiration now that they are in opposition, but still fighting just as hard on this vital topic as they ever did when they were Ministers.

During the 1990s, I occasionally had the privilege of taking part in courses on public speaking, oratory and campaigning techniques with another member of the House of Commons who is now Mr Speaker. He always impressed on everyone who came to our courses that when making a speech one should have, at most, two main points, but preferably only one, with which to belabour one’s listeners over and over again, so that if they remembered nothing else about what one had said, they would remember that one point.

Here is my one point today. It is that countering hostile propaganda is not a commercial enterprise or undertaking. It requires sponsorship and support. It is absolute nonsense to say that people who are brave enough to put themselves in the front of an ideological battle should be selling their product on a commercial basis because that somehow means that their organisation is more vibrant.

If organisations that are fighting an ideological battle do not get support from the Government, they will need to get it from private sources. I know of no organisation during the cold war that fought these sorts of ideological campaigns—there were many such organisations; I was involved in several of them—that managed to make enough money to sustain itself as a going concern commercially. Such organisations had to find sponsorship. As I understand it, Quilliam has been rather particular about the sponsors it has sought. It could have taken money from undemocratic regimes but I believe that it turned down those offers. Although it might have agreed with those regimes on certain issues, it could not agree with the way that they rule their countries and peoples. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that if Government funding is cut from an organisation, that organisation will somehow transform itself into a profit-making enterprise. It will not; that is not its function. The more time that activists in a counter-propaganda organisation spend raising funds, the less time they have available to do the job of countering radicalisation and extremism.

I hope that the Government will have the good sense to continue funding Quilliam because I am a little concerned about what may be going on under the surface. On the surface, as the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles said at the beginning of her remarks, we have an excellent speech from the Prime Minister stating that we must be tough on radicalism and that we must not compromise. We must not pretend that people who speak with a double voice, as it were, and say that they are against extremism on the one hand but treat it softly on the other, are the only people with whom we should deal. Although that sort of speech makes all the right sounds, in reality Government officials are kicking away the props that support what is undoubtedly one of the most high-profile and successful organisations in the field of counter-propaganda.

I use those words deliberately because this is a propaganda war involving propaganda by those who seek to radicalise, and counter-propaganda by those who seek to defeat and undermine their campaigns. That sort of work must not be undermined by paid Government officials at a time when the head of the Government says that we ought to do more of it.

Something strange is going on and I think I know what it is. Reference was made earlier to the important conference being held today at the Royal United Services Institute. I had hoped to attend that conference this morning, but I felt that this debate was rather more important. My mind went back to a previous conference held quite a few years ago at the RUSI, and a rather impressive Government speaker on counter-terrorism. I subsequently sought a briefing from that speaker, and the Government gave permission for me to have one. During the course of the conversation, I made the point that one clearly had to encourage moderate Muslims to stand up against minority activists, just as in so many other fields. Particularly during the cold war and student radicalism on campuses in other decades, it had been necessary for moderates to stand up for the silent majority against the noisy activist and—above all—unrepresentative minority. I was intrigued by what the expert official said. He replied, “That’s absolutely true: there is a gap between those who hold moderate values and those who hold extreme values. However, there is another gap between those who hold extreme values and those—a much smaller group—who are willing to turn their extreme values and views into extreme and violent action.”

It seems that the Government—perhaps I should say the establishment, as that remains the same when Governments change—have primarily signed up to focusing on the division between extremist people who do not intend to be violent, and extremist people who intend to be violent. There is some value in that approach, but I do not believe that it should be exclusive. If we depend on people in the Muslim community with extreme views to stand up against others from that community with extreme views who want to be violent, we will not get a happy outcome. We must promote moderate values in the Muslim community. Therefore, we need an organisation that is prepared not only to attack violent extremism, but to counter the pernicious ideology of those who might not be planning violence, but who foster an extreme ideological environment where some people will absorb sufficiently illiberal notions and end up turning to violence.

I am concerned about this issue because there are a couple of ways in which counter-propaganda organisations can work. Some such organisations can, and should, concentrate on changing minds. If we wish to try that, it is important to persuade people who are inclined towards fundamentalism that they are wrong, and to have organisations that are perhaps tolerated more happily than Quilliam within the Muslim ideological community. Those organisations can work on trying to change the minds of those who are already radical.

There is, however, another more important element that must not be neglected. We hope, and I genuinely believe, that the majority of people in the Muslim community—I would like to think the overwhelming majority—hold moderate beliefs and are not extremist at all. The problem is that of the three sectors—the moderate community, the extreme community that is not violent and the extreme splinter community that is violent—the Government machine focuses too much on the second two categories, to the exclusion of the first. The only way we will win an ideological battle or war is by mobilising the silent majority. The silent majority is a hackneyed phrase because we use it a lot. Nevertheless, we use it a lot because it is true; it has to be true, and if it were not we might as well give up on civilisation straight away. We need groups that are not necessarily involved in trying to change minds, but rather in trying to reinforce moderate views that already exist.

[Tom Brake]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is unrealistic to expect Quilliam to secure funds from trusts or benefactors rather than from the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that this is some sort of weaker tool. There is going to be a more effective suite of tools with which to bear down on antisocial behaviour. Let us not forget that it was the last Labour Home Secretary who suggested that the previous Government had in some way been coasting on antisocial behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded me that Thames Valley police has said that it will be protecting neighbourhood response teams. It is also worth highlighting that the Mayor of London recognises the importance of safer neighbourhood and community teams and of delivering on the antisocial behaviour agenda.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I do not know whether the Minister has seen “Minority Report” in which precogs predict where and when serious crimes are going to occur, but will he assess a less futuristic and more practical technique that has been advocated by Peter Neyroud, the ex-chief of the National Policing Improvement Agency, and by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which could cut reoffending and antisocial behaviour? The technique flags up the criminals who are most likely to reoffend, thereby allowing resources to be concentrated on them and halving prisoner numbers, saving money and improving public safety in the process.

[James Brokenshire]

I am not sure whether Philip K. Dick is bedtime reading for Peter Neyroud, but certainly the whole idea of prevention and acting earlier is very much at the heart of the consultation in which we are engaged on antisocial behaviour. I am certainly clear about the role of prevention and the need to act early in breaking patterns of offending before people become too engaged. I will certainly look at the research to which he refers.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has consistently held his views on this issue over many years. I have a lot of sympathy with what he has said. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for whose views I also have much sympathy.

I want to comment on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe). I know he is an honourable man, but he made an unfortunate comment which I suspect was down to an over-enthusiastic, wet-behind-the-ears political novice who is working in his office at present, who got a quote from the Labour agents’ handbook suggesting that the coalition Government’s proposal is some kind of political stitch-up for the benefit of the Deputy Prime Minister. That was an unfortunate comment, and it demeans the hon. Gentleman, because it has no credibility whatever. To suggest that the coalition Government would put the country’s security at risk is extremely regrettable, and I wish he had not made that remark.

I would prefer it if this debate did not have to take place, but I realise that we cannot allow control orders to lapse without anything in their place. I therefore welcome the fact that this is a temporary renewal, and that, as the Minister said, this will be the last occasion of its kind. We have a very clear milestone—31 December this year—by which the alternative arrangements need to be in place.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in order to have effective and just alternative arrangements, they must be pivoted on habeas corpus, fair trial and due process, and any substitute within the framework of human rights legislation would simply not be workable?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which he has made a number of times over the past couple of days. I certainly agree with him that any process must be heavily based on a judicial process; indeed, that is central to this debate.

It also gives me some reassurance that, where the coalition was able to take immediate action, such as on the 14-day provision, such action was indeed taken. Since this debate last took place, I have met—a couple of months ago—someone who was the subject of a control order that had been quashed. That happened because, eventually, some of the evidence held against this controlee had to be released. One of the apparently most convincing pieces of evidence held against him was that, when he was on the top deck of a bus with his son, he had stood up and turned in such a way that the camera could not see him, and therefore he had clearly been given counter-surveillance training.

That person set out precisely what his experience had been. He was at home when, all of a sudden, a large number of police officers came through the door. He was told, “We are now going to relocate you. No, you can’t call a lawyer. We are going to relocate you to a part of the country you’ve not been to before. That doesn’t matter—that is where you are going.” He was then subject to conditions which meant that going out to work was not a possibility—doing that is not possible for someone who has to be back in their residence perhaps three hours after leaving it. If they live in a place that is already some distance from the town where they work, no sooner have they got there than they have to come back. They can therefore forget working, going to university and so on.

That experience led that person to have a breakdown and to abscond, because he could not take the pressure of the control order he was subjected to. As I said, it was eventually quashed, because when some of the evidence against him was produced, it was considered not terribly convincing.

There was one very regrettable aspect of the review process. The hon. Member for Islington North rightly talked about the other organisations that should be consulted as part of this process. It is very clear that one group of people who were not consulted as part of the process was controlees who subsequently had their control orders quashed. In order to get an appreciation of the effectiveness of this measure, what alternatives could be put in place and whether, psychologically speaking, this is a good way to move people away from terrorism—if that is what they are inclined to pursue—it would have been sensible as part of the review process to sit down and listen to some of these people’s stories. However, that has not happened. That omission needs to be addressed in any ongoing process of examining the new legislation, and I hope it will be.

Whatever the alternative measure is, it clearly has to be a qualitative improvement from a civil liberties perspective—and, indeed, from a security perspective—on what was there before. It has to put the onus on prosecution rather than containment. All too often, as is acknowledged, one of the purposes of control orders is to contain people for long enough for them to lose track of the people whom they had had contact with in the context of terrorist activity, so in many respects it is simply a containment process. People are kept for as long as it takes for them to lose track or lose interest—or, indeed, grow up—and therefore not pursue that line of action. Therefore, the focus was not on trying to prosecute people and that was a mistake. I hope that the proposed terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—will ensure that prosecution is very much at the heart of what happens. Lord MacDonald has set out clearly how that process could work and how a limited process of a couple of years could be allowed for such a prosecution to take place, and the Government will need to examine that very carefully.

As has been mentioned, further clarification is needed on curfews. As we know, a curfew does not stop someone doing what they want to do—that is also the view of Lord MacDonald. To replace a curfew with a shorter curfew is not the right course of action. A curfew, be it for 12 or 10 hours, is still a curfew and we need to examine the alternatives. For example, we might need to consider carefully a system where someone nominates a place of residence where they will be and has to give advance notice if they are going to be somewhere else on a particular day or week. We must not simply replace a curfew with a shorter curfew.

As I have stated, the judicial process has to be at the heart of the arrangement. Liberty has produced a useful crib sheet listing what applied under control orders and what will apply under TPIMs. I suspect that Liberty welcomes half the changes, although perhaps feels that more clarification is needed on a quarter of them. For example, control orders are renewed annually, but we need to know whether there will be a renewal process for TPIMs, as opposed to a permanent arrangement. As we have heard, there are question marks over the future of special advocates—perhaps that process could be changed—and, as I have said, we also need more clarification about exactly what is proposed on curfews. On some areas, particularly the judicial nature of the process, Liberty has severe reservations, as do I. I will certainly welcome anything that we can do to move this process into a court-based environment, rather than an Executive one, as will other Members who have spoken in this debate.

Clearly this is a crucial piece of legislation. There is a no alternative for us tonight; we cannot do anything but renew it, and that is entirely the right course of action. We have until the end of the year to flesh out what the alternative will be and to address some of these fundamental civil liberties considerations that require further clarification. I hope that we will see some substantial improvements from a civil liberties perspective, if not tonight, certainly as the draft legislation is developed, so that we can get rid of control orders and replace them with something with which I and others who are concerned about civil liberties will feel comfortable.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I suggest to the Home Secretary that some of the rhetoric in her speech was perhaps unwise. She is probably still thinking too much like an Opposition politician three months before an election, and not enough like a Home Secretary less than a year into a Parliament who will have to live with the consequences of her decisions and the laws that she changes.

There are difficult balances to be struck between protecting people’s freedoms from police or Government interference and protecting their freedom not to become victims of interference or violence by criminals and terrorists. Those balances should be guided by the evidence, not by the political rhetoric that she has used today about the march to authoritarianism or the ending of British liberties. Although some of the measures that she is introducing are perfectly sensible—we will support many of the sensible measures and arrangements—they are not, as the Deputy Prime Minister has tried to claim, a fundamental rolling back of the powers of the state. There are other areas where we think she has got the balance wrong.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Lady tell Members what evidence there was for 90-day pre-charge detention?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I have said before, I do not think that it was right to go for 90-day detention and it was not justified by the evidence. There will always be areas where Governments need to be cautious in getting the balance right. Equally, however, they must be cautious not to over-hype the rhetoric and inappropriately claim that problems will somehow be easily solved. There is always a difficult balance to be struck.

I hope that the right hon. Lady, in her tenure as Home Secretary, will not have to deal with some of the extremely difficult and dangerous terrorist incidents that her Labour predecessors had to cope with, such as the Omagh bombing, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred, and the London 7/7 bombings, that led to many of the stronger counter-terrorism measures that her predecessors introduced. I also hope that she will rarely have to deal with some of the deeply disturbing and serious crimes, such as the Soham case, which led to the new procedures on vetting and barring.

The Home Secretary will know that when in the Home Office one can never predict what is coming around the corner, what problems might be uncovered or how one might need to respond in order to protect people’s freedom not to become victims of crime or terrorist threats. In those circumstances, it is wise to build consensus, rather than engaging in the kind of over-simplified political rhetoric that will make it more difficult to strike the right balance in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

That is enough about our friend, I think.

Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws

“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”

if they are likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. The proposal that I wish to make, which I and the Liberals supported before, is the deletion of the lowest threshold of that offence, which is the word “insulting”. That would still leave the two higher thresholds of “threatening” and “abusive”.

The 1986 Act was brought in to replace the Public Order Act 1936, which had worked very well in dealing with the blackshirts and all that. The 1986 Act does not define the terms “threats” and “abuse”, but we all know them when we see them. The courts have often said that. Threat is obvious, is it not? It is when someone is in your face and there is a fear of violence, and abuse is when someone uses obscene language. Insult, however, is clearly something less serious and more subjective, and that is the problem. I believe that removing the word “insulting” would be enough to stop section 5 being misused and generating a chilling effect on free speech.

[Tom Brake]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will take any reassurance from the fact that as recently as Monday, Evan Harris was in the House campaigning to get rid of the word “insulting”.

[Mr Leigh]

Good, I am very glad. That just shows that there is support for that from all over the House, and indeed from outside.

Section 5 of the 1986 Act is a classic example of a law that was brought in for a fair reason, to deal with a particular state of affairs long ago, but has been used in practice for something quite different. It was brought in to tackle hooliganism, but it is increasingly used by police to silence peaceful protestors and street preachers.

I shall give a couple of examples of how section 5 has been used, to show what has been going on. It has been used to prosecute a couple of hotel owners, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, who had a breakfast-table dispute with a Muslim guest. I do not comment one way or the other on their views, but they said that Mohammed was a warlord and that Islamic dress oppressed women. For that breakfast-table dispute, they were prosecuted. True, the judge threw the case out and apparently hinted that the police should have handled it differently, but the point is that for some reason, Merseyside police thought that section 5 applied to theological debates over breakfast. Even though the couple were acquitted, their business went to the wall. It is not enough to say, “Well, we don’t need to worry, because they were not convicted.” We should worry, because people are increasingly worried about expressing strong opinions.

There are other examples. In 2008, a 16-year-old protestor was issued a summons by police under section 5 of the 1986 Act for holding a placard outside a scientology centre that read, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”, which is something that many people agree with. City of London police referred the allegation that the sign was abusive or insulting to the Crown Prosecution Service. I am glad to say that Liberty, which is supporting the campaign for the change, intervened and the case was finally dropped. However, it shows the problem that exists.

Then there were the animal rights protestors in Worcester, who were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling using toy seals coloured with red dye. Police told them that the toys were deemed distressing by two members of the public and ordered them to move on.

The last and most ridiculous case is that of Kyle Little. After being warned by the police for using bad language, he was arrested and prosecuted under section 5 for a daft little growl and woof aimed towards two Labrador dogs. I have a dog, my own dearly beloved William, and I am sure he has never felt insulted by anything that I have ever said to him. But this poor Kyle Little, for growling at a dog, was detained for five hours, despite the dog owners not wanting any prosecution, at a cost of £8,000 to the taxpayer. Unbelievably, Newcastle Crown court finally had to acquit Little of the charge. We can see what is going on. [Hon. Members: “It’s barking!”] The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others are right. We need to bring it to an end.

We should all worry about this. There is something wrong with a law when the police think that it requires them to regulate debate. As I have said, the 1986 Act was introduced to replace the 1936 Act during a period of football hooliganism, as people might remember. At the time, a White Paper identified the mischief at which the Act was aimed—hooligans on housing estates throwing things down stairs and banging on doors, and groups of youths persistently shouting abuse and obscenities. Section 5 was a fairly reasonable response to that. The then Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, told the House that it would not undermine civil liberties, but 25 years later, we see a major difference between what was intended and what has happened since. We therefore need to examine the wording. I cannot act very easily, as a Back Bencher, but Ministers can do so very easily.

Liberty has argued that we should use the Bill to repeal section 5 of the 1986 Act in its entirety. That may be going too far for Ministers, and I do not follow Liberty as far as that, but in a classic triangulation exercise, why cannot we just remove the word “insulting” and leave the higher grades? I have support from our own Joint Committee on Human Rights, which heard evidence that section 5 was being used to suppress free speech and made representations to the previous Government, which were resisted. That Government rejected the advice of our own Committee on human rights.

I say to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—please will he listen for a moment, as the responsible Minister?—that it appears that civil servants at the Home Office are still using, almost verbatim in correspondence signed by him, the arguments used by the last Government against amending section 5. I wonder whether he knows that the letters that he is sending out use exactly the same language as was used by the Labour Government to resist what our own JCHR suggested.

In response to the JCHR recommendations, the previous Government said that they believed that problems with section 5 could be addressed by “guidance”, which is a classic cop-out for civil servants. It is true that the Association of Chief Police Officers recently produced new guidance on breach of the peace, which covers section 5. However, that still encourages police to pursue insulting words or behaviour, because of course, that is what the law tells them to do. If we tell the police that it is wrong for people to use insulting language, they will pursue them. It is up to us to make the law clear so that the police can operate in an entirely sensible fashion. Frankly, it is not good enough for Ministers to say, “We can solve this with guidance,” especially when there is a Protection of Freedoms Bill on the stocks. In any case, an issue as serious and significant as civil liberties should not be left to mere guidance. It is for MPs to make such decisions.

The previous Government used another argument that is still used by Ministers in correspondence. They say that if the word “insulting” is removed from section 5, the police will not have sufficient power to protect the public, but that is not the case. Neil Addison, a barrister who spent 10 years prosecuting cases in Newcastle, has suggested that the “threatening” and “abusive” limbs of section 5 will cover all genuine public order cases. He says:

“Looking back on the large number of s5 cases I have either prosecuted or defended over the years I cannot think of any ‘normal’ public order situation which could not be covered by the words ‘threatening and abusive’. Most cases under s5 involve people (often drunk) yelling aggressively and making frequent use of the ‘F’ word and that is the sort of situation that s5 and indeed the entire Public Order Act was supposed to deal with, it was never supposed to deal with the situation where individuals, whether street preachers or otherwise”,

including demonstrators or people we do not like,

“were expressing their personal opinions.”

We use other laws if we get complaints from distressed individuals. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 criminalises any repeated harassment of an individual, which I support. Therefore, deleting the word “insulting” from the Public Order Act 1986 would not leave police and prosecutors without powers to deal with low-level public disorder.

One of the silliest arguments used to defend that part of section 5 is that removing the word “insulting” would mean that the courts would have to adjudicate on the difference between abuse, which is criminal, and insult, which is not—we see that argument in letters from Ministers both of the previous Government and of the current one. However, courts make such adjudications all the time. We could equally say that under section 5, the courts must adjudicate between insult, which is criminal, and incivility, which is not. Criminal courts decide whether an activity is criminal—it is their raison d’être. All the arguments put up by this and the previous Government on why “insulting” cannot be removed from section 5 fall to pieces.

I am sure we all agree that free speech is a bedrock of true democracy. It encompasses the freedom to disagree and to challenge received opinion. We might not like what someone says and we might take offence, but lively debate and a robust exchange of ideas are integral parts of a true democracy. Lord Justice Sedley, in his landmark ruling in the case of Richmond-Bate in 1999, put it better than anybody. He said:

“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”

In my view, the criminal law does not exist to protect people from feeling insulted. I urge Ministers to think about addressing section 5 of the 1986 Act in the Bill. They and no one else have the power to do so.

The JCHR, Liberty, Justice, the Christian Institute and Dr Evan Harris are calling on us to do something about section 5. I note the Liberal Democrats specifically referred to reforming the 1986 Act on page 93 of their manifesto last year. It is a Lib Dem idea that we would be wise to adopt. I urge such a measure on the House in the name of that most precious commodity—freedom of speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

I will pass lightly over the Hunting Act, if I may. I do not happen to agree with Tony Blair on that point. Although freedom of information requests can be irritating, especially if one is in government, I did not change how I operated as a Minister. It did not mean that I ceased to record my decisions or comments on submissions. As was brought out by the Dacre report, whichever party is in power there is a case for the proper protection of Cabinet discussions and collective responsibility—that issue might need to be reconsidered, because it has not worked out as intended—but I am in no doubt that overall the Freedom of Information Act has been a force for good.

In addition to those two Acts, we passed the Data Protection Act 1998. There had been no provision to protect people’s personal data before I introduced that Act in 1998. We also introduced extraordinarily important freedoms and protections for people who do not happen to have white skin, including in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 following the Lawrence inquiry.

I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not here, but while we are on the subject of freedoms, I would draw to the House’s attention the extraordinary difficulty that we had in providing freedoms for gay men and women by reducing the age of consent—equalising it at 16. The first attempt, which was an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, was defeated in the Lords so strongly that we lost the whole Bill. I then had to introduce a further Bill containing simply a reduction in the age of consent to 16. That, too, was defeated in the Lords, and it was not until we used the Parliament Act that it got through, against vehement Conservative opposition, including from some in this Chamber—to the shame of the Conservative party—and a huge amount in the other place. So let us hear no more nonsense from the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats suggesting that we in the Labour party failed to balance liberty and order effectively and properly. Yes, we introduced a number of measures on the other side of that equation, but most of those—as far as I can recall, all of them during my period—were actively supported by the Conservative party in opposition.

[Tom Brake]

I do not think that any Government Member is saying that the previous Government achieved nothing in relation to civil liberties. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on the other side of the balance, in terms of what the Government did, were the fiasco over 90 days’ detention, control orders, blanket stop-and-search powers and some very draconian measures that went to the heart of threatening our civil liberties?

[Mr Straw]

I will deal with each of those measures in turn, and then come to the contents of the Bill. I will run through them in the order they appear in my notes. On surveillance measures, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was introduced, again by me, to do what it says in the title—to regulate investigatory powers. My predecessor, now Lord Howard, had started that regulation. Before 1996, there was no regulation of those powers, and the most extraordinary situation obtained inside the police. They suited themselves whether to put microphones in walls. They had guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but there was no statutory supervision or proper regulation, and no account was taken of the equipment used. That was improved, to some extent, by my predecessor, and then comprehensively by RIPA. However, I accept that the provisions in RIPA have been used by local authorities, in respect of minor offences, in a way that was never intended, so I support the change proposed in the Bill.

I also support the change on wheel-clamping. I will have to look at some of the detail, but like my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary I strongly celebrate the campaign by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), who has been promoted partly because of this and has now had to take Trappist vows as Opposition Chief Whip. I also strongly support a campaign that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) began on the elimination of all convictions involving consensual relations with gay men.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked me about counter-terrorism powers. Although we did not get everything right, the introduction of those powers needs to be seen in context. The Terrorism Act 2000 was approved by the House—I cannot remember where the Liberal Democrats were, but I remember that the Conservatives supported it. However, section 44 was intended to be used in a much narrower way than has been the case, so I have no objection to its effective redefinition in the Bill.

We got it wrong on 90 days—I am perfectly happy to say that—but it must be seen in the context of what happened on 11 September 2001. People were terrified, and the first responsibility of any Government is to secure the most fundamental liberty—the right to life. Of course, we still needed to have a balance, and we sought one, but we did not quite get it right. I am perfectly happy to say that. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that although the prescription in the Bill of 14 days is fine as a standard, the contortions in the Bill and in draft legislation that would provide for a reserve power of 28 days will prove impractical. The reserve power, which we all agree ought to be there, has to be used in circumstances in which it is virtually impossible for the Home Secretary to disclose the details. The full-scale parliamentary legislative process that would follow a recall of Parliament—you can bet your life that that is how it would happen, because that is how terrorists operate—would be the most extraordinary and mocking ever seen: the Home Secretary would have to come to the House and say, “I want this legislation to double the period of maximum detention, but I can’t tell you why.” It would be far better, in those circumstances, to say, “Here is a power for the Secretary of State for which he or she will be accountable in due time.” Given that he or she is the only individual in possession of all the information that should trigger this power, the responsibility for triggering it should rest with the Secretary of State by way of a special order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The intention of the Bill is not to put off volunteers. I have worked on the governing body of an organisation that assists young children. We all joined in September and submitted our CRB checks at that time, but we did not get the results back until the following June, which highlights the farcical nature of the system. The Bill is about trying to strike a balance; we need to protect children without putting off the volunteers who want to work with them. The Bill is all about trying to find that sensible balance, and I suspect that the debate will largely centre on that today. There will be as many opinions on where that balance should be struck as there are people voicing an opinion. I believe, however, that the Bill gets it about right in balancing our basic right to freedom with protecting us from those who abuse freedom.

The Bill covers many issues but I will concentrate on just three. The first is the retention of DNA. The right hon. Member for Blackburn told the House how he had allowed his fingerprints to be taken to eliminate him from suspicion of committing a crime. That, however, was a choice that he was able to make, as distinct from the circumstances envisaged by the Bill in which people have no choice. Even if he had to face Mr Oddjob when giving his fingerprints, he nevertheless had a choice about doing so for the purposes of elimination.

[Tom Brake]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that just as a choice was made to allow fingerprints to be given, so it should also be a choice voluntarily to seek to have them taken off the register?

[Gareth Johnson]

Of course the difficulty at the moment is that unconvicted people remain on the list, but the Bill’s proposals will ensure that such unconvicted people will not have their DNA on a list for ever and a day. That is the fundamental change that the Bill brings about.

Before the general election, there was general agreement between all political parties that the laws surrounding DNA retention had to change. The arguments centred on where the line should be drawn. Few would want every man, woman and child to be on the register, while few would want to scrap the register in its entirety. Generally speaking, the DNA register has been very successful, but we must find a balance between the two extremes.

At present, the only safeguard an innocent person has after arrest is that DNA can be removed from the register by the police in exceptional circumstances—and that is it. Being not guilty does not necessarily constitute exceptional circumstances. That is the difficulty. It is unacceptable if a completely innocent person can be wrongly accused, entirely cleared of any wrongdoing and not charged with an offence, yet their DNA is never returned and instead remains on the register. An innocent man is not an exceptional man, so his DNA remains on the register for life, which cannot be right. Those who preach that “if you do no wrong, you have nothing to fear” embark on a very dangerous journey where the state is master and the individual is subservient to those in control.

The second issue is the proliferation of CCTV cameras, and I shall again pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I agree that constituents only rarely contact us to ask for fewer CCTV cameras. Our constituents are more likely to contact us to ask for more of them or for mobile CCTV cameras to be moved to their particular estate or house so that an issue of concern can be monitored. My problem is not with the idea of having more CCTV cameras; it is their non-regulated basis that I object to.

When CCTV first came about and the boom took place, we all expected some sort of code of conduct to be drawn up to which councils or any other public bodies would have to adhere. That will now happen if the Bill is successful and becomes an Act, and, in my opinion, it is long overdue. We need protection from the small number of abuses that can take place. Public confidence in CCTV systems is essential and an unregulated system is unlikely to convey public confidence for much longer. Currently, only the Data Protection Act 1998 provides any safeguards, but that legislation was not designed to regulate CCTV, so it is far from satisfactory for that purpose. As I say, I do not object to CCTV cameras, but to their unregulated use, and I am pleased that this Bill mirrors that view.

Finally, let me deal with the number of powers of entry currently in force. So many powers of entry create a confusing and complex system that is open to abuse. Those who want to abuse their position and enter premises illegally can hide behind our present multi-faceted system. There are so many ways of entering premises that it is often too easy for a property owner to assume that somewhere out there is a power to do so, although that might not be the case. How can occupiers know their rights when there are so many powers of entry and an inconsistent approach to dealing with how those laws came about? It makes sense to have a simplified system that is clearer to understand for both the occupier and those seeking access.

In my experience, requests for warrants of entry by the police are rightly open to vigorous inquiry, yet warrants of entry by utility companies, for example, are almost rubber-stamped. That inconsistency has to change. There will be many occasions when it is correct to have a right of entry, but the combination of so many different powers under so many different pieces of legislation makes it almost impossible for people to know where they stand. Estimates have been made, and the Home Secretary mentioned 1,200 different powers. That is an estimate—just that. Nobody knows exactly how many different rights of entry there are, so how can anyone be certain whether a person is acting lawfully when entering a property against the occupier’s will? Again, we require a balance in which property can be entered to protect against crime, but clarity and certainty also exist so that people are aware of their rights and obligations. That cannot occur in a system as complicated as the present one.

In conclusion, freedoms are easy to lose, but very difficult to claw back. This Bill seeks to empower the individual and lessen the control of the state. I want to see less government, not more. I want power to be vested in the individual and not the state, and I support this Bill’s attempt to further that cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a sensible and measured contribution, as have other hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made a fair assessment of what the previous Government had done. They improved some aspects of civil liberties through the Freedom of Information Act, but he also recognised that some measures had been extremely counter-productive. In any scenario in which a Government, over the course of their lifetime, introduce an extra 3,500 offences, there will inevitably be problems with how the police interpret and apply the rules.

Let me give just one example of how some of the powers introduced by the previous Government have been used in an unfortunate way. The example was given to me by a very good friend of mine who now sits in the other place, and whose son-in-law, who is black and from America, has stopped coming to the UK with his son, because every time he went out in London, irrespective of where he was going, he was guaranteed to be stopped by the police under stop-and-search powers. He did not want to have to explain to his son why his dad was being stopped every time they went out.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the coalition has taken away the requirement on police officers to record the ethnicity of people whom they stop on the street?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many police forces intend to continue to seize that information. It appears that they are exercising discretion in that respect. He should reflect on the fact that his Government introduced those stop-and-search powers, which were applied in a blanket way across London and allowed the action that I have described to take place.

Although I welcome the announcement by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that the Opposition will not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, I think that the tone of her comments in relation to the Home Secretary were a touch patronising. I am sure that our Home Secretary fully appreciates the need to balance security with liberty and freedom. That is what the coalition Government are doing by presenting a Bill to restore personal freedoms that were threatened by the last Government, and to end excessive surveillance of individuals.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn seemed to acknowledge that some of the policies implemented by the last Government were—if not draconian—an infringement of the rights of the individual, expensive, and in many cases ineffective. The Deputy Prime Minister was right to describe the Bill as a rolling back of the state. However, although I will not over-hype it, because I trust that many of the measures referred to by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who is no longer in the Chamber—[Interruption.] He is, in fact, present. I trust that many of the measures that he mentioned will be subject to a protection of freedoms (No. 2) Bill, because I do not see this as the endgame when it comes to protecting our freedoms. I believe that we cannot place too high a value on liberty and freedom.

The Bill has received support from a number of quarters. The Law Society, for instance, has described the destruction of DNA profiles of innocent people as “an improvement”, welcomes the reduction in the maximum pre-charge detention time, and believes that the new stop-and-search powers are “far more proportional”. It has listed a number of other proposals that it supports, including the changes in the vetting and barring system.

The Bill proposes regulation of biometric data, and I am pleased that we are adopting the protections of the Scottish model in regard to retention of DNA and fingerprints. Although the Bill will not ensure that all innocent people are removed from the DNA database, it will ensure that hundreds of thousands of those who are currently on it are removed from it. In Committee, those who have received a briefing from the Forensic Science Society will want to examine aspects of the deletion process to establish what deleting a DNA profile means and what constitutes the totality of such a profile.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

As one who practised at the Bar before becoming a Member of Parliament, I know that the whole ethos of the DNA database was that the data of those found innocent of offences should no longer be on the record. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system used to be administered in a shocking way? Half a million records on the database were completely wrong: names and details were false. Although the Bill contains much that is welcome, we must ensure that the database is fully and thoroughly managed.

[Tom Brake]

Of course we must. Whenever a massive database is introduced, there is significant potential for errors such as mismatches to be hidden in it. I hope that the Committee stage will provide scope for further examination of the details relating to the database. I am thinking particularly of the retention of children’s DNA. In its briefing, Liberty expressed concern about the fact that a child who was caught shoplifting at the age of 10 and again at the age of 12 would remain on the database for the rest of his or her life. If Liberty’s understanding is correct, that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I am pleased that children will no longer be fingerprinted in schools. I am astonished that schools have never been required to seek permission for that from parents. As for the regulation of surveillance and CCTV, my experience is similar to that of the right hon. Member for Blackburn and others who have spoken today. The most frequent request that I have received as a Member of Parliament has been for additional CCTV systems, but many people have approached me expressing concern about, for instance, the fact that CCTV cameras were pointing straight through their front windows, or their bedroom windows, from premises opposite. I believe that better regulation could solve the problems that have been reported to me, and I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill.

[Jim Shannon]

In my experience, when CCTV has been introduced in what might be described as hot spots where there is plenty of antisocial behaviour such as violence and robbery, there has been a marked reduction in the number of such incidents. Does the hon. Gentleman share that experience?

[Tom Brake]

I certainly think that CCTV deals partly with the fear of crime. However, I know from the results of an inquiry conducted by the Home Affairs Committee that its effectiveness in cutting crime is not so clear-cut. It obviously makes a difference in, for instance, car parks, but it is less obvious whether it makes a difference on a wider scale. The evidence may not be as strong as Members wish it to be.

I am pleased that we are considering the issue of automatic number plate recognition systems. I have raised with Ministers in the past the extent to which bailiffs and private contractors can use such systems, and have suggested that more regulation might be necessary. In Committee, we will doubtless wish to clarify the relationship between the Information Commissioner and the surveillance camera commissioner to ensure that there will be no overlap between them. The regulation that is being discussed at present clearly relates to CCTV in the public sector, involving local authorities and police, but that constitutes a relatively small proportion of the CCTV that is available. We may have to consider whether the boundaries specified in the Bill should be extended.

An issue that is closely related to the issues of CCTV and ANPR systems is that of the use of identification systems in pubs and clubs. Like, I suspect, a number of Members, I took up an offer a couple of weeks ago during special constables week, when we were encouraged to go out with our local special constables to observe their valuable and committed work. On Friday night I spent some time in Sutton high street, visiting pubs and clubs virtually all of which were using systems that captured people’s ID—typically, their driving licences. I know that there is significant concern among the police about the extent to which any of those systems comply with the relevant data protection legislation by ensuring that the data that they capture are secure and are handled in an appropriate manner. I realise that that may be beyond the scope of the Bill, but I think that the Government could usefully consider it.

As for counter-terrorism, Members will know from what I said earlier about stop-and-search powers that I am pleased that they will be much more tightly defined. I also welcome the reduction in the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days to 14, although organisations such as the Law Society and Liberty want to push us much further and faster in that regard. I consider 14 days to be a good starting point, but I am happy to leave open the option of introducing a shorter period.

In relation to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which are being dealt with separately to some extent, let me say as an aside that I hope we will be given more clarification of precisely what is being proposed. I do not want control orders to be replaced by something that looks very much like them. I should also like clarification of what will replace curfews, and I want to know that what we propose as a Government is a system that will focus on securing prosecutions rather than simply containing people.

On safeguarding vulnerable groups and criminal records, I welcome the fact that the vetting and barring scheme will be changed, and that 9 million people will be taken out of the scheme. Simply classifying and categorising people does not guarantee safety, and creating massive databases does not necessarily provide a solution to all the security and safety problems. We have to be more subtle and sophisticated than that.

I welcome the changes on consensual gay sex, and I am sure the Minister is aware of the concerns that, as far as possible, every single record that relates to that previously illegal activity should be deleted. I know there are challenges in terms of how to go beyond cleaning electronic data, but I hope that that can be dealt with comprehensively.

The freedom of information changes are very welcome, although not all aspects of the freedom of information ten-minute rule Bill that I have pressed on two separate occasions in the last three or four years will be picked up. I hope they will be, perhaps in the protection of freedoms (No. 2) Bill, when we get round to that in, I hope, the second half of this Parliament. I do not see any reason why very large private sector organisations that are, in effect, doing public sector work should not be subject to FOI in the same way as the public sector. If they are simply taking on what was previously done by the public sector, to which FOI legislation would have applied, it would be appropriate for it to apply to private sector organisations now doing that work.

I welcome the fact that we will preserve trial by jury and that we are restoring such rights.

In the past couple of weeks, we have watched with astonishment the courage, bravery and thirst for freedom of the Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans, who have been desperate to embed some of the most basic freedoms in their societies. We have a more straightforward task. We have started the process of restoring some of our most cherished rights in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, and will, I hope, continue that process in the protection of freedoms (No. 2) Bill, which I hope will be introduced in the second half of this Parliament, and which I would expect to pick up on some of the issues raised—such as what the hon. Member for Gainsborough said about free speech, so that the concerns of Dr Evan Harris about removing the word “insulting” can be addressed.

We must maintain the momentum. With freedoms, we can never afford to stand still; we are always swimming against the current. This Bill demonstrates that the coalition is starting to reverse the tide, and that an unprecedentedly great rolling back of the state is under way.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) is no longer in his place, but I hope he will forgive me for being here in place of my predecessor, and perhaps the fact that I share his concerns about section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 will act as some consolation.

It is a joy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on another coalition move to try to redress the current imbalance between security and civil liberties. All Governments must, of course, be fully committed to public safety and protecting victims of crime, but under the previous Government far too many of our liberties were sacrificed in the name of apparent short-term securities. In too many cases, the previous Government acted before establishing a causal link between that sacrifice and the claimed “greater security”. In the absence of the necessary evidence or, in some cases, even public debate, actions including the indefinite retention of DNA of children never convicted, the creation of more than 500 new powers of entry and the careless scattering of a patchwork of surveillance powers across the statute book, not to mention the spectre of 90-day detention without trial, all left us wondering whether some members of the previous Government had had a “common sense-ectomy”. Even the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot make up for the disproportionate and draconian measures that they introduced.

In that context, I am pleased that the coalition Government are living up to their promise to cut back on the previous Government’s aberrations and to begin restoring the civil liberties that for so long defined British democracy. I apologise if that language seems hyperbolic, but let us think for a moment about the mother who finds herself being spied on by her local authority because she has said that she lives in a certain school catchment area; the child who needs an iris scan to borrow a library book; or the archbishop who finds himself the subject of five Criminal Records Bureau checks, not to mention the innocent man who suddenly finds himself without the right to a trial by jury. Given that the Labour party is so apparently committed to human rights, I find it inexplicable that that state of affairs should have ever arisen. Thankfully, we can always rely on the electorate to draw the line when their Government lose their grip, and I am greatly reassured that the coalition Government have been so prompt in introducing this Bill. As must be obvious by now, I support its intentions and I would have been voting for it today had the Opposition decided to push for a vote.

I would, however, like to take this opportunity to raise a few points of detail with the Minister. Nobody is questioning the fact that DNA can play an invaluable role in crime detection, but under Labour a new profile was added to the new DNA database every 45 seconds. Unsurprisingly, the Home Office had to admit that the database contained more than 500,000 false or wrongly recorded entries. The new biometric data retention regime proposed in part 1 seems to strike the right balance between greater proportionality and targeting, while still protecting the public from those who would commit heinous crimes. That is a great step forward and the regime seems likely to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, I am unclear why the Government have not chosen to distinguish between an adult and a child who is charged but not convicted of a serious crime. In general, legislation does make the distinction between the adult and the child. Childhood convictions are considered spent in half the time of those of adults, childhood lawbreaking has not been found to be necessarily indicative of future behaviour, and the principles of restorative justice are now commonly associated with youth justice. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the decision-making process on that point.

Secondly, except in the specific case of an application for extended retention to be heard by the magistrates court with right of appeal for both sides to the Crown Court, I am unclear whether there is a right of appeal to a judicial or otherwise independent body for individuals who feel that their biometric data have been retained unlawfully or inappropriately. I have no doubt that many colleagues have had the same experience as I have of constituents whose data have been taken and retained in error. I even have one constituent who was inaccurately registered as a sex offender for 15 years owing to a clerical error. We cannot overestimate the damage that this sort of error can cause to a person’s life. It is vital that a clear route of appeal and system of remedies are available to innocent individuals who get accidentally caught up in the system.

I am also a little unclear where the new regime will sit in relation to the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines. I am particularly concerned that there should be clarity about the role of the “exceptional case procedure” in the new system. As the Minister knows, the guidance states that an individual’s record will be retained until that person has attained 100 years of age but it may be removed before this date by way of the exceptional case procedure. The guidelines state:

“Chief Officers have the discretion to authorise the deletion of any specific data entry on the PNC ‘owned’ by them”

but only

“in exceptional cases.”

Those might include

“cases where the original arrest or sampling was found to be unlawful”

or cases

“where it is established beyond doubt that no offence existed”.

I believe it is helpful for chief officers to have some degree of discretion, especially in relation to scenarios outlined in the exceptional case procedure. I am anxious to learn how such circumstances are to be addressed under the new system.

Finally, on part 1 of the Bill, I welcome wholeheartedly the regulation of schools’ retention of biometric data, especially the requirement for the consent of the parents and the child before such data are recorded. I do not understand why schools need to retain these data and I was rather shocked by the Library’s estimates that 30% of secondary schools and 5% of primary schools already use such biometric systems. I would like to see official figures on this issue so that policy in this very sensitive area can be made on the basis of evidence. Is the Minister considering requiring schools to notify the Information Commissioner’s Office if they intend to hold such data, and if not, will he tell us why not?

The surveillance regulation proposals in part 2 are well overdue. No one challenges the value of well-located, targeted surveillance, which has undeniable importance for crime detection and public safety, but there has been an exponential growth of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition systems, which has for the most part taken place outside formal regulation. The UK now has an estimated 5 million to 6 million surveillance systems. The British Security Industry Association claims that state-owned CCTV accounts for less than 10% of these and that

“it is the privately owned surveillance systems that provide the majority of evidence in prosecutions.”

It would therefore be helpful if the Minister clarified how the new code of practice will apply to privately owned systems and whether the “relevant authorities” mentioned in clause 33 will include private owners whose surveillance systems cover public areas.

[Tom Brake]

Often, one purpose of CCTV is to provide evidence and if a CCTV image is not of the appropriate quality, it cannot be used as evidence. Does the hon. Lady agree that some regulation of both public and private systems might help in pursuing cases against criminals?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I cannot imagine why the Government’s understanding where surveillance systems are held and who holds them could in any way limit the improvement of justice in this country.

I also welcome the proposals in part 3 to insert judicial oversight in relation to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This is an excellent start in reforming the confusing jumble of legislation dealing with access to communications data. However, we have some way to go before we have a system which tightly defines the reasons for which access can be granted—a particularly vague example of which is

“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”—

and which offers a straightforward legislative framework so that not only the bodies that use surveillance powers but the citizens who may be subject to them can clearly understand their rights and responsibilities.

I could go on and welcome the permanent reduction of pre-charge detention to 14 days, the reinstatement of the right to trial by jury and the progressive proposals on stop and search without suspicion, but the point is clear. In large part, the Bill returns the state’s powers to common-sense levels and signals a significant step forward for the civil libertarians among us. The Bill is the answer to the calls of many in this country, including those who had felt, under the previous Government, that state abuse of power had reached a new low, that they had become guilty until proven innocent or that they were being forced to make a false choice between democracy and security. Of course there is a difficult balance to strike between liberty and security, and any adjustments need to be made with the utmost care, but there can be no doubt that in the past decade that balance had tilted much too far in the direction of security and away from civil liberties. That is why I support the Bill and hope that it will mark the end of the Government-sponsored fallacy that absolute security can be achieved by the unacceptable erosion of civil liberties.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

We have heard from many people on the Government and Opposition Benches for whom I have the utmost respect, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). However, I do not share the enthusiasm of all Government Members for all aspects of the Bill. There are many parts with which I heartily agree, and we have heard a few examples of areas where the current legislation has gone wrong.

Years ago, I was involved in a case in the Welsh Assembly in which a bus driver who worked for a company that undertook school bus runs was told that he might lose his job because 20 years previously he had incurred a minor conviction for shoplifting or a drink-related offence at the age of 19. For 20 years, he had lived a perfectly good life and suddenly he was about to lose his job over that minor offence. Clearly, such examples are totally and utterly disproportionate and I hope that we will do something about them.

I am less keen when I hear people talking about a police state. I declare an interest as a serving special constable in the British Transport police. I assure Members that when I go out it does not look like a police state. I have conducted many section 44 stop and searches, and I do not recognise the descriptions that have been given. I would challenge the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is not currently in his place, to ask the gentleman who says that he was stopped and searched every time he stepped out on the streets of London to produce the written evidence. Written evidence there most definitely will be, because every stop and search of that nature required about 20 minutes of paperwork.

One problem with section 44 stop-and-searches was that they were carried out entirely at random and were never actually picking people up. The police officers themselves were not enthusiastic about doing them, because they knew that they would annoy a member of the public who was probably not doing anything at all, incur at least 20 minutes of paperwork and be most unlikely to get anyone for anything.

Section 44 is going, which is fine, but the Government ought to consider the fact that the other stop-and-search legislation is not adequate to catch people who are clearly breaking the law. For example, on many occasions— I assure Members that I mean many, many occasions—I have stopped people for committing offences that were never going to be arrestable. The first thing that a police officer does in that situation is to check whether the person in question is known to the police for anything and whether they have a previous record. Very often it turns out that they do, and that there are warning markers indicating that they regularly carry knives, guns, drugs or other illegal paraphernalia.

At that point, faced with somebody who has committed an offence that will not get them arrested—perhaps begging or abusive language—but who regularly carries guns, knives or drugs, one would think that the officer would have the power to search them, but they do not. Unless the police officer can actually see the knife or drugs sticking out of a pocket, there are no powers to search somebody. The officer cannot take account of a person’s previous record. If we are going to get rid of section 44 stop-and-search powers, which is absolutely fine, we should at the same time ensure that people who are likely to commit offences or carry illegal apparatus can be properly searched.

We need to let the police know that when they see people acting suspiciously, they will still the have the power to stop and search. A lot of police officers, myself included, having undergone courses such as the behaviour spotting one—it is called BASS, but I will not bore Members with the details of what that means. It is about spotting people behaving in a suspicious fashion. Many police officers I have spoken to still feel uneasy about simply going up to somebody to stop and search them, even if they have been displaying obvious signs of acting in a manner that is likely to mean they were about to commit an offence.

Members of the public might feel that the police are for ever stopping and searching them—every time they go out on the streets of London, according to one Member—but police officers actually feel very nervous about going up to people to stop and search them. They feel that they are likely to get complaints if they do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think about that. I have tabled amendments in the past suggesting that officers should be able to take account of somebody’s previous criminal record in deciding whether to conduct a stop and search, but I have not succeeded thus far. I do not know whether I have any more chance under the current Government than under the previous one—I suspect possibly not.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to me both since I came back into the Chamber and, I understand, while I was not here. I would be very happy to introduce him to the baroness in question at the other end of the building, who will explain to him precisely what her son-in-law experienced. Then he will be able to make his own judgment.

[David T. C. Davies]

I would be delighted. I believe the hon. Gentleman said that every time that baroness’s son-in-law set foot on the streets of London, he was stopped and searched. The first thing that I would ask him would be, “Did you ask for the copies of the pink slips that have to be lodged every time you are stopped and searched?” If he was stopped and searched there will be a record of it, and we should be able to prove whether that happened every time he set foot on the streets of London. I look forward to pursuing the matter.

The issue of previous criminal records brings me to that of DNA, on which I have some sympathy with Opposition Members. I do not think that there was anything fundamentally wrong in collecting people’s DNA. I have done it myself, and I will be quite honest in saying that I am not sure that the Government have got it right. I asked the Home Secretary earlier whether she accepted that, as a result of the change, people who had committed crimes would be able to get away with it. She said that that was not true. I have the utmost respect for her, but I am very direct and I must say that I do not believe that and cannot accept it.

We see in the Bill that the Government have decided that anyone who is arrested for specific types of offences—terrorism, drugs, violence, rape and that sort of thing—will have their DNA kept indefinitely if they have a previous recorded offence. The Government recognise that keeping people’s DNA is useful when they have been arrested for offences such as murder, rape, violence or terrorism even if they are not convicted, which I welcome. However, it surely follows, therefore, that DNA can also be useful in respect of less serious offences, such as burglary or taking a vehicle without consent. We should make it clear to members of the public that we are increasing their rights and liberties, but that there is a cost—that is obvious, and we should be honest about it. One cost is that some burglars and car thieves will not be caught.