Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The short answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am afraid that that answer is not really good enough. On what basis has the Minister determined that an exemption from cashless payments should be made for itinerant collectors of scrap metal? Will that not drive a Steptoe and Son-sized coach and horses through the rules, and will not people such as his hon. Friends whose communities have lost metal in war memorials, gates and rails be appalled by the existence of that loophole?

[James Brokenshire]

I would never cast the shadow policing Minister in the role of Del Boy, but I would say to him that the provisions we have brought forward will ensure that those involved in door-to-door selling must trade through a registered scrap metal dealership. They will therefore be subject to the restrictions on cashless payment. That underlines the fact that those itinerant collectors need to be registered and approved by local authorities and police—another form or enforcement that needs to be focused on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on an important issue, and I am happy to tell her that last year we removed more than 4,500 foreign national offenders, many of whom had perpetrated crimes. We believe that when a foreign criminal poses a risk to the public, they should stay in detention, and we always vigorously oppose bail, but the UK Border Agency has to act within the law. However, foreign criminals in the community awaiting deportation will be subject to stringent reporting restrictions, and every effort is always made to remove them from the country as soon as possible.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Why has the Home Secretary ruled out a free-post leaflet or candidate booklet for police and crime commissioner elections? Will she now heed the serious concerns raised by the Electoral Commission that internet-only access to candidate materials will disadvantage the poor, the old and those in rural areas—and, accordingly, help to address the poor turnout—or is that the intention?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill, he will see that the time period contemplated is two years, in order to allow proper consideration of all the relevant 1,300 to 1,400 powers of entry. This is not something that will simply lie in abeyance. The review of all powers must be completed within two years of Royal Assent, and we have said that we will report back to Parliament every six months to provide an update on progress, so there will be a steady updating process. I hope that that gives him comfort. I also highlight to him the Home Office gateway, which provides an ongoing check and balance in relation to new powers of entry, as well as the ability to review existing powers of entry that may be triggered as a consequence.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What ultimate sanctions are in place in the event that the two-year review is not completed by any Department?

[James Brokenshire]

The review is a specific statutory requirement, and we are focused on ensuring that it is undertaken with all due expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirements of the ministerial code and other requirements on Departments and Ministers to abide by the law. In addition, the ongoing six-monthly review that I mentioned will enable the House to maintain pressure on Departments to ensure that the provision is being properly adhered to and followed through with the intent and spirit of the Bill.

I point out to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that we have made significant progress through the Home Office gateway, which considers all applications by Departments for new powers of entry. To date, 19 applications to create or amend powers of entry have been considered, and we have added greater safeguards in every case. Every power of entry in respect of domestic dwellings that has been approved through the gateway process has included a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. We have also taken the opportunity to scrap a number of powers.

I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that we are serious about ensuring that powers of entry are subject to appropriate safeguards and that we are committed to rolling back intrusive state powers and strengthening the privacy of home owners and businesses.

When taken together, the gateway process and the measures that I have outlined add up to a significant commitment to tackle what we have recognised to be a significant infringement of the rights of home owners. I have also made it clear that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. I put it to the House that our approach will ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place to protect home owners, while providing greater legal certainty and ensuring that the police and others can act swiftly to protect the public. I therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.

Lords amendments 16 and 17 were supported in another place by Lord Selsdon. I welcome the debate about powers of entry and look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I will put to him. When both I and Lord West were Ministers in the Home Office, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), commissioned him to write a review of entry powers. The report that Lord West produced was overtaken by events with the general election, but I will refer to it with regard to the matters before the House.

The genesis of the Protection of Freedoms Bill lies in a document published in 2010 called “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda”. I hope that the Minister will not think this too harsh, but I thought that, on balance, it was a rather tawdry document and I disagreed with almost every word of it. I do not say that very often or very lightly. The Lords amendments, which were passed with the support of the Opposition in another place, as the Minister said, would hold the Government to account for what they said they would do in that document. It stated that a Conservative Government, who I accept are upon us, would

“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety.”

This is an area of private grief between Government Back Benchers in another place and the Government. The Lords amendments would allow the Government to deliver on one of their major promises. That is something that the Government have failed to do on many occasions.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Government just a little leeway, after only two years, in untangling the giant pile of messy powers of entry that his Government left the coalition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman has walked directly into my fist. “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda” stated:

“When he became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown pledged to introduce a new liberty test to curtail powers of entry…He commissioned Lord West to undertake a review of entry powers. A final report by Lord West was supposed to be published by spring 2009, but has been continually delayed and kicked into the long grass.”

Lord Henley discussed that very point in another place, and the Minister referred to it today.

Clause 42, “Duty to review certain existing powers of entry”, places on Ministers of the Crown a duty to review relevant powers of entry within a relevant period, which happens to be two years. I may not be a great mathematician, but as I recall, we were criticised for kicking the matter into the long grass in 2009, yet now we cannot expect a final report until 2013 if the Bill receives Royal Assent. I ask the Minister and the hon. Gentleman whether that qualifies as kicking the matter into the long grass. I fear that it does. My noble Friend Lord West and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath were criticised for kicking the matter into the long grass by delaying the review of powers of entry. However, clause 42 seems to provide for the very delay for which the Minister criticised us when he was the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his attempt, which we hear so often from the Opposition, to rewrite history and demonstrate Labour’s commitment to liberty. There are Government Members who would have been delighted if measures on powers of entry had been introduced by now, but I put it to him that the Government’s caution merely reflects a mature and sensible approach rather than the more gung-ho tone that some might take towards liberty.

[Mr Hanson]

It was mature and sensible reflection when we were accused of kicking the matter into the long grass in 2009-10, when I was a Minister in the Home Office. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has planted his flag in the ground on this issue, because he is holding true to the Conservative manifesto commitment. I am genuinely surprised that there are not more Government Back Benchers wanting to hold the Government to account for why they are not fulfilling their manifesto commitment. Perhaps he will do that in due course.

My colleagues in another place supported the amendments, so that we could have this debate today and get the Minister’s comments on record. Concerns were raised, for example, about the term “trading standards officers”, which is not a recognised term. I would welcome him addressing those concerns.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested, we have some concerns about the review provided for under clause 42. It places a duty on Secretaries of State to review the powers of entry for which they are responsible and report back to Parliament within two years of Royal Assent, following the necessary detailed analysis. As I said, we were accused of kicking the matter into the long grass, but the Government must consider 2013 shorter grass than 2011, which is when we would have had the review.

That aside, the purpose of the review under clause 42 will be to have each individual power of entry examined, to determine whether it is still required or whether it should be repealed, have safeguards added to it or be consolidated with similar powers to reduce the overall number. As we are already two years into the Government’s time in office and face the prospect of another two years before we hear back from the review, I do not believe I am far amiss in saying to the Minister and the hon. Member for Wycombe that the Government are potentially ducking the issue and leading the review into longer grass than we planned.

I would like some updates from the Minister on the points we have made. How long does he expect each Secretary of State to undertake the review? Does he expect the reviews from each Department to be completed before the end of the two-year period? Will he report back on the reviews en masse, when all Departments have completed them, or will he do so when individual Departments have completed reviews on their areas of responsibility?

Does the Minister expect to report back earlier than in two years’ time? As I have mentioned, what are the sanctions on Secretaries of State who do not meet the target? Will he report back on that? How does he expect Secretaries of State who have not met the target to report to the House? Can he guarantee that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the review in full once it is published? Will he give some indication of how many legislative proposals on power of entry he expects to be reviewed and in due course repealed? According to the Conservative quality of life manifesto, there are 1,242 state powers of entry. Will the Minister indicate whether he has set targets for the outcome of the review? How many of those will be in place at the end of the review? Will he indicate how many of those powers of entry will in due course be on the bonfire that he promised in the manifesto?

The Conservative Government promised to cut back intrusive power of entry into homes. I am interested as to whether the Minister and his team will ultimately achieve that objective. We need clarity about the review. The Opposition will not support the amendments because we do not feel they are valuable, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The Minister’s opening remarks gave a degree of reassurance on the Government’s position, but I feel that the starting point should be that the forces of law and order and of the state should not as a matter of routine have the right to enter people’s houses. One of the most important freedoms that we enjoy as British subjects is that if somebody comes into our house without our invitation, it must be because some important crime has been committed, or there is some emergency or another immediate reason. The problem with the Minister’s reassurance is that there is always a suspicion that Governments do what is convenient rather than what is right, and that the bureaucrat always feels that it is easier to enter somebody’s home or office than to go through a complex procedure—to get a warrant or to obtain a justice of the peace’s authorisation—to go into somebody’s property.

I remember listening to a brilliant speech by the present Attorney-General when the Conservative party was in opposition and when pulling back on such warrants was our formal policy. As the Minister has done today, my right hon. and learned Friend went through the vast numbers of powers that have built up—600 have been introduced in recent years and there are as many as 1,300 in total. How minor some of them are. If a council inspector believes that there is a flea infestation, he can enter somebody’s home to see whether fleas are hopping about. That was introduced in the 1930s, so it is not part of the recent accumulation of powers, but it reflects a century of belief in the big state and of allowing increasing powers to the state to take steps that are more convenient than necessary.

This House is always here to protect the rights and liberties of the individual against the over-mighty Executive. Although I believe the present Government are undoubtedly the greatest Government in the history of mankind, it is none the less in the nature of Governments to try to increase the powers they have, because it is always more convenient to do so. One can imagine the advice from officials to Ministers—“Minister, it will be easier and quicker and save money if we do this”—but that must be weighed by the House against the historic and ancient rights that we have enjoyed and that are so important to us.

We have enjoyed these freedoms to the great benefit of our nation and prosperity. The feeling of security that people have in their home—the feeling that they can go about their lawful business in their home without the forces of the state coming in to question what they are doing or how they are living—has allowed us to become one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Those ancient freedoms have underpinned all of that not just in recent years, but over many centuries. We have always been one of the freest countries in the world and one that has protected the property and rights of subjects against an over-mighty Crown more strongly than other nations have been willing to do.

Although I have received—I think—sufficient reassurance from the Minister to support the amendments, I hope that the Government will carry out the review with the greatest urgency. Many people would have been more sympathetic to the Government’s view if, instead of just a rejecting motion, they had tabled an amendment with a bit more detail on the time scale, or perhaps a requirement that if the review is not finished in two years, any power that has not been reviewed must fall or be the subject of a warrant or the agreement of the person whose property is to be invaded.

I will end my brief remarks by reminding the House of the words of Pitt the Elder—known as the Great Commoner, that proud upholder of liberties in the 18th century. What he said should ring true today for all subjects of Her Majesty:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter”.

That is a principle that we ought to uphold and fight for. The Government should push ahead as fast as possible to ensure that these 1,300 powers are cut right back purely to those that are essential in the fight to maintain law and order or to put out fires.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I rise to respond briefly to a number of the points raised. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker) of this Government’s commitment and resolve to roll back the arms of the state that may seek to intrude into private life.

The measures before the House this afternoon are important. They underpin our focus on ensuring that powers of entry are proportionate, appropriate and respect the right to be able to enjoy one’s home without undue interference. The House will also recognise, however, that there are certain circumstances in which such intervention might be appropriate—to protect health, to prevent harm or to ensure that criminals are legitimately brought to justice. That is why we are undertaking the review that I have outlined this afternoon.

I assure the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that I understand his desire to get on with this. We have said that we will report back to the House on a six-monthly basis, and I anticipate that that will involve a joint report on behalf of all the relevant parts of the Government Departments undertaking the review, to provide an update on the progress and the steps that are being taken. We intend the review to be Home Office-led and it will be undertaken in large measure by officials, but they will be responsible to Ministers, and I assure the House that Ministers will be driving the process forward, recognising the House’s strong feelings about the importance of liberty.

It was a bit rich of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to suggest that we were trying to kick this matter into the long grass and to defer or delay it. On the contrary, we are legislating through the Bill, we are taking action and we are setting out a clear process to roll back powers of entry, which grew enormously under the last Government. The fact that 600 new powers of entry were created during their period in office underlines the fact that due regard was not given to the implications of those measures. I am proud that this Government are introducing a clear mechanism to review the impact of powers of entry and the necessity of their remaining on the statute book or being made subject to further safeguards. The measures in the Bill will allow that to be done.

I very much welcome the support that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will want to ask what target we have set, but I hope he has realised that we are not a Government who arbitrarily set targets. We will look at this matter in a measured, considered way and decide what is in the best interests of liberty and the protection of freedoms in relation to safety and security, as well as of the freedom from the intrusion of an overbearing state.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way, having made a challenge to the shadow Policing Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

I sense that the Minister is about to finish his speech. Before he does so, will he try to answer the question that I put to him earlier? In the event of a Secretary of State not meeting the duty set out in clause 42, what sanctions would be available to address their failure to meet that target?

[James Brokenshire]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.

I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.

Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.

A New Clause

Stalking

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the provisions relate to the consent of the parents. They say that the consent of one parent is required, but it is left open to the other parent to object, and such an objection would stand. If need be, in the light of the arguments that the right hon. Member for Delyn makes for his amendment, I will provide further clarification.

Finally, I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. The amendment is a response to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that questioned the necessity of an affirmative procedure for an order revoking a temporary extension order. In the Government’s response to the Committee, we concluded that it was not necessary to subject a revocation order to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it would be neither appropriate nor meaningful. The Committee did not take issue with that conclusion. It would be perverse if Parliament were in the position of debating and voting on a revocation order when it had not had the opportunity to approve the original temporary extension order, given that the order had been revoked before it had been approved. Any such debate would be likely to be academic because a temporary extension order lasts for only three months, and there is therefore a strong possibility that an order would have expired before any debate had taken place. Furthermore, a revocation order will simply return the maximum period of detention to 14 days, the maximum period already approved by Parliament, which negates the need for parliamentary approval of a revocation order. That remains the Government’s view, and I hope that the House will not support the Opposition’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.

We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.

The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.

Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if someone’s DNA is held on a database, it does not impinge on their freedoms to go about their daily lawful business, unimpeded in anything they want to do? Does he further agree that people’s freedoms are enhanced by having as many murderers, rapists and other serious offenders brought to justice and put behind bars, rather than having them wandering the streets because their DNA is not on a database?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter. He has been consistent in his support for the Opposition’s proposals and has joined us in Divisions. Deep down, he understands that the Conservative party’s legacy as the party of law and order is seriously being put at risk by measures that are soft on individuals who have the potential to commit rape, murder or other serious crimes, who could be prevented from committing those crimes if their DNA were on a database for a longer period. I believe that that presents a real risk not just to public, but to the reputation of the Conservative party.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I want to be clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about this Lords amendment. Does he accept that the amendment would mean that somebody accused and arrested only once for a malicious sexual offence would have their DNA kept for ever—in clear contravention of the European Court’s ruling? Is he admitting that his amendment is deeply flawed and that he is using it merely as a debating point rather than planning to insist on a vote—in other words, that he does not believe in his own amendment?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman will know that through Lords amendments, we are seeking to find a mechanism to debate serious issues such as rape and other serious crimes. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes rape and a range of associated issues, which we want to debate. The amendment might not have been tabled perfectly; it was done at the last minute in order to find a way to discuss the key issues. We wanted the Government to hear again, before the Bill receives its Royal Assent, arguments from people such as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and some of my hon. Friends who have real and genuine concerns. We do not want the Government to proceed with allowing the DNA of some individuals to be destroyed earlier than it needs to be, as this will potentially put at risk individuals in the community at large.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but surely he must recognise that there are shades of grey in this debate. He says that we need to be protected from murderers and rapists, but many law-abiding citizens have concerns about being fitted up by the police or the possibility of the science and technology proving faulty—and who knows where DNA technology will be in 20 or 30 years’ time? Does he not recognise that there are shades of grey in this particular debate, and that painting it in the simplistic way he does—although it is good that we are having this debate—rather debases his argument?

[Mr Hanson]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to turn this into a simplistic debate. As Home Office Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and I wrestled with officials for many months about where to draw the line on this matter. We recognised that there were different places to draw it. What we tried to do in government was to draw the line at the furthest point we possibly could to ensure that we maximised the police’s ability to collect and examine DNA so that subsequent crimes could be solved by its use. Because rape and murder are not always one-off crimes but repeat offences, we wanted to prevent further victims downstream. We looked at that in the light of our European responsibilities, and we drew the line at six years.

To answer the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I still wish to draw the line at six years today. I accept that the amendment may be technically flawed, but its purpose, given the limited opportunities available, was to put our concerns to the Minister, as I have explained. We want to stress that the impact of sexual offences and other serious crimes needs to be examined. What is the clear difference between the Minister and me? It is the fact that his proposals to restrict the use of DNA put at risk people’s lives and their ability to enjoy them freely without being subjected to sexual offences. I fear that the Minister and I will continue to disagree on those issues. Let me tell him that the gut instinct of many Conservative Members is to share the gut instincts of many Labour Members. What we are trying to do is at least to give the Minister an opportunity to look at these issues again.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are very concerned about the way in which DNA is collected and stored? Clearly, when someone has been reported, questioned and possibly arrested by the police, but then exonerated—with no conviction and in many cases no trial—surely there is no case for storing their DNA. This is what leads to a great sense of unease for many people and probably diminishes relations between the community and the police as a result. Is my right hon. Friend not concerned about that? I know that he had to make these judgments as a Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

We did have to make those judgments when we were in government, and our judgment was that having the envelope of six years was consistent with our European obligations, and also with the pattern of offending. If people had not reoffended within the six years, the likelihood of further offences diminished considerably. People tended to reoffend within a one-year to six-year period. I genuinely take my hon. Friend’s concerns about the retention of DNA impacting on people’s civil liberties. However, I support what the hon. Member for Shipley said, as being raped, murdered or subjected to serious crimes also has an impact on people’s civil liberties.

As a Minister I had to make a balanced judgment, and the judgment reached by me and by my colleagues was that six years was an appropriate limit. There is an honest disagreement between the present Minister and me about that.

The Government’s own research—research carried out by the Home Office in July 2010—found that 23,000 people every year whose DNA would be retained on the database as a result of our proposals, but that would not be as a result of the Government’s, would commit further offences. We are talking about 23,000 further offences. My amendment may be flawed—I do not have recourse to all the fine civil servants who are available to the Department—but my aim was to initiate a discussion about sexual offences, and to persuade the Minister to reflect on the issues once more before the Government’s proposals became law.

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister know of any innocent person who has been negatively affected by the placing of his details on a DNA database? This is a question of balance. The Government’s main aim appears to be to ensure that the DNA of someone who has not committed a crime is not put on the database, but as far as I know that does such people no harm. Surely a greater danger is posed by the person whose DNA should be on the database but is not, and who then commits a crime that is not detected.

[Mr Hanson]

I hesitate to agree with the hon. Gentleman yet again, but I do agree with him. As far as I am aware, the fact that someone’s DNA is on the database under the 2010 Act is known only by the police—if they wish to examine it—and by the person concerned, and they can tell whoever they wish to tell, or alternatively tell no one. It is not a matter of public knowledge.

This is the nub of my amendment, flawed though it is. Of the 23,000 people I mentioned earlier, about 6,000 a year will go on to commit serious crimes, including rape and other sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. I simply ask—as I have on every occasion when I have had an opportunity to discuss the issue—why we should allow that to happen when we have the ability, potentially, to prevent it from happening.

[Mr Buckland]

Nonsense.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a debate about this and there is an honest disagreement between the Minister and me, but the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the DNA database, as constituted under the 2010 Act, would prevent those 6,000 serious crimes from taking place. He may shake his head, but that is what he needs to recognise.

Let me give an example involving an event that took place after our debate on 10 October. A newspaper report, headed “Warning as bogus cab driver is jailed for rape”, stated:

“Marcos De Souza, 32, was trapped because his DNA was held on file even though he had no criminal record. The Brazilian had lured the drunken 19-year-old into his car as she left a house party in Camden in February.

The victim was so drunk the sex predator believed she would never remember what was about to happen to her…But when she arrived home dishevelled, her boyfriend encouraged her to call police and De Souza’s DNA was found after tests. The sex predator was traced because police had taken his DNA when he was arrested after a previous girlfriend claimed he had assaulted her. The case was discontinued but his profile was retained on the national database.”

That DNA would not have been retained under the Government’s current proposals.

I accept that my amendment is not perfect. I may not have advanced the same argument in the past, and it is possible that I shall not do so in the future. The purpose of the amendment is to persuade the Minister to reflect again on the views of the hon. Member for Shipley and other Members.

[Keith Vaz]

I apologise for missing the earlier part of my right hon. Friend’s no doubt excellent speech. Given that his amendment is raising a number of issues, will he respond to the concern that some of us feel about the disproportionate number of black and Asian people whose names and details are on the database? There seems to be no explanation for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I consider the retention of the six-year limit specified by the 2010 Act to be a proportionate response. Certainly issues related to stop-and-search powers and charging need to be investigated in the context of police practice, but the fact remains that the DNA that is being kept under the Act has prevented the committing of further crimes, and would continue to do so if the six-year period were retained. I am happy for my right hon. Friend to take up the issue of how DNA is taken in the first place, and to draw attention to instances in which people are picked up and charged but not convicted, or picked up and not charged at all. However, I venture to suggest that that issue is separate from the one that we are considering, which is the retention of DNA over a long period.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman? The basic principle being advanced is that the retention of DNA prevents further crimes, but I think that what he really means is that it assists in the detection of further crimes. The mere holding of DNA would not have prevented even the case that he cited.

[Mr Hanson]

I am afraid that I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman. Someone might be picked up as a result of the retention of DNA following the commission of one crime, but how many times has the hon. Gentleman seen reports about serial rapists or serial murderers on the television news? Potential further victims might not be actual victims because the individual concerned had been apprehended owing to the collection of his DNA. As I have said, I accept that my amendment is flawed, but I believe that the principle behind the use of DNA and the retention of the six-year period for the purpose of dealing with serious sexual crimes is fundamental.

[Mike Crockart]

I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he should be very careful about the language that he uses in debates such as this. He should not blindly claim that the retention of DNA would prevent 6,500 further offences, as he did earlier, because that is simply not correct. The retention of DNA would contribute to detection, but it would not prevent.

[Mr Hanson]

I venture to disagree. The figures that I gave were Home Office figures produced for the Minister in July 2010.

The point that I am making, which I think is valid, is that the retention of DNA could, in a number of cases, prevent repeat offences. That is why the hon. Member for Shipley supports the amendment, and why my hon. Friends agree with what I have said. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is sometimes a case of making a balanced judgment. We make judgments as Ministers, and the six-years judgment was the one that we made within the envelope that was available to us. I believe that it was the right judgment, and my amendments—which I accept are flawed—were tabled so that we could debate the principle again.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I have been following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with some interest. Would it not be more consistent with his argument about prevention if everyone’s details were put on a DNA database—not that I am recommending such a course of action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

There is a range of views in the House, but what we have been trying to do consistently, both in opposition and in government, is maximise the amount of time for which we can retain DNA within European law, and we believe that six years is an appropriate period. I believe—and Home Office information on future crimes confirms—that that can help us to catch criminals and bring people to justice, and indeed it has done so. I ask the Minister to think again before it is too late. I welcome the changes that he has made in Lords amendments 1 and 2, I welcome his introduction of further safeguards, I welcome the fact that Lords amendment 2 allows DNA samples to be examined for different periods, and indeed I welcome the changes that he has made generally. I simply ask why we have not considered them in a wider context so far.

I want to say a little about two amendments which, at a very late stage, were grouped with the DNA proposals. Lords amendment 9 deals with biometric testing in schools. It changes the law so that only one parent, rather than both parents, must give written consent, but retains the position whereby either parent can withdraw consent. Our amendment changes the wording from “and” to “or” so that biometric data can be collected if one parent has given consent or neither parent has withdrawn consent.

[Dr Huppert]

I assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments are carefully drafted and that he intends what they state. Does he agree that the consequence of that change would be as follows: if no parent has consented but neither has actively objected, that would count as consent—in other words, consent would be assumed even if neither parent had ever said they were happy for that to happen?

[Mr Hanson]

Yes; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has dealt with this matter in Committee and throughout the Bill’s passage, and that is the position of the official Opposition.

We note the amendments proposed in the other place by the Government, and there has been some recognition that the original clauses as drafted were far too onerous, as they needed both parents to give written consent for biometric data to be taken from the child. The amendments also correct an omission, by recognising that not all children have parents, and that those with caring responsibilities needed to be included in this provision for it to be able to work effectively. However, we also note that one parent can still overrule the consent of the other in agreeing for the child to give biometric data, which, again, can cause confusion for schools. We think that, overall, this policy is still unwieldy and unmanageable for most schools.

Furthermore, we do not believe that allowing a child to override their parents’ wish to allow biometric data to be taken is sensible or correct. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that would be the case under the proposals as they currently stand. There does not appear to be any other circumstance in which a child of, for example, five years of age can overrule parental consent. Also, we note that if the parents have refused to give consent, the child is not in a position to override the parents’ wishes if the child chooses to give consent. We think that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9 would be a further sensible step, by allowing schools to operate this policy in a more manageable way by presuming an acceptance of biometric data being taken if no contact is made by the parents or carers once they have been notified.

I welcome Lords amendment 27. It gives a more prominent role to Parliament. As I have argued previously, it would be appropriate for the Government to lay an order before the House in order to ensure that these matters are dealt with during recesses or general election campaigns. It is important that the Government lay an order before the House, but it is also important that the Government make a statement as to the purposes of the order. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will not lay any order before the House without making a statement to the House explaining the reasons for seeking an order in those exceptional circumstances.

I have concerns about Lords amendment 28. It will allow the Government to withdraw temporary extensions to anti-terror measures without any parliamentary procedure at all. The effect will be to demand that the Government must seek parliamentary approval when strengthening anti-terror measures, but that they can weaken anti-terror measures without consulting Parliament. I heard the Minister’s explanation of that. Temporary extension will be brought in only during times of exceptional risk and the individuals held under these measures will be considered a serious threat to national security. Therefore, if Parliament has had to decide that these measures are necessary in the first instance, Parliament should also get to decide that these powers are no longer necessary. There is no more important issue than protecting the public, but we must have an explanation and an order placed before the House when these powers are revoked.

I accept that our amendment is flawed and does not achieve the objective I would wish, but there are major issues in respect of the retention of DNA which the Minister should, even at this late stage, reconsider and re-examine in detail. I hope he will also answer the questions I asked about counter-terrorism and biometrics in school.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I wish to raise one specific issue in relation to Lords amendment 3, and I put on the record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Ministers propose that the possible holding of DNA on the database beyond the period covered by the legislation could be agreed on application to a district judge. My understanding is that they have drawn on the experience in Scotland, where agreement from the sheriff and the sheriff courts is required. Has consideration been given to extending that provision to cover justices of the peace who are members of the lay magistracy? Unlike in Scotland, the magistrates court works as a single bench; there is no hierarchical difference or difference in terms of courts between district judges and lay magistrates.

Metal Theft

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and the hon. Members for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) for securing this debate on behalf of the all-party group. Today has been one of those rare occasions on which the House has a unanimity about it, as it does regarding our objectives for the Bill. Let me add to that unanimity by saying that the Opposition support the motion and hope that the Government will too, because urgent action is needed on metal theft.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) reminded us, this has been an emerging and long-standing problem. Indeed, Operation Fragment, which he commenced when he was at the Home Office, when I had the privilege of sharing an office with him at that Department, was an important effort in developing a programme to tackle metal theft at the end of the previous Government. Sadly, the problem has increased in that time, although this is not the fault of the current Government. About 15,000 tonnes of metal are stolen each year, with as much as half of that being stolen from scrap metal dealers themselves, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) mentioned. Industry and commercial victims agree that the figure is an underestimate. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has said, there is still a significant problem with metal theft across the board.

There is a particular problem with churches, as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and the hon. Members for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry): 2011 was the worst year on record for the number of metal thefts from churches, with more than 2,500 claims. The problem of insurance has been drawn to the attention of the House today.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

In Bournemouth, we find that it is not just individuals who steal metal but organised groups. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to legislate not just against individuals but against those who organise the crime?

[Mr Hanson]

Serious organised crime as well as opportunistic individuals are behind metal theft.

Cable theft caused the delay or cancellation of more than 35,000 national rail services, with more than 365,000 minutes of delay and a £16 million bill. Those points were made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Her Committee’s report highlighted them particularly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has played a role in raising the issue.

Every day, there are eight actual or attempted thefts on railways. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who illustrated the impact of metal theft on small businesses in his constituency.

Over the past year, 10 people have been killed in metal theft incidents. The gas leak referred to by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) was an extremely important incident. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that metal theft costs the UK about £770 million a year, a figure that the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) showed has been rising over the past few months.

I am most struck by the despicable nature of the crime. In his contribution, the hon. Member for Worcester said that door-knockers had been stolen from old people’s homes. People have talked about war memorials. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) spoke about the theft of a memorial in the city of Hull for fishermen lost at sea.

These crimes are committed by people who do not respect their neighbours, their communities or the people who live in them, so I welcome the fact that the Government have acted to tackle metal theft head-on, but I genuinely say to the House that they need to go much further. I welcome the proposals to end cashless payments, as did the hon. Members for Congleton and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The proposals to increase fines are welcome too, but that is only part of what is required. The motion today, and its support from Members, has indicated that the House agrees.

I worry that the situation could be made worse by the amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that Lord Henley has indicated he will table on Report, which is likely to take place next month. Banning cash transactions, while positive, will not of itself solve the problem. Legitimate scrap yards will go cashless, but some yards, as has been said, will continue to take cash and to operate a black market. Only yesterday evening in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rosser tabled an amendment that would give the police greater powers of entry and to shut down rogue scrap metal yards—measures welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) and others. Those proposals are in the motion and were welcomed by Members this evening, yet the vote last night—for vote there was, Mr Deputy Speaker—was lost by six.

Lord Henley argued against the amendment, but he should read the debate we have held today. The feeling on both sides of the House is that it is an important proposal, so he needs to revisit it when he and his officials draft amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) said, and as Lord Henley himself said last night, the 1964 Act is “beyond its sell-by date.” It was designed for the time of Steptoe and Son, not for the multifaceted organised criminals and opportunists of today. Lord Henley said:

“We wish to see a reform to that Act as soon as is possible, and we will make sure that we do it…We are looking for a coherent package of measures to tackle metal theft.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2012; Vol. 735, c. 52-4.]

Let me be presumptuous and recommend that Lord Henley look at the motion in detail. I commend the suggestions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on tackling metal theft. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned, those who follow best practice already do the things that the motion suggests.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has introduced proposals to tackle metal theft, and that plan is supported by the British Transport police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Neighbourhood Watch, BT, E.ON, energy networks, and Network Rail, to name but a few. It includes powers of entry for police, and tougher powers for them to close down rogue traders—a proposal that has been welcomed tonight across the board. It means that anyone selling scrap has to provide proof of identity, which will be recorded at the point of sale—again, that has been welcomed tonight across the board. It includes licensing scrap metal dealers, rather than the current system of registration with local authorities. It means, yes, doing what the Government say they are doing— banning cash transactions, especially for large-scale, high-value scrap metal transactions.

Those measures will allow legitimate trade to continue, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) wants, but, by our making it harder and more expensive for opportunists and organised criminals to profit from metal theft, the cowboy traders that he mentioned will feel the burden of those measures very strongly. Prevention can play an important part. Private sector solutions such as SmartWater, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, are important. Other suggestions, such as the one made by the hon. Member for Sherwood, for alternatives to lead, are valuable, and can be looked at by the private sector.

We cannot, however, get away from the fact the House has spoken with one voice, and it wants the changes proposed in the motion. The Opposition support those measures, and I want the Minister to support them too. We need a much tougher licensing regime, and we must ensure that we require people to do the things that I have outlined so that we can stop extensive metal theft. The Minister will say that she certainly supports the banning of cash transactions. She will say that she supports increased fines, but if she says that she does not support the other measures in the motion she must explain to the House and to her hon. Friends why not, and why she will not undertake those actions. From my perspective—and I think that I speak for most Members who have spoken tonight, not on a party political basis, but on a House of Commons against the Government basis—those are important measures that we want collectively, across the board.

The motion was drafted by the all-party group, with support from every party. It has the support of every Member who has spoken tonight. Time is pressing, and we need to do this. Households face power cuts, commuters face increased delays, and churches and public buildings have been damaged. If the Minister does not support the motion, will she explain to the House why not? I genuinely hope, however, that she does and that she drafts measures in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in a different way. I will even forget the fact that her party voted against the amendment in the other place. I urge her to support such proposals, and she will receive a great cheer from the House when she does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Essex police, and to their work in his constituency and others covered by that force. We do indeed see the value of community-led policing, and that is why chief constables up and down the country are making every effort to ensure that they can get police officers out from back-office posts and on to the front line, where people want to see them.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The latest crime figures show that personal crimes of robbery, burglary and theft have gone up by 11% in the past year—the largest increase in more than a decade. Contrary to what the Home Secretary has just said, the independent inspectorate of policing has said that a 10% cut in police numbers will lead to a 3% increase in property crime. Quite frankly, the Home Secretary should be cutting crime, not police officers. Will she urgently revisit plans to cut 16,000 police from our streets?

[Mrs May]

Well, really, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that he knows full well there is no direct link—there is no simple link—between crime and—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Of course dealing with budget reductions is challenging for police forces, but we are convinced that they can do it. I recently met members of the Nottinghamshire force, including the chief constable, and we discussed the issues. The chief constable has acknowledged the difficulty of the decisions involved, but has also said that she is

“doing all we can to protect frontline services and target resources to areas where the public are most commonly affected”.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The police settlement, which, as the Minister acknowledged, was published last week, takes a further £700 million out of the police budget at a time when we are seeing worrying increases in crime, with violent crime, burglary and theft all going up in last month’s figures. Senior police officers have already expressed their concern that the settlement means they will have to do far more than can be achieved through efficiency savings. If the police, in responding to this consultation, feel that the settlement is inadequate to meet policing challenges next year, will the Minister think again? Will he ensure that the 3,000 extra police officers that the Liberal Democrats called for are put in place?

[Nick Herbert]

I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about these issues. He is trying to give the impression that a further reduction in funding has been announced, but he knows that that is not the case; these reductions were announced beforehand, as part of the review, and they have not changed in relation to the proposed allocation for forces. I also note that he is coming forward with his familiar solution—Labour’s only policy on the police—which is to call for more public spending. It is that attitude that got this country into the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. Perhaps he might have something more constructive to say about policing in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has raised a matter of serious concern to a great number of Members, particularly given that we have seen not only the impact on the economy, but the appalling incidence of theft of metal plaques from war memorials, which I am sure has shocked everyone in the House. We are discussing with ACPO and others what legislative changes to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 might be needed and we are talking with the police about what action can be taken better to identify the rogue dealers in advance of any changes to the legislation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Nobody will oppose sensible collaborations, but with last week’s report of a 7% rise in theft and a 10% rise in household burglary reported, coupled with a projected loss of 16,000 police officers, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to tell us the exact total savings from such collaborations nationally and the remaining national funding shortfall after those collaborations have saved some money—if only so that the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), is able to stop her police cuts campaign quickly.

[Mrs May]

Discussions are taking place between police forces on exactly how much money can be saved by such collaborations, and better approaches to police procurement and to IT, for example, will help to save £380 million. But I am very sorry because it sounds as if yet again the Labour party opposes action to save money while ensuring that the police are able to maintain their services.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 110, page 20, line 7, clause 29, leave out

‘a code of practice containing’.

Amendment 104, page 20, line 9, leave out

‘Such a code must contain guidance’

and insert

‘The guidance may contain information’.

Amendment 105, page 20, line 12, at end add—

‘(c) the importance of using CCTV to prevent and detect crime,

(d) ways to take into account the views of the public in relation to CCTV provision, including the use of public petitions.’.

Amendment 106, page 20, leave out lines 13 to 28.

Amendment 95, page 20, line 13, leave out from ‘code’ to end of line 24 and insert

‘must have, in particular—

(a) regard to the purpose of prevention and detection of crime,

(b) consideration for petitions from the public as consultation on CCTV provision, with any such petition to be brought to the attention of the Commissioner,

(c) not inhibiting CCTV provision for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, and

(d) consideration as to whether the use of CCTV will prevent and detect crime.’.

Amendment 107, page 20, line 29, leave out ‘such a code’ and insert ‘guidance’.

Government amendment 20.

Amendment 99, page 21, line 14, leave out clause 30.

Amendment 100, page 21, line 35, leave out clause 31.

Amendment 101, page 22, line 22, leave out clause 32.

Amendment 102, page 22, line 30, leave out clause 33.

Amendment 103, page 24, line 5, clause 34, leave out ‘code’ and insert ‘guidance’.

Amendment 96, page 24, line 6, leave out ‘code’ and insert ‘guidance’.

Amendment 97, page 24, line 6, leave out from ‘code’ to end of line 8.

Amendment 98, page 24, line 30, clause 35, leave out ‘code’ and insert ‘guidance’.

Government amendments 31 and 67.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I rise to speak to new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and the others listed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who originally tabled new clauses and amendments on behalf of the shadow Home Office team, has been promoted to the shadow Cabinet. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I will begin by paying tribute to him for his sterling work in the police field during his time in this brief. Once upon a time, he was the Policing Minister. I succeeded him in government as the Policing Minister, he succeeded me as the shadow Policing Minister in opposition, and I succeed him again as the shadow Policing Minister. Between us, we have several years of service, but not continuously. I wish to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his work in raising what we accept are politically contentious issues at a time when there is real concern about the future direction of policing and there are real differences between the Government and the Opposition. However, I hope I can say, on behalf of the Government as well as the Opposition, that he exercised those duties in a fair and equitable way.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I, too, put on record, in the nicest possible way, my best wishes to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). He and I had some frank exchanges over the years, but I certainly mark out the good-natured way in which we were able to reconcile our differences at times, and I welcome him to his new responsibilities.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s support for my comments about my hon. Friend. I assure the Minister that I will try to kick him very hard on some of the political issues, but I hope that we can enjoy a similar relationship to that he had with my predecessor. Having dealt with the hon. Gentleman from the Government side of the Chamber when he was in opposition, I am sure that we will have a positive relationship.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has joined the shadow team and is graciously supporting me in this debate.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

She is not the only one.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed. I strongly appreciate my hon. Friend’s support in dealing with the proposals before the House.

I will move on to the meat of the issue, because that is important for the House. Part 2 of the Bill proposes the introduction of a surveillance code covering the operation of CCTV by public authorities in England and Wales, and the creation of a commissioner to promote compliance with the code. The code will operate as a mechanism of self-regulation and will be set by the Secretary of State. Our new clause and amendments would do several things which we want to explore with the Minister to get a feel for the approach he is taking. These matters were considered heavily in Committee. Perhaps fortunately, on some levels, I was not there, so we may need to revisit some of them today. It is important that we examine the concerns about CCTV; the amendments are designed to get a flavour at least of the Government’s thinking and to place on record the Opposition’s views.

Labour Members want to ensure that the role of CCTV is strengthened and its importance is recognised. We want to ensure that the code operates in an effective way and does not hamper the development of CCTV. We want to have a presumption in favour of the police being able to set up CCTV in our communities to tackle crime through prevention and through bringing perpetrators to justice. The purpose of new clause 16 is to put in place a review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to ensure that we examine, quantify and agree on the definitive benefits of CCTV so that we know exactly the baseline.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and welcome him to his post. Shortly before the last general election, I heard a police officer from my region say on TV that his vision was to have CCTV cameras on one in three houses. He said that that would really give us a good eye on what was happening. Is that the sort of vision that the right hon. Gentleman has?

[Mr Hanson]

I have a vision of CCTV playing a role in stopping crime and catching criminals. Communities in constituencies such as Ashfield and mine in north Wales should have confidence that if a crime is committed, people can be caught using CCTV. It might also have a deterrent effect. We should have a proportionate response with CCTV in appropriate places where police, local authorities and, as we have discussed and will discuss, the private sector feel there is a need to provide such reassurance and support.

[Dr Huppert]

I apologise if I was not quite clear. Would the right hon. Gentleman be comfortable with seeing CCTV cameras on one in three houses?

[Mr Hanson]

I would be comfortable with a reduction in crime like that under the previous Labour Government. I think that CCTV plays an important role. I will come on to that in a moment and we will test whether the hon. Gentleman would support the examples that I give.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his elevation, or perhaps I should say on his sideways move to shadow the position he held in government. I want to probe him on why he chose HMIC as the organisation that would monitor this matter under the new clause. In the new landscape, we tend to put a lot of responsibility on HMIC and I wonder whether it has the resources to deal with these additional responsibilities, important though they are.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome. One advantage of being in opposition, although there are not many, is that his Select Committee will not scrutinise me and my Department, as they will the Minister. There are occasional silver linings in what are very big clouds.

My right hon. Friend asked a valid question about HMIC. He will know that the new clause was tabled prior to my elevation to this post and that it was my right hon. and hon. Friends who chose HMIC. It is important that HMIC looks at issues of police performance, one of which is the role of CCTV and its effectiveness in fighting crime. There may be other mechanisms to look at that, but I want to hear from the Minister a defence of CCTV. I am already getting a slight sniff that some coalition Members are not so supportive of CCTV.

[Dr Huppert]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

I may be doing the hon. Gentleman a disservice, but I did not get the flavour that he was keen on CCTV. I am happy to allow the Liberals to place on the record their full support for CCTV.

[Dr Huppert]

CCTV clearly has a role, which is why the Bill does not make having it illegal and merely tries to regulate it. CCTV is very useful in some cases. To answer the question that the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of having CCTV cameras on one in three houses. I think that that would be a horrible, Big Brother state and it slightly alarms me that he is keen on it.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he should not put words in other Members’ mouths. What I have said is that CCTV should play a role. I do not expect ever to see one in three houses in my street or in his street with CCTV cameras, but there is no strategic need for us to put obstacles in the way of CCTV being put in place if there is a need for it.

[Andrew Miller]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to make progress, but of course I give way.

[Andrew Miller]

Is it not better to put it slightly differently? Many of our constituents who have suffered nuisance and criminality in their environment come to us and ask, “Why can’t we have CCTV?” Should this not be a matter on which we liaise with local communities to ensure that the scope of CCTV meets their needs?

[Mr Hanson]

As ever, my hon. Friend speaks common sense. Perhaps part of the guidance to be issued in due course could be about such consultation. I have not yet, in nearly 20 years as a Member of this House, had anybody come to me to say, “Mr Hanson, please do not put a CCTV camera in our street.”

[Dr Huppert]

I have.

[Mr Hanson]

It may happen in Cambridge, but it does not happen in my constituency in north Wales. In fact, most people in my constituency argue for more CCTV cameras, not fewer. I have digressed, but I repeat that new clause 16 asks for HMIC to make a case for the crime fighting capability of CCTV.

The second objective of our amendments is to strip away some of the bureaucracy that we believe could act as an obstacle to the police doing their job of tackling crime and making communities safer. I would welcome the Minister giving his view on why there has been no mention yet of the private sector’s role in relation to the further regulation of CCTV.

I hope it will help the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) if I say that only a few hours ago I looked through news from the past week or so about the impact of CCTV in our communities. I pulled off the internet four examples from just the past week of real instances in which CCTV has made a difference. I worry that the code of practice that the Minister is bringing in might well have an impact on the ability of the police or local authorities to provide the necessary level of CCTV coverage.

I looked first at the Daily Mail, which, as my hon. Friends will know, is an august publication that is required reading for Opposition spokesmen on every occasion. It had a headline that read, “Masked bank robber caught on CCTV holding a sawn-off shotgun to bank customer’s head”. There was a private CCTV camera in the bank, on which the individual was caught, but helpfully for him he had placed on his head a balaclava that covered his face, so he was not recognised. However, the gentleman concerned, a Mr Trevor Hayes, was recognised pulling his balaclava off his head as he walked away from the bank, in Watlington, Oxfordshire, having been caught on a local authority CCTV camera. I should like to discuss the case with the Minister; Mr Hayes is now serving 15 years for the bank robbery, which was caused by his actions but solved by CCTV capturing him on camera. My question to the Minister is whether his code of practice will ultimately lead to less use of CCTV by local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

There is a shaking of a Minister’s head, so I hope that will not be the case.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that nothing in the Bill is in any way aimed at reducing the amount of CCTV in this country? It is aimed purely at regulating the CCTV that we have.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but what concerns me is that the coalition’s programme for government states that it is committed to implementing

“a full programme of measures to…roll back state intrusion.”

As part of that programme, it undertakes to “further regulate CCTV”. I am sure he would accept that capturing an individual, who is now serving 15 years, through local authority CCTV on a public highway is not “state intrusion” but a valuable use of CCTV.

That is what I want to test the Minister on. I know that he has discussed the code at length in Committee, and I am sorry that I was not there to share those moments with him. I shall quote the consultation for the benefit of the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). It states that the code will include consideration of

“whether the proposed installation is part of a developed and integrated strategy…clarity on the main purpose and perceived advantages of the use of the technology

and an

“assessment of whether…technology will meet that purpose in full…whether there are alternative means of achieving the same outcomes…whether accompanying safeguards (including operating procedures) are already in place or need to be developed”

and

“impact assessments (including environmental, privacy, disproportionality etc)”.

The hon. Member for Cambridge hinted at privacy considerations. All I am saying is that I am worried that the code—as I understand it, the guidance has not been published—could lead to more hoops for local authorities and/or the police to jump through before a camera is in place in, for example, Watlington, Oxfordshire, to capture an armed robber and lead to his conviction. I should like some clarity before we reach a settlement that stops such a criminal being brought to justice.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend was the Policing Minister when the Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament published its report on the surveillance society. In that report, the Committee warned of the excessive number of cameras. No one denies that there are areas where there is a demand for such cameras and that proper policing priorities mean that there ought to be cameras on some buildings. However, he must accept that we reached the end of the road with the unlimited use of CCTV all over the country in all circumstances. Surely there must be criteria to judge whether it is needed.

[Mr Hanson]

There must indeed be such criteria. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends who tabled new clause 16, I am today testing whether those criteria make it more difficult to put CCTV in place now, never mind whether they discourage the further use of CCTV.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in addition to the number of CCTV cameras, it is important to consider their quality? One problem that police come up against is the fact that many CCTV cameras are not turned on or aimed in the right direction, and do not capture the important data that they should capture. Rather than aiding the police in detecting and preventing crime, such cameras do not achieve what they should achieve. Perhaps a regulatory framework would assist rather than hinder the police. A properly framed regulatory framework could improve the situation for CCTV and surveillance in this country rather than create the problems that the right hon. Gentleman seems to imply it might.

[Mr Hanson]

May I helpfully—I hope—agree with the hon. Lady? I believe that we need strong, quality CCTV cameras. In one estate in my constituency, incidents have been seen by CCTV, but no convictions resulted, because the camera quality was insufficient and the pictures were blurred.

I apologise if these matters were covered in Committee, but it is important that we cover them again. I am just testing my worry with the Minister. The code will include consideration of

“the appropriateness of permanent or temporary/mobile cameras…cost benefit analysis…consultation with relevant partners…appropriate consultation with the public, or…specific group”

and

“reviews of the continuing need for, or value of, any system installed.”

Those criteria have been set, and my simple question, which I hope answers the point made by the hon. Member for Dartford, is whether those hoops will help to maintain CCTV, or whether they will say to local authorities, “There is cost, time and aggro. Do you really want it?” Residents of a street in Cambridge might say, “We don’t want CCTV in our street,” but that street might just happen to be the one that Mr Hayes walks down when he takes off his balaclava.

[Dr Huppert]

The right hon. Gentleman has given a long list of criteria—he has said that CCTV should be proportionate and respect privacy and so forth—but with which of those criteria does he disagree?

[Mr Hanson]

The Opposition’s new clause 16 simply says that we want Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake separately an assessment of the importance of CCTV as part of the crime-fighting capability of the police. That mechanism would say, “We recognise the importance of CCTV.” I want a clear statement from the Minister and the Government that CCTV is important and that their proposals will not add to the bureaucracy, time and difficulty of putting CCTV cameras in place.

Let us go back to basics. The Government say that they want to roll back “state intrusion”, but I do not believe that capturing a criminal who has just carried out a bank robbery is state intrusion. However, according to the logic of the hon. Member for Cambridge, CCTV cameras are not necessarily a positive thing in those circumstances. His logic is that “state intrusion” and CCTV cameras, used in a wide range of circumstances and covering different streets, might not be a positive thing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we have a large expanse of CCTV. In my area, we have them in our town, but there is a demand coming from the general public. The right hon. Gentleman has given one example in which cameras have proved useful. In the town that I represent, the general public want CCTV. It has reduced crime in the town centre by 50%, car theft by 45% and theft of other items by 55%. Clearly, CCTV can deliver and is a sleeping policeman that reduces crime.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—if I can call him that—for his comments. I shall quote from an article last week in the Batley and Birstall News:

“Sgt Chris Hughes from Batley Neighbourhood Policing Team said the cameras were a ‘massive plus’ for the police. He said: ‘CCTV is independent evidence at the end of the day telling us exactly what’s going on and whether someone should be charged with an offence or not. CCTV is a massive, massive investigation tool for the police. We rely on it for everything from street crime to terrorist activity and murder.’”

In supporting the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, I simply point out that the coalition agreement states clearly that the Government want to roll back “state intrusion”. That sends a signal about a starting place which is not the starting place I am at.

[Gareth Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the case he did. I do not think that anyone in the House wants to prevent cameras in that situation from capturing people who rob banks, and I do not think that that is the intention of the Bill. However, we could just as easily identify cases in which public cameras are pointed on private areas. We need to find a way, through regulation, of ensuring that public cameras act as a deterrent and provide safety for the public, but do not intrude on private individuals in their own backyards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I shall try to find some common ground. I do not necessarily think that the public state sector—the police and local authorities, which is what we are dealing with in the Bill—should be training cameras on people’s private homes. However, the code of practice refers to

“appropriate consultation with the public, or any specific group, most directly affected by any planned surveillance”.

I shall cite a case in Southampton this week. A local paper reported:

“A thug who punched two men in separate unprovoked attacks during a drug and booze fuelled night out in Southampton has been locked up. One of Jamal Farooq’s victims was left needing surgery on a fractured jaw after being ferociously hit in the face in the apparently random attack… The attack…came shortly after CCTV cameras had caught Farooq, of Orchard Lane, Southampton, approaching and punching an unknown victim in another apparently unprovoked attack.”

He was only caught because of CCTV cameras in an area where there were public places as well as private places. He was only convicted because of the CCTV cameras.

Following a match between Luton Town and York last year, the police released CCTV footage to the media in an effort to track down offenders, which led to four convictions of individuals for gross activity and violence at a football match, including for

“taking brooms, mops, pans…outside a DIY store in Bury Park and throwing them at police.”

That happened in a public area where, under these proposals, there might need to be appropriate consultation with the public, which might mean further hoops to jump through. I think that the wider public interest, to which the local authority—elected by the public, let us remember—must have regard, and the police, who will shortly be accountable to police commissioners, can provide sufficient control to manage these issues in a way that does not add hoops. I want the Minister to justify the code to ensure that we are not putting in place something that will roll back what is termed “state intrusion” by the coalition agreement.

[Nicola Blackwood]

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), the right hon. Gentleman gave a number of examples, but I do not think that they accurately characterise the problem between public and private areas. An example of a local authority possibly creating a problem of privacy would be a local school wishing to put CCTV cameras in the children’s bathrooms or changing rooms. That could create more problems, which we might want to address in a regulatory way. Similarly, a camera placed on a local authority building might also overlook private housing. Those are the kinds of areas in which the public-private dynamic creates problems, and a regulatory framework would be helpful in resolving them.

[Mr Hanson]

Those are interesting ideas to test in the debate, but we have not got the guidance. I confess to the Minister that, in the dying days of the Labour Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and I looked at how we might manage this, and we did not reach any conclusions. The key question is: how do we ensure that CCTV in public places is not discriminated against by the hoops that are being set up by the legislation?

The new clause proposes an independent assessment by the police, through Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, of the importance of CCTV, to ascertain how it contributes to crime fighting and crime prevention, prior to the code and the guidance being produced. We do not want the code and the guidance to militate against the crime-fighting potential of CCTV.

I want to touch briefly on automatic number plate recognition. This is another area in which “state intrusion”, in the form of examining number plates, could be discriminated against by the proposals in the Bill. The random examination of number plates is an effective crime-fighting tool. I have seen it at work in my own force in north Wales, when I have sat in the back of vans, both as a Policing Minister and as a constituency MP. A code could, however, fail to acknowledge its importance. I want clarification from the Minister on whether automatic number plate recognition will be seen as the “state intrusion” mentioned in the coalition agreement.

Let me give an example from my constituency. Only recently, Mr Laurence Bernard Levey and Mr Gary Warner were convicted of conspiring to secure the robbery of some £140,000 worth of cash and jewellery from the home of one of my constituents. After a long trail was followed between a jewellery store and a well-known criminal with previous convictions, the conviction was achieved only because automatic number plate recognition cameras were able to prove that a car had been in a certain place at a certain time, which tied in with the mobile phone records of another party who said that those involved had never met. The automatic number plate recognition and the mobile phone records tied those individuals to that place at that time.

The Government could argue that having automatic number plate recognition equipment stationed at certain places at certain times constitutes “state intrusion”, because such equipment could capture my car, or those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), for example, as we drove past that location, but would that be “state intrusion”, or would it simply provide a record, if it were needed, that a certain person had been in a certain place at a certain time? Such undeniable evidence ultimately led to the conviction last week of the two individuals I mentioned: Mr Warner received a sentence of 16 years in prison and Mr Levey one of 10 years. In my view, that “state intrusion” helped to bring justice for my constituent, whose property was stolen by two people who will now have a long time in prison to reflect on the importance of automatic number plate recognition.

I am not alone in saying that; the Local Government Group said in evidence to the Committee that CCTV had been

“instrumental in bringing criminals to justice including in the Jamie Bulger case, the…bombings in London and the murder of Ben Kinsella,”

and other murders—indeed, CCTV was used in 86 investigations into 90 murders in London in one year. Our starting point is that CCTV is a good tool for the police in tackling crime. I do not want confused and piecemeal legislation that could negatively affect the police’s ability to carry out their work. The purpose of our new clause is to ensure that we analyse the police’s assessment of CCTV before finalising the code and guidance. New clause 16 reinforces our other amendments in calling for HMIC to commission a report on the use of CCTV by the police and local authorities for the prevention and detection of crime. It strikes me—although I would say this—that in tabling our amendments, my hon. Friends have some eminently sensible points to make. I hope that I have done them justice today.

If the Government are to continue to “roll back state intrusion”, they should do so on the basis of the available empirical evidence. We know anecdotally, from what the Local Government Group reported to the Committee, that CCTV is making a positive difference. If there are negative or positive repercussions once the voluntary code has kicked in, policy decisions can then be made on the best information available. We know that automatic number plate recognition helps to bring individuals to justice. Some 20,592 individuals have been brought to justice through automatic number plate recognition in the last couple of years alone, including about 52,000 for vehicle document-related offences—no road tax, for example—and about 41,000 vehicles have been seized for lacking insurance.

Will the Minister clarify the parameters of “rolling back state intrusion”? Would it be state intrusion to install an automatic number plate recognition camera at the end of a residential street in an area with a high level of burglaries, for example, or on a main road used every day by people driving to work or to the shops? Having looked at the provisions of the code—only in the last couple of days, I accept—and having seen what my hon. Friends said in Committee and the Government’s general starting point, I worry that the Bill’s proposals on working towards guidance and the code will restrict the use of CCTV and make organisations such as the police and local authorities think even harder before they use it, thereby leading to an increase in crime.

In passing, I ask the Minister to reflect on something that surprised me when I examined the Bill afresh today. Why does it cover police and local authorities? The vast majority of CCTV cameras are in the hands of private individuals or organisations, so why are they not to be covered by the proposed code of practice? It strikes me that some thought should be given to that as part of the overall strategy. In the first example that I gave today—Mr Hayes committing a bank robbery—the first CCTV picture in the Daily Mail was taken from in the bank, and the second, which was used to convict him, was taken from a camera in the street, yet the proposals in the Bill appear to treat each set of CCTV cameras differently. I would welcome an explanation of that from the Minister.

Finally, let me quote colleagues who gave written evidence to the Public Bill Committee. The Information Commissioner said:

“There is also widespread use of CCTV and ANPR…across all sectors including government agencies”.

He thinks that

“further thought should be given to the implications of limiting the application of the code to the police and local government only,”

which indicates the kind of thinking about the private sector generally that I just mentioned. The chief surveillance commissioner said in evidence to the Committee that there is ill informed and wrong criticism of local authorities in relation to covert surveillance, which is the issue that the hon. Member for Cambridge and others raised. Again, I would welcome a response from the Minister on that. The Local Government Group has been

“keen to ensure that CCTV regulation does not overburden councils and we believe that the new Code of Practice for surveillance camera systems could be a useful resource if it is genuinely a single source of guidance… We are concerned however that new data burdens are not placed on councils, and are also concerned at the potential for confusion from having both the Surveillance Camera Commissioner and Information Commissioner regulating CCTV.”

There is a range of issues there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the correction.

That is one camera for every 14 people in this country. Let us compare that with other countries that also have interests in law enforcement. Chicago, with a population of 3 million, has something like 10,000 cameras. That is a 20th of what we have. Do we know something that they do not? Across the United States, they use fewer cameras.

The truth about CCTV is that it is not an all-or-none issue. It has its uses and its abuses, which is why we need this code of practice. It has its costs for running and monitoring the systems and it has privacy implications, which is why I absolutely support the Government’s proposals. I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn will withdraw the new clause.

[Mr Hanson]

Time is pressing because of the programme motion, which we opposed. Rather than explain why I shall support the new clause and why I ask my hon. Friends to support it, I will simply press it to a Division.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I sense that, deep down, the Minister knows that he is on a sticky wicket and that the programme motion is not really adequate for debating the issues before the House.

As the Whip responsible for this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and his colleagues, would have accepted the programme motion had we not had, as the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, three hours of statements, which have taken us up to 6.41 pm. This Bill determines the very important issues of DNA that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) wishes to discuss, and those discussions will reach their conclusion at 8.30 pm.

Although I disagree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) on those issues, I support his right to say what he wishes about his concerns. His concerns on public order issues will not be debated at all because the programme motion means that we will run out of time. However, I cannot support the hon. Gentleman if he presses his amendment to a vote, for the simple reason that it would knock out the business of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle regarding the important issues of DNA.

On reflection, the Minister will know that this is an inadequate programme motion that requires an 8.30 pm completion time for important issues of life and death, which is what DNA is about. It is about the prevention of crime, the security of our citizens, and ensuring that our citizens can walk safely, free of fear of crime. Those issues will not be debated at the length that my right hon. Friend wishes. We have had debates in the past when I have sat where the Minister sits and he has sat where I am now. I suspect that if I had come along this evening with a programme motion that provided for one hour and 45 minutes—potentially even one hour and 15 minutes—on DNA, he would be standing here saying what I am saying. As a Minister, I moved programme motions from the Government Front Bench just as the Minister has; I know and respect that fact. I am not averse to programme motions. My hon. Friends the Whips are not averse to programme motions, and, in the past, the Labour Government introduced programme motions. However, there has to be an element of fairness about them. We cannot support a programme motion that gives us, potentially, one hour and 15 minutes on the life and death issue of DNA and upsets the hon. Member for Gainsborough because he is not having a debate at all.

If I had moved that programme motion tonight, the Minister would have opposed it. If I had spoken as he has tonight, he would have opposed it. He will vote for it tonight, but he knows that he would vote against it if he were in my place. In fairness to the Opposition, he should allow time for this debate and reflect on the programme motion. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made some sensible points, and we could have further discussions based on those. There is no problem with that. I will happily consider a small Adjournment of the House if Ministers want to discuss this with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). He is an amenable chap. We have worked together in the Home Office and we know about these matters, and he will help us to reach a conclusion.

It is not acceptable to have these major issues debated in this way and rushed through the House. We did not do that when the Minister opposed our proposals on DNA, which were fair and responsible. He needs to reflect on that. If he does not, then I cannot support the hon. Member for Gainsborough for the reasons I have outlined, as much as I wish him to have his say, but I will certainly not support the programme motion, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

It might be tempting to vote against all these things. I would love to see a reform of our entire process, so that time is not taken up on things that the public simply do not understand. However, I will not vote against the programme motion. I have seen what happens in the other place when there are no programme motions, which is filibusters. I do not think that many right hon. or hon. Members in this Chamber could claim that they have not been aware of any filibusters in this House or any efforts to waste time simply to put things off—not necessarily on this occasion, but on a number of others. I would like to see better self-government by this House and the other place, and then we could move away from programme motions.

[Mr Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman voted against the programme motion along with my hon. Friends and it was defeated, the Government could, if they wished to, call an Adjournment, negotiate and then draft a new programme motion that covered some of the points raised by Government Members and us. Nothing is finalised; such a programme motion could still be put in place.

[Dr Huppert]

I have not gone through the right hon. Gentleman’s previous speeches on such issues to see what he has said before, but such an Adjournment would take time and would be likely to result in even less time for the debate. We need to move on, and I personally would like to move on in my speech.

I very much welcome what the Minister said about the review. It is important and I look forward to it being introduced into the Bill. However, let me talk about one issue that I have with the programme motion, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments. New clause 11, which stands in my name, would repeal provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2010 that the Government have already accepted do not work and which they have accepted they will not use. It would be helpful to debate that, so I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether there will be any opportunity for that to happen. Debating that issue would be helpful, partly because I and others are passionate about supporting the creative industries, and creators have problems with piracy. The 2010 Act’s approach to web blocking simply does not work. I would like a debate in this House on the alternatives. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would comment on the Government’s intentions with regard to those provisions in the 2010 Act now, if he will be unable to do so later.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only would this person not have been caught, but he may well have committed further offences? That answers the point made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about why it is important that we take action on this database.

[Alan Johnson]

Given that we know that the nature of rapists is to rape again if they get away with it, that is a very important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

When I look at the Members of Parliament who contact me about the DNA database, there are not huge stacks of correspondence relating to the retention of DNA. The correspondence relates to the many people who complain about their DNA remaining on the national DNA database when they are innocent of any crime, and who say how that offends them. Let us look at some of the cases involved. GeneWatch UK has been quite helpful in highlighting the issues. There is the 12-year-old schoolboy arrested for allegedly stealing a pack of Pokémon cards; the grandmother arrested for failing to return a football that was kicked into her garden; the 10-year-old victim of bullying who had a false accusation made against her; and the 14-year-old girl arrested for allegedly pinging another girl’s bra. Those people have been arrested; their DNA would be retained under the arrangements that the previous Government seemed to laud. That issue of injustice is very much at the heart of the matter.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the hon. Gentleman place in the Library information on exactly how many letters he has received on the topic and how many complaints he has had, as compared with the number of innocent people who will be killed, raped, maimed or injured because of the proposals before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to try to take us down that path. I am speaking honestly and fairly about the correspondence that comes from hon. Members on both sides of the House on the injustice that some minority communities feel in particular. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has highlighted how acutely many communities feel about the issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of judgment and balance. The Labour party, when in government, did not focus properly on putting the guilty on the database. We are focused on doing that, and on not retaining all the DNA of those innocent of any crime. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle may perhaps suggest that privacy is in some way a science, but it is not. Liberty cannot be decided on by testing in that way. It is a question of judgment and looking at the evidence, and reaching a conclusion on how to strike the balance fairly between collective protection and individual liberty.

As for what has been said about the previous Government’s proposals, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle may pray in aid all sorts of things, but there was very limited support for the idea that six years was appropriate. We believe that the protection given by the Scottish model means that that is the right approach, and it strikes the right balance, and I therefore commend it to the House.

[Mr Hanson]

I confirm to the Minister that this is a matter of judgment—a judgment as to whether one is on the side of victims and the prevention of crime. There are very difficult issues that the Minister knows we have wrestled with to do with balancing civil liberties with the protections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) has so eloquently spoken about today. I pay tribute to him; he has made a compelling case that Government Members ignore at their peril. I do not say that to the Minister in a threatening way; I am simply saying that I suspect that there will be people who are victims of crime because he rejects my right hon. Friend’s amendment this evening.

The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend and I included the provisions that we are discussing in the Crime and Security Act 2010 after considerable thought and consideration of the European judgments that were brought against us. We tried to balance the civil liberties of the British people with their ability to secure their future, free of murder, rape and crime. The Minister will know that there are balances to be struck; ministerial life is about balances. I accept the point made by the hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), and for St Albans (Mrs Main): if the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend is accepted, there will be people whose DNA is on the database for three years longer than the Government propose. Those people may not commit a further crime, and they may well feel aggrieved, but the purpose of the House is to protect the rights of citizens as far as we can.

When my right hon. Friend and I were in government, and were Ministers in the Department in which the Minister is now privileged to serve, we felt that, within European law and within the rights of protection of those liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity so as to protect as many people as possible, by ensuring that DNA was collected. We have to balance the aggrieved feelings that the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned with the rights of citizens as a whole. There will undoubtedly be people who feel aggrieved, but we have to accept those consequences. Ministerial life is about making not just judgments, but the right judgments. On this occasion, the Minister has got that judgment wrong.

Britain is leading the world in DNA technology, which provides critical investigative leads. The DNA database provides the police with almost 3,300 DNA matches per month. There were 832 positive matches on the DNA database in cases of rape, murder, and manslaughter and other serious crimes in 2009. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned his concerns; Chris Sims, the chief constable of the West Midlands police, who leads on the issue not for the West Midlands but for the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said that much more detailed information is important to ensure that we protect the public from serious crime. There is no dispute about the fact that three years should be included in the Bill—both sides have accepted that. We are arguing for the maximum envelope that we introduced in 2010, which will protect future victims of crime.

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

In the oral evidence given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by Chris Sims of ACPO on 5 January 2010, it was clear that while DNA evidence is an important tool used by the police, it is just one tool that is used in 0.67% of convictions.

[Mr Hanson]

Why make the police’s job harder? There are people who would be on the database because they have been caught—they have not been charged or convicted—whose DNA would be on record for between three and six years. My right hon. Friend eloquently described cases that led to people being arrested who would not otherwise be arrested. Those people have been arrested, and as a result they have not committed more crimes: they have not gone on to rape if they are serial rapists; they have not gone on to kill if they are serial killers; and they have not gone on to commit serious violence if they are individuals who commit serious violence. The public is safer, so I do not understand why the so-called party of law and order can sit back and watch a Minister roll back crime-fighting tools that would save people from becoming victims of crime in future.

Unpublished evidence, which freedom of information requests have dragged out of the Home Office—my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned this last week—shows that every year, 23,000 people, who under Labour’s system would be on a DNA database, will, under Government plans, go on to commit further offences. In the next eight minutes of this short debate, I urge the Minister to tell us which one of those 23,000 crimes he can explain to future victims of crime? Can he look them in the eye and say, “We could have stopped that and prevented it from happening, but we chose, for the sake of the civil liberties of the few”—and I accept those few do have civil liberties—“to allow 23,000 people to become victims of crime in future.”

Of those 23,000, some 6,000 a year will go on to commit serious crimes, including rape, sexual offences, murder and manslaughter. The Government’s so-called hazard curve supports Labour’s six-year retention plan, rather than three years. Members do not have to believe me or the Home Office: that is independently verified by the House of Commons Library. Changes to DNA evidence will make it harder, not easier, for the police to catch and convict criminals. The Government’s weakening of the DNA database goes against Home Office evidence, and 17,000 people arrested but not charged with rape will, amazingly, be removed from the database, thus putting more women at risk.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, and listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, who has served this country in high office, and who has looked at the issue seriously to protect the public, as we all have. We will not crow in triumph if the Minister supports my right hon. Friend’s amendment: we will cheer his common sense. If he does not support the measure, perhaps he can look at amendment 108, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), whom I congratulate on his promotion to the shadow Cabinet, where he will serve with distinction. My right hon. Friend’s amendment, which I am pleased to support, suggests that perhaps we could delay the measure for a few years, so that we could consult ACPO on what is going to happen.

At the moment, the Bill allows police forces to apply to the so-called biometric commissioner for provisions on those who are arrested but not charged, which means that police forces can effectively say that they do not want to have someone deleted from the database. There could be an additional 17,000 cases, and how much police time will be devoted to that? The Minister is transferring risk from the Home Office to the chief constable of every force in the country, who will say, “I will not apply for that risk. I will not apply to ensure that that happens.” What will the work load be for the biometric commissioner? What resources will they have? Who is responsible if a chief constable applies for a waiver, it is not dealt with, and the person concerned commits a further offence?

The Minister has not thought through his proposals, and as my right hon. Friend said, this is about people. It is about John Warboys, the black-cab rapist, who was caught because his DNA was stored when he was arrested, but not charged, for a sex assault. [Interruption.] I would love to give way to the Minister, but his programme motion allows us four more minutes of discussion, and my right hon. Friend needs to reply. If he wishes to reconsider his position, I will certainly give way. The black-cab rapist was caught as a result of DNA evidence. [Interruption.] Well, Kensley Larrier, whom we discussed at length in Committee in 2010—officials presented good information then, so it must be correct, as it was the information supplied at the time—was arrested in May 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. His DNA would not be retained under Government plans, but he was jailed for five years, and his name added to the sex offenders register for life.

Mark Dixie murdered 18-year-old Sally Anne Bowman close to her home. DNA evidence was retrieved from the murder victim, and within five hours, he was under arrest, and sentenced to life imprisonment. I do not want to see other Mark Dixies wandering the streets in those three years; I do not want crimes to be committed by other individuals who could be caught and stopped. I accept that civil liberties issues are at stake, but our job is to balance those civil liberties, and make a judgment that protects the public. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend, because this is about judgment. His judgment is right, and I believe that the judgment of Opposition spokespeople is right. I believe that, sadly, if the Minister does not change his mind, the Government’s judgment will be shown to be flawed in due course.

[Alan Johnson]

I have been a Member of the House for 14 years, and I have not heard such a feeble reply from a Minister, not because he is any way inadequate—he is a very good Minister—but because the paucity of the argument is unbelievable. We heard an argument from the Opposition that there was no research behind the three-year Scottish model—that argument was not refuted. The Opposition made the argument that there is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that if someone is arrested, but not convicted of a non-serious offence, that makes a difference to their propensity to go on and be arrested for a serious offence. We put forward evidence about the proportion of DNA evidence and forensics that are used increasing from 6% in the mid-1990s to 25% now, showing the importance of DNA evidence. We put forward evidence of individual cases where, if the Government’s policy became law, murderers and rapists would not be caught, because their DNA would not be on the database.

The arguments that we get back are that the Government originally wanted to keep DNA indefinitely, which is not pertinent to the argument today, or that we would have as many names on the DNA database as we could, as though we were evil repressionists, which may be what the Minister believes, whereas those on the Government Benches are civil libertarians to the core, despite the fact that most of them want to abolish the Human Rights Act. The Government need to engage in the argument. There is no evidence for what they are seeking to do—no evidence whatever about three years. The evidence that has emerged since the Scottish model was introduced in 2007 supports six years. All the projections made by the Department indicate that DNA should be kept for six years.

We are seeking to save the Government from themselves. Members on the Government Benches had better understand, as those who support the amendment understand, that the issue will come back to haunt the Government. The question put by the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister about the number of rapists being wiped off the DNA database is only the start. Ignore the amendment and the Government make trouble for themselves, as well as making this country a less safe and secure place.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the police officers for their acts of bravery. I am sure the whole House would agree that many such acts of bravery on the part of our police officers and our police community support officers are going on every day. We see that reflected each year in the police bravery awards. I believe that many of us are humbled by the selflessness and heroism of our police officers.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that the previous Labour Government planned efficiencies of about £1.3 billion—including on back-office staff, on procurement, on mergers such as the one between Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, on overtime and on officer deployment—will the Minister be clear about where the extra £1 billion he proposes is going to come from, if not from officer numbers, like the 200 losing their jobs in north Wales?

[Nick Herbert]

First, I note that the right hon. Gentleman confirms that the Labour party is committed to reducing spending on police forces by more than £1 billion—but, of course, they did not deliver those savings when they were in government; it cannot be done without reducing the work force. We have identified additional savings, including those that will accrue from pay restraint, and indeed the £350 million a year that will accrue from better procurement of goods and services. In fact, the total savings are well over £2 billion a year.