Abu Qatada

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The issue with the European Court is not so much one of whether certain cases should be fast-tracked; rather, the question we need to ask is which cases should be going through to the European Court. One issue we need to look at is the fact that when cases have gone through every single level of judicial consideration through national courts, appeal to the European Court is too often seen as a natural thing to happen at the end of the process. That contrasts with the original intention, which was about defining some very key points of law relating to human rights. That is the issue on which we need to focus.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Yet again, it seems that the rights of terrorists trump the universal right of people in this country to feel that they have safety on their side. This must be costing some police force an enormous amount of resources. Would it not be better to allocate one police officer to go with Mr Qatada and hold his hand throughout the time he is in Jordan than to allocate someone to hold his hand here when he will potentially walk out of the door three months later?

[Mrs May]

As I said in answer to an earlier question, the European Court has upheld the memorandum of understanding on the basis of assurances in relation to the treatment of Abu Qatada himself were he to be returned to Jordan. The issue it has raised is that of a fair trial, and concerns the evidence that has been obtained from others and whether that evidence was obtained with or without torture.

UK Border Force

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The Home Secretary read out a litany of occasions on which rules had been relaxed under the last Government. Is she aware of the guidance that was given in each of those cases, and does she believe that that relaxation may have contributed to a laxity in the system which has led officials to feel they need not always follow the rules to the letter?

[Mrs May]

I am aware of some of the guidance that was published at the time, which stated, for instance, that details of EEA nationals arriving on services that had been assessed as low or very low risk should be checked only on a targeted basis. Various relaxations were introduced at the time. I have asked the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency not only to assess what has been happening across the board in terms of checks, but to examine the processes for ensuring that Ministers’ decisions are properly undertaken, recorded, passed down and acted on, and that no one goes further than that.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson]

There are several amendments in this group that seek to maintain the current position on DNA retention, as agreed by this House in April 2010 under the Crime and Security Act 2010. We have debated this issue many times, so Members will know that the argument centres around for how long the DNA of those arrested or charged but not convicted should remain on the database. The Government say the period should be three years for those arrested but not convicted of a serious offence—the so-called Scottish model—whereas we say it should be six years if arrested but not convicted of any recordable offence, as agreed by this House 18 months ago.

I realise that I am susceptible to the charge of being an old, sad former Home Secretary revisiting the scene of previous debates, and I may well be guilty of that, but let me explain why I, and colleagues on both sides of the House, have proposed these amendments. When I was Home Secretary—and the newly appointed shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), was the police Minister—we took a lot of time and trouble over this topic. We looked at all the available research before coming down in favour of a period of six years. I hope I can convince the House that we made the right decision in 2010 and that moving to the so-called Scottish model would be a terrible and potentially disastrous mistake.

This is a cross-party amendment. It is sponsored by the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) as well as the five supporters whose names appear, along with mine, on the amendment paper: my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and for Delyn, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Shipley (Philip Davies).

That DNA is the most important breakthrough in modern policing, and a science in which Britain leads the world, is incontestable. It provides the police with 3,300 matches to crime scenes each month, which amount to almost 40,000 a year. It has led to forensics—the use of DNA and fingerprints—being the critical information in securing a quarter of primary detections in routine crimes such as burglary and car crime in England and Wales, as against only 6% in the mid-1990s. It has made a contribution to the huge decline in those crimes. It has also transformed the ability to detect the perpetrators of the most serious crimes: murder, manslaughter and rape. There were 832 positive matches in 2009. The European Court of Human Rights has accepted that the use of DNA evidence can make a valuable contribution to the prevention and detection of crime and the protection of the crucial rights to life, liberty and security. It said that any mechanism for the retention of biometric material must be justified as both necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim.

There is no question but that those convicted of a recordable offence should have their DNA stored indefinitely; that is not a point between us in this House. It is necessary but insufficient, as the Government apparently accept which is why they seek to go further. The European Court ruled that indiscriminately keeping the DNA of those arrested but not convicted of a recordable offence was not proportionate. It breached the famous article 8 on the right to privacy and family life, which after last week’s shenanigans may well be known from now on as “the cat’s clause”. [Interruption.] That sounded good in front of the bathroom mirror this morning! The issue therefore is for how long the DNA of those arrested but not charged or convicted should be retained, consistent with the principle of necessity and proportionality. The Government say three years, in accordance with the so-called Scottish model; we say six years, in accordance with all the evidence.

It is worth mentioning that the Crime and Security Act 2010 broke from the Scottish model in not retaining the physical material from which the DNA is derived. That must be destroyed within six months after it has been translated into a series of numbers known as a DNA profile. This meets an important criticism by the European Court and addresses the concerns of those who are rightly worried about the purposes to which such genomes could be put. The Scottish model retains the DNA of those arrested but not convicted of serious offences only for three years, with a provision for a two-year extension that is so complex, bureaucratic and time-consuming that it has never been used or even applied for.

The three-year retention period used in Scotland is not based on any evidence or analysis that I can find. The figure appears to have been plucked from the air. The Minister will tell us that a review of the Scottish system by a Professor Fraser a year after it was introduced proves that the system works, but that review did not assess whether a longer retention period would be beneficial or whether retention for three years was detrimental to solving serious crimes. The retention of the DNA of those arrested but not convicted can be justified as necessary and proportionate under the terms of the European Court’s decision if their risk of being re-arrested is higher than that of the general population. Analysis conducted by the Home Office suggests that that is indeed the case and that the risk falls to that of the level of the rest of the population gradually over a period of six years. It dips after three years, but it leaves a significant tail that is not eradicated until after six years.

This analysis also established that the propensity to be re-arrested is not determined at all by the nature of the original alleged offence; in other words, there is no case for maintaining the DNA of those arrested but not convicted of serious offences. For instance, Mark Dixie, the murderer of Sally Anne Bowman, had his DNA taken because he was involved in a pub brawl—a minor offence. The provisions in the 2010 Act which we seek to retain are therefore based on evidence, unlike the Scottish model which is based on no evidence whatever.

The coalition partners decided to adopt the Scottish model when they were in opposition, since when they have struggled to make the facts fit their policy, rather than their policy fit the facts. Therefore, every so often they ask for a new hazard curve—the research that was done when I was Home Secretary—the latest of which they have published and circulated, claiming, tendentiously, that it is broadly supportive of the approach taken by the Government. That is so in the way that health professionals broadly support the Government’s NHS reforms. This supposed new research comes up with an absolute minimum of three years, a wide variance and a health warning about the size of the data sample.

I have also today seen a piece of Home Office research that the Department sought to bury, and which was painfully extracted from it through freedom of information requests. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn will say more about this, but it shows that 23,000 people every year who would be on the DNA database under our proposals but not under the Bill as it currently stands will go on to commit further offences. That illustrates the scale of the crime and security problems that will be created if the House defeats this amendment and supports the Government policy.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am intrigued by the figures the right hon. Gentleman cites. Is he suggesting that being on the database for longer is a deterrent, and if so, why would people go on to offend?

[Alan Johnson]

Potential rapists, murderers, burglars and car thieves knowing about the science of DNA is certainly a deterrent. The argument here, which the Home Office shares both under its new management and its old management, is that we need to look at that hazard curve. The propensity of those arrested to be rearrested is much higher than for the general population. The crucial issue is how long it takes for that curve to even out. If we do not find that out and set this accurately, we will wipe the DNA of people who are likely to commit more crimes—some of them the most serious crimes—and not have the DNA to find and convict them.

The Government persist in seeking to apply the Scottish model in England and Wales, when all the evidence and the very strong police advice—from both sides of the border—is that Scotland should apply the model of England and Wales. Scotland’s rape conviction rate is less than half that of England and Wales. The DNA database in Scotland is far less effective in solving crime than that in England and Wales. In 2009-10, a DNA profile loaded on to the DNA database in England and Wales had an 18% higher chance of finding a match than was the case in Scotland. In 2008-09, 79 rape, murder or manslaughter cases were matched from DNA profiles belonging to individuals who had been arrested but not convicted, 36 of them for non-serious offences. The chief constable of the west midlands, who leads on this issue for the Association of Chief Police Officers, estimates a loss of about 1,000 matches per year if we use three rather than six years.

Let us, for a moment, turn those dry statistics into the actual facts about the people we are here to protect. Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder—a non-serious offence—in his Birmingham home in February 2005. A DNA sample was taken and he was released without charge. Five months later, a stranger rape occurred in Stafford, 25 miles away. There were no clues until skin from beneath the victim’s fingernails was profiled and was found to match the DNA taken from Azad. The senior investigating officer said:

“We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database”.

He continued:

“He didn’t even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either.”

Under the Government proposals before the House today, this rapist would have escaped justice.

National Crime Agency

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. As she says, we have already announced that the missing children aspect will be going to CEOP. We are now looking at the wider work on missing persons to see where it is appropriate for that to sit. It might be that it is appropriate for that to be within the National Crime Agency. We will ensure that decisions are taken so that there is no opportunity for this to slip between two stools, because it is an important area of work.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s admission that the agency will pull together a lot of strands that had a silo mentality within the previous Government. On illegal immigration, given that under the previous Government many illegal immigrants came into the country, disappeared and could not be found, could it be that through this new overarching structure we will now have a greater way of informing intelligence, so that anybody with local information on the ground will be able to help and feed in information to the correct place?

Human Trafficking

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr MacShane]

I really do not have time. Forgive me; this is a short debate.

On one important measure in the directive—that there should be national rapporteurs on the issue—the UK is wholly non-compliant. The Prime Minister misled the House on 15 September. I hope that the Minister is willing to accept that and move forward.

The UK Human Trafficking Centre is being abolished. There will be no Operation Pentameter 3, which the hon. Member for Wellingborough rightly demanded. We are shutting down the initial steps taken by the last Government, who were working against “Whitehall knows best” syndrome and much of the mass media. Papers such as The Guardian and shows such as “Newsnight” have constantly downplayed the number of sex slaves and trafficked and prostituted women in our country. It is up to this House alone to persuade the Government.

I make no protest against the Minister who is replying to this debate—he is a sincere and serious Minister on this subject—but he has got it wrong. It is not just about UK law versus Brussels—the Foreign Secretary, in his speech to the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, was pandering to the latent Euroscepticism of his Back Benchers—but about sending a signal to every other EU member state that Britain is part of the joint European campaign. It is also about sending a signal elsewhere in the world that we are prepared to change our law to conform fully to the EU directives, as have all the other EU member states that have signed up, and take the campaign forward internationally.

I know that the Minister will have to read out his brief today, but I say to him that the campaign will go on until we are prepared to support the victims of sex slave trafficking instead of saying, by opting out of the EU directive, that the pimps and traffickers have one or two people on their side in Whitehall.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that I will start calling the Front-Bench speakers to respond at 10 past 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) not just on securing the debate, but on having a rise so meteoric that it is faster than my excellent officials can keep up with. My brief invites me to congratulate her on her election to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and already in the few days since it was drafted she has gone on to greater things. At this rate of progress, she will be Leader of the Opposition by Christmas. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana R. Johnson) on her elevation to the Opposition Home Office team—I am sure that she will have many happy years there.

I join other Members in congratulating, and expressing their admiration for, my old friend, Anthony Steen, who helped to set up the all-party group on human trafficking. Work on tackling human trafficking is now being carried on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), Clare Short, Baroness Butler-Sloss and many others.

The debate has raised many issues, and I will try to deal with as many as possible. I am conscious that I have only 10 minutes, but I suspect that we will reconvene in two days’ time for the debate on anti-slavery day. I will pick up first on two important contributions that were slightly out of the mainstream but seem important. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) noted that victims of trafficking are found everywhere and that it is not just an inner-city or big-city phenomenon. I think that that is right. Secondly, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said that it is a question not just of what we do in Britain, or even in Europe—I will address the European issue shortly—but of what we can do around the world, which is a good point, and one that infuses the thinking that I propose to bring to this important matter as a Minister.

The Government take seriously our responsibility to fight human trafficking and forced prostitution. On the points made about enforcement, the UK Human Trafficking Centre and on what is happening to SOCA, our response to trafficking will be enhanced and strengthened by the establishment of the national crime agency, which, with its border policing responsibilities, will help to combat organised crime more effectively. That is our aim for the national crime agency, which will be set up by legislation in the coming months.

There is no difference between any of us on this issue: human trafficking and forced prostitution are appalling crimes in which people are treated as commodities and exploited for profit. The Government take a comprehensive approach, combining a determination to tackle the criminals behind the trade with a commitment to support victims. That approach provides the framework with which we can ensure the necessary joined-up activities, through work across Government with law enforcement agencies and in conjunction with the voluntary sector, which plays such an important role in the care of victims, as many Members have said. We need to take further strides towards tackling that menace. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for her thoughts on Operation Paladin and Operation Newbridge. She is right that they have both been successful and useful, and I am grateful for her thoughts on what should happen on that.

On enforcement, legislation is in place that outlaws trafficking of all kinds, and relatively new legislation makes it an offence to pay for sexual services with someone who has been subject to exploitative conduct of any kind. That legislative framework needs to be helped by robust policing and a wider law enforcement response to trafficking and forced prostitution. Improving our knowledge and understanding of the situation is a key component of ensuring that we have that effective law enforcement response.

Several Members mentioned the number of victims and what might be the most credible number. I think that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and to some extent the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North are being unfair to the ACPO study, which provides the latest and most accurate number we have. It is sensible to proceed on the basis that, although it is obviously a difficult figure to compute with absolute accuracy, that is the best and most up-to-date information that we have, so I think that we should work on that number. That study shows that there are 2,600 victims, which shows the need for effective enforcement work. Police forces have been supported in that work by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which deals with trafficking as a high priority under SOCA, which had trafficking as its second priority, and further work will be done under the national crime agency.

In London, the Metropolitan police service is leading on combating human trafficking gangs and on disrupting prostitution, particularly in the five Olympic boroughs during the build-up to London 2012. The Met is effective in that in many ways. I am happy to say that this morning 17 children were safeguarded as part of a major joint operation by the Metropolitan police, Redbridge council and the NHS in that borough. The children have been taken to a specially set up assessment centre. We believe that they are victims of a Romanian-based gang of child traffickers. Six people have been arrested. That is extremely welcome news and a good example of the work that is being done in London and obviously will continue to be done in the run-up to 2012.

We of course recognise the point made about the European dimension; that trafficking is essentially a cross-border crime. Accordingly, we must ensure that there is sufficient international co-operation between Government and law enforcement agencies. The Government remain committed to working with our international partners in the European Union and the wider world.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that she was confused about our response to the EU directive on trafficking. I will ease her confusion. I have heard from Members from both sides of the House that our decision not to opt in at the outset of the EU directive on trafficking has raised anxieties among some of them. We did not opt in at the outset, but we have the capacity to review that position once the directive is finally agreed, and that is what we will do. We have a strong record in the fight against trafficking and are compliant both in legislation and in practice with most of what is required by the draft directive. It contains no operational co-operation measures—I think this was the point that the right hon. Member for Rotherham was trying to get at—through which the UK would benefit. Although it might improve the way other EU states combat trafficking, it would make little difference to the way the UK does so. By opting out and reviewing our position when the directive is agreed, we can choose to benefit from a directive that is helpful but avoid being bound by measures that are against our interests.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk talked about extra-territorial jurisdiction. Of course, we already have extra-territorial jurisdiction in a number of serious offences, such as child sexual exploitation. We will continue to play an active role in helping to improve EU-wide efforts at combating trafficking by working constructively with our European partners. As a practical example, we have contributed to the Stockholm programme, which contains a commitment to fight trafficking as an EU priority until 2014.

We are also involved in a number of initiatives focused specifically on trafficking, such as improving data and sharing best practice. The important co-operation between British law enforcement agencies and European partners, including Europol and Frontex, will continue unaffected. Therefore, if any Opposition Members were worried that our attitude to this would be in some way infused with any kind of ideological anti-Europeanism, I can set their minds at rest; there will be none of that in this field—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Would the right hon. Member for Rotherham please listen to the Minister?

[Damian Green]

I appreciate that convincing the right hon. Gentleman might be difficult, but it is nevertheless the case.

The effectiveness of the police and law enforcement agencies was mentioned. Each of the UK’s 55 police forces now has an investigator trained to deal with human trafficking operations. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) rightly mentioned the importance of prosecutions. There have been 140 convictions for trafficking under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and 10 convictions for labour trafficking. I agree that those are not big numbers, but some traffickers may not be charged with the specific offence of trafficking, depending on the facts of the case. I suspect that we all agree that it is better to get some sort of prosecution to get them out of their criminal businesses than to have none. Some of them have been convicted for a range of serious charges, including rape and brothel management.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough mentioned the idea of child guardians. Local authorities already have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of all children, and each child is allocated an independent reviewing officer who is responsible for regularly chairing reviews of their care plans. I am very aware of the problem of children going missing from local authority care and welcome the work by the London borough of Hillingdon and Hertfordshire county council, both of which have taken some practical and effective measures to try to minimise what has been a long-running problem. I have highlighted what the UK has achieved so far, but—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate.