Criminal Law

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. A huge number of people, including more than 1,000 foreign citizens, are deported from this country, having been suspected of committing crimes, to face justice. I think it is right that we have the ability to do so.

The Home Secretary has basically told us that we should be grateful for the debate that the Government have somehow conceded should take place. You gave your ruling, Mr Speaker, that we were not having a vote on the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary then stood up and completely contradicted that. She went on to say that we were voting on a package of 35 measures and that it was not a “pick and mix”. Why, then, has she picked and mixed only 11 of the measures and put them on the Order Paper rather than the full package of 35? The Prime Minister said categorically that we would have a vote on the European arrest warrant, yet he has refused to allow it.

Again I urge the Home Secretary to rethink. It is not too late for her to rethink and to provide the House with a specific vote on the European arrest warrant. It is true that some of her Back Benchers would vote against it, but the rest of us would vote for it. On the Labour Benches, we want enthusiastically to endorse the Home Secretary’s measures; on the Conservative Benches, Members want rebelliously to oppose them—but we all want a parliamentary vote.

Is not the truth that the Government took the European arrest warrant out of the motion because the Home Secretary and the Chief Whip thought they were being clever? They took it out because they wanted to minimise the rebellion. They wanted to tell journalists that it was a vote on the European arrest warrant, but tell the Back Benchers not to worry because they were voting only on prisoner transfer agreements. They wanted to pretend to Parliament that this was a vote on a package of 35 measures, yet let their MPs fend off UKIP in their constituencies by claiming that they never voted for the most controversial plans.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can tell me whether the European arrest warrant is included in this motion.

[Ben Gummer]

I have the privilege, unlike the right hon. Lady, of being in receipt of communications from the Whips and from the Home Secretary about today, and I have to say that we were all perfectly well aware of what we are debating, as the right hon. Lady has made clear.

[Yvette Cooper]

It might have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had explained that to some of his fellow Back Benchers—and certainly to us, as we really would have liked to know. We thought we were coming to vote on the European arrest warrant. When we saw the motion on Thursday and Friday last week, I specifically wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for clarity, because it was utterly baffling to us.

Police Reform

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The pilot in London is proving successful, as have pilots elsewhere. Other forces such as Hampshire have already looked at the option of body-worn video cameras. As a Government, we certainly think that to introduce them would be a good move. It is an operational decision for chief constables to take, but I am pleased to say that a number of bids to the new police innovation fund have been precisely about new technology such as body-worn video cameras.

I commend the Met for looking at how it conducts stops and searches. It has changed its practice to make it more targeted and focused, and results have been better following that. It has signed up to the voluntary code that the Government have introduced, as have other forces.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has been immensely brave in addressing the culture change that is required to restore public confidence in the police. I wonder whether, as part of her review, she could look at something that politicians heretofore have been rather nervous about touching, which is the relationship between the press and the police. Too often, unauthorised contacts, in transactions for cash or not, have meant that people have been tried by the public before they are brought before the courts, even if they are not brought before the courts. It is an important matter that should be looked at in detail.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Given some of the instances that we have seen of reporting in the press, I recognise the comment that he makes. We have made a number of moves on this already. Some came out of the Leveson inquiry, but I had already looked at this issue, in particular better accountability within police forces for the relationships that officers have with the media. I am pleased to say that forces have adopted new guidance for their officers on when it is appropriate for them to deal with the media and when it is not.

European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have not indicated one way or the other in relation to the European arrest warrant. I have said that we will look carefully at each individual measure, and the organisations he has cited will provide the Government with their views on this matter.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. In July 2010, my constituent, Sarah Shields, was murdered. Her boyfriend was accused of the murder and extradited under a European arrest warrant within two months. In her review, I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind those beneficial aspects of the European arrest warrant. It has caused a speedy return which, as she knows full well, would not have been so quick 10 or 20 years ago.

[Mrs May]

I fully accept the cases cited by my hon. Friend and a number of hon. Members. We will look carefully at examples of the operation of the European arrest warrant when we consider our final decision on it.

European Convention on Human Rights

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary and Immigration Minister on bringing this matter before the House. I fully understand the reason for the debate, but I hope that the clarification given in the letter that hon. Members have seen will ensure that there is no Division.

Everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, home and correspondence, as many other hon. Members have said. This has been used by many people, however, to claim that anyone has a right to live and settle, with their family, where they choose and so can come to the UK, with or without a visa, to have a private family life. It must never be forgotten, however, that the right is a qualified not an absolute right, and that qualifications are essential in respect of immigration. We must therefore retain the right of the Home Secretary to control immigration through the rules already implemented and what is proposed today.

The Home Secretary’s clarification of the rules for the courts has assured me and, I hope, the House. The Human Rights Act was a good thing in principle, but once lawyers became involved, it changed, as is so often the case. I am reminded of that great and famous Shakespearean quote, “First kill all the lawyers.” That is a bit drastic, I know—I am not saying we should do it—but it is how many people feel when they hear some European judgments. The status of our judiciary has been perpetually challenged by the European Court in cases presided over by people with questionable experience making questionable rulings. As is often the case with Europe, we sign up to something in theory that turns out to be completely different in practice. That is our frustration with Europe and many of its rulings.

The ruling on the Abu Qatada case revealed that seven of the 11 top judges at the European Court of Human Rights had little or no judicial experience; one was 33 when appointed and had no senior judging experience. British judges go through years of training in the law before their application will ever be considered. To have such under-qualified people overruling our own judges is a slight, but worse still, it is dangerous and leaves us with our hands tied on too many occasions. That is the reason for this debate, I believe.

In the past, and even this very day, article 8 issues are being raised in asylum applications or as a basis for standalone applications for leave to remain in the UK. They have also been raised in appeals against deportation or removal. This was not the reason the article was created; it was not meant to be a free pass into the UK and the benefits of living in such a great nation. According to the Courts Service, in 2010, 233 people won their appeal against deportation, and of those 102 were successful on article 8 grounds. According to figures from the independent chief inspector of UKBA, however, in 2010, 425 foreign national prisoners won their appeals against deportation, and these were won primarily on article 8 grounds.

Whichever figures are right, the matter must be addressed, which is what I think the Home Secretary is trying to do through the motion. While our immigration rules should always take note of human rights issues, they must be based on the needs of the country, which must have the right to caretake those very rights. Article 8 is increasingly difficult to impose legally; it is time to get this right, which is what the motion does.

I have received correspondence from groups stating that the removal of paragraph 395C of the immigration rules is tantamount to sacrilege. That paragraph stated that no one could be removed from the UK if it would contravene the UK’s obligations under the Geneva convention on refugees or the European convention on human rights. It set out a range of factors that UKBA had to consider before deciding to remove a person from the UK and reflected the considerations necessary for assessing compatibility with article 8. Those considerations included the person’s length of residence in the UK, the strength of their connections with the UK, their personal history, their character and conduct, their domestic circumstances and, importantly, any previous criminal record.

Other briefings, however, point out that deleting the paragraph has not altered the UK’s obligations under the convention. We are still bound by the rules, but that does not mean that we cannot implement our own rules. In my view, we have not yet given our sovereignty to Europe. The Home Secretary has confirmed that there will be safeguards for those who have been subjected to torture in their homeland—an assurance that many Members have sought and received. I agree with the Home Secretary in asserting her right, and the right of every UK citizen, to have control over immigration in this country.

I am not by nature someone who scaremongers. If I were, I would be reciting the figures, which are screaming out for an immigration policy change. What I will say is that if we deny ourselves the right to allow or disallow people into the country, will there even be a United Kingdom in the future, or will we be like other countries that have put their trust in the European Union only to find themselves on the brink of demise?

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Several times in his speech the hon. Gentleman has referred interchangeably to the European Union and Europe when discussing the European convention on human rights. It is very important that we make the distinction in this House and in public, because the public are making the same association between the European Union and the European Court, and it is very damaging when trying to understand both institutions and separate them in the public mind.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly we want to focus on where the responsibility for this issue lies.

I want to make a quick comment about what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said. We agree on many things. I am a descendant from an Ulster Scot from the lowlands of Scotland, so I have an affinity with the Scottish nation. It is very obvious which papers he does not read in his house, but it is also obvious what his concerns are, and they are rightful concerns. I disagree with him on independence for Scotland, and I also disagree with him on the issue we are discussing, but I am sure that there are many other issues on which we will agree in future.

We have the right to make immigration control rules. As a nation, it is not in our nature to abuse human rights—that is not what this debate is about—and we will certainly not start doing that with these rules, especially when there is an underlying onus to consider the human rights implications in every decision our judiciary makes. I therefore support these rules and the guidance, as well as the clarification that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration have provided. I believe they are necessary and important, and the people I represent want to see them in place.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I, too, support the general thrust of Lords amendments 16 to 18, but I completely understand the Minister’s concerns about the effect they would have on the legislation.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) on the need for some sort of restatement of our fundamental liberty with regard to private property, which is one of the underpinning foundations of English law. To that end, my addition to the points made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend is to ask whether we might have a restatement of that general principle. The amendment gives a negative statement about those powers that may not be used except in certain circumstances. I wonder whether, in their review, the Government might restate the general principle of the sanctity of property and of private property, so that that should be the bar by which all future incursions against private property will be judged, and so that exactly that kind of guard might be imposed on future Governments—a point to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded.

I am very much reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister’s assurance that the matter will be considered within the time scale promised. On previous points where further work by the Government was needed, he has given an assurance and delivered on it exactly as he said he would. I have no doubt at all that he will do so in this case, and his comments so far give me great confidence.

[Steve Baker]

When I look at Lords amendments 16 to 18, my instinct is certainly to support them, but after many, many hours in Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that he has a thoroughgoing commitment to progress towards liberty, so I assure him of my future support for simplifying powers of entry. As I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place, when the knock comes on the door, householders should be able to know whether the person knocking has a right to enter, or whether they are permitted to refuse entry. However, having sat through both the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions and heard contributions from Opposition Members, I know that the Minister has met the forces of reaction. I encourage him not to succumb to reactionary opposition or to the notion that certain powers should be elevated over liberty in the interests of security or expediency. I am confident that he will be steadfast in the cause of liberty, so I will support the Government.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

In the example that the right hon. Gentleman has just used, we do not know, of course, whether the police could have charged before 14 days. That they charged on the 14th day does not mean that they did not have the evidence to charge on the seventh day.

[Paul Goggins]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and he and I have had exchanges on this issue, but I contest strongly his assertion. When an ongoing investigation requires detention to be extended beyond seven days for any further period up to 14 days, there is very close scrutiny by the courts. It would be impossible for the police to detain a suspect beyond seven days—for 10, 13 or 14 days—without the court’s explicit approval. A court would certainly not approve the detention of somebody who could have been charged earlier, so I completely refute his argument.

The Committee had a number of specific concerns about the primary legislation route. First—others have touched on this important point—parliamentary scrutiny of such primary legislation would be so limited as to be rendered completely unsatisfactory and ineffective. By definition, such a Bill would be fast-tracked through the House, with very little time for debate. The circumstances in which the legislation would be introduced would dramatically limit what Ministers could say without jeopardising the suspect’s right to a fair trial, or without compromising national security.

I am sure that the Minister would come to the House very well briefed on what he could and could not say—he usually does, and any such future debate would not be an exception—but neither he nor anyone could guarantee that a Member of the House would not say something that could lead to a subsequent trial being compromised. I ask hon. Members present to put themselves in this position: what if 50 or 100 of their constituents had just been blown up and they had to participate in a debate on a request that the suspect who is potentially responsible for those explosions is held for longer than 14 days? We would all be exercised in that situation and might be prone to say something out of place, which would be reported in the media and lead to further speculation that, in turn, could compromise a trial. Both Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, and Keir Starmer, the current Director of Public Prosecution, told the Committee that putting too much information into the public domain could prejudice a fair trial. Alternatively, so little information might be given by the Minister in the context of the debate that the whole process would be completely meaningless.

The Home Secretary is right to draw a distinction between a debate and a decision on the principle of extending the powers beyond 14 days and the practical application of those powers in each individual case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) reminded the House earlier, the application is a matter entirely for the courts and not for Parliament. However, in practice, particularly in relation to the third scenario that the Home Secretary gave, the debate on the principle and the debate on the practical application in an individual case would become very blurred. There is a real danger of confusion between the role of Parliament and the responsibilities of the court. Parliament could be asked to vote on legislation, and within days, the court has to decide whether that legislation can be applied in a specific case in specific circumstances. In paragraph 84 of its report, the Constitution Committee concluded:

“It is ill-advised to create a decision-making process that requires Parliament and the judiciary to ask and answer similar questions within a short space of time—or at all. Far from being a system of checks and balances, this is a recipe for confusion that places on Parliament tasks that it cannot effectively fulfil and arguably risks undermining the rights of fair trial for the individuals concerned.”

That is an important point. The close proximity of the parliamentary debate and decision, and the application in an individual case, is fraught with difficulties.

Then, of course, there is the practicality of emergency legislation, which others have touched on. Normal business could be set aside if Parliament was sitting, but there is the question of what happens if it is not sitting but in recess. The Clerks advise us that a minimum of 48 hours would be required to recall Parliament during a recess. Of course, it was recalled very speedily this summer in the aftermath of the riots, but that was for a statement and debate, not to pass legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary, advised the Committee that after the worst atrocity in the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland, when 29 people were killed and more than 200 were injured, it took nine days to reconvene Parliament. In the context of an ongoing investigation into particular suspects in a particularly urgent inquiry, that would make the whole process of primary legislation completely impractical.

Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I shall be brief. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and I necessarily agree on all things in this area, but on this we completely agree. I am a signatory to new clause 1, which I am delighted to support. It is essential that we look at this issue. We have heard, for example, that Liberty took up a case where somebody was threatened with prosecution under section 5 of the 1986 Act for peacefully holding a placard that said, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”. That is a matter of opinion rather than a matter for prosecution.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is also true.

[Dr Huppert]

So the hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position. I tend to agree with him, but that is a topic for another debate.

I entirely support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. However, I have concerns about his amendment to the programme motion. I would like the issue debated, but I am concerned because we need to discuss issues such as DNA and fingerprinting. DNA is a topic of particular interest to me, as someone who used to work on it, and we are at risk of reducing our debate on it to something like an hour. I am concerned about that, and for that reason I shall not be supporting his amendment to the programme motion, although I support his proposed amendment to the Bill. I very much welcome what the Minister said about how the Government are going to get on with it, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss that in this House.

Missing Persons

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly recognise the contribution made by Missing People to the action plan, and the support that it has given. That is why I was keen to have a meeting soon after my appointment. I look forward to discussing some of the issues shortly.

I want to deal with some of the specific points made by the hon. Lady, although I am conscious that time is pressing. If I cannot get through them all in the time available, I shall write to her on any outstanding issues. She raised the matter of support to families when a loved one goes missing. I too feel that nothing could be more important than the need to trace the missing person, but in turn, it is just as critical that families who are left in limbo when their close relatives go missing for the long term should be supported, and that they should know where to turn for help. Ensuring that the families of the missing, and the missing themselves, receive the support they require and deserve is vital to our overall efforts at addressing the problem. Of course, we can never hope to prevent people from going missing if they are determined to do so, but we can ensure that proper mechanisms are put in place to provide the support that is needed.

As with all aspects of public protection, when people go missing, close collaboration between police forces and indeed between police and statutory and voluntary agencies is surely crucial to making an effective response, and ultimately a successful outcome and the resolution of cases, possible. However, those things take time to achieve, as organisations get used to working together towards a common goal. That approach also means a change of mindset and the will to improve, and I am determined that the Government should do what they can to facilitate that.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

Very briefly, as there are several points to get through.

[Ben Gummer]

Ipswich was the place where Luke Durbin went missing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) mentioned. It was also the place where there were, sadly, serial murders of sex workers a few years ago. A critical point arising from the experience of trying to deal with the prostitution trade there is that very small local charities were instrumental in helping to clear up that terrible situation. Many of those concerned were themselves missing people. I want to impress on the Minister the role of very small local charities, many of which are suffering from tendering arrangements in Ipswich.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the valuable and important role of charities and the voluntary sector. They are part of the landscape and the innovative and important work that is done. I appreciate that serious point.

As to body matching, a number of good examples of successful cross-matching already carried out by the bureau prove that the system works fairly well, but there is clearly always room to improve the way those cases are handled, and we will reflect on that further in relation to future work.

The matter of a single database and Compact was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and we need to recognise that the Missing Persons Bureau and the charity Missing People both use a database of missing and found people, including bodies and body parts, called Hermes, which has undergone different modifications at different times in its different locations, resulting in a different complexion for essentially the same system. I am keen that some work should be done to determine the merits of a single database and that there should be better exchange of information on a regular basis between organisations. That should also include an examination of the future shape of Compact, the missing persons case management system, which is already in use in 22 police forces.

With regard to coroners, DNA evidence and a duty to co-operate, coroners already seek to establish the identity of unknown bodies that come into their custody, and that process includes DNA testing. Where a deceased person cannot be identified, the body must be disposed of by the responsible local authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, either by burial or cremation. Most coroners already co-operate fully with the police when they have a body in their custody that they cannot identify, and they are likely to respond positively to any local or national strategy, with associated protocols, that may be established. As part of planned changes to the coroner system, announced in a written statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), on 14 October at column 37WS, the Ministry of Justice will be taking forward work to establish improved guidance to coroners on the procedures that they follow in relation to every aspect of post-mortem and related examinations.

I do not pretend that there is not more to do, but I hope that my comments go some way to answering the questions posed by hon. Members and reassuring them that the Government are committed to the issue of missing persons and missing persons services. Early assistance to police forces is already in place through the toolkits, the role of CEOP in relation to missing children is being developed, and future activities by the Missing Persons Bureau are being considered in the light of the policing consultation. There is clearly more work to be done, but I look forward to updating and working with the key agencies to deliver improvements to this important area of safeguarding over the coming months.