Use of the Chamber (United Kingdom Youth Parliament)

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Philip Davies

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but would he say that the Youth Parliament debate that took place in Westminster Hall in a previous year was a success? Or was it a great failure? I think that it was a success, but perhaps he thinks it was a failure. If it was a success, why can they not go back to Westminster Hall? They had a very successful debate there before. They had a very successful debate—he mentioned this or perhaps one of his hon. Friends did—in the House of Lords. Does he say that that debate was a failure and that they therefore have to come in here because it failed in the House of Lords? Or was it a success? They do not really need to come here to have a successful debate. We have proved in this House on many occasions that they can have very successful debates elsewhere.

I might add that when we were debating this last time round and we were asking why they could not go back to have their debate in Westminster Hall, the argument given by the proponents of this was, “They have already been there once and they do not want to go back again.” When we asked why they could not go back to the House of Lords, we were told, “They have been there once and they need somewhere different.” Why does not the same argument apply on this occasion? They have been here once and presumably they want to move on to somewhere else. I can think of nowhere better than the European Parliament, where I am sure they would be welcomed with open arms.

We say that we are trying to improve the quality of debate in the Parliament in which they speak. It may well be that the Deputy Leader of the House is right in saying that they improve the quality of debate in this Chamber and the decision-making qualities in this Chamber, but believe you me, if they were to have a debate in the European Parliament, they would transform the quality of debate that takes place over there and the quality of decision making. Perhaps they ought to go somewhere else. Perhaps they ought to go to Buckingham palace, because they have not been there before for a debate. They seem to want to go to somewhere only once, so why are we now presuming that they want to keep coming back to the same place year after year?

[Emma Reynolds]

Everyone in the Chamber knows of the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the European Parliament, but does he agree that our Parliament is a remarkable institution and it is not comparable to sitting, speaking and standing in Westminster Hall? We should be proud of the fact that young people are interested in the politics of this country. I regret the cynicism expressed by some, but not all, hon. Members on the Benches opposite and the fact that they take such a distasteful approach to this matter. Why are they not proud of the fact that young people want to come here to debate things and look at how our Parliament works? Why are they ashamed of that?

[Philip Davies]

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady takes that view. I am sure that all the members of the Youth Parliament will have tuned in late at night to watch this debate to see their fortunes unfold before them. What they will probably be slightly concerned about is that in this Chamber that they all cherish there are people such as the hon. Lady, who is clearly so intolerant of anyone who happens to have a different opinion from her. I thought that the whole principle of free speech and free debate in this House was that we accepted each other’s arguments and respected them equally and that although we might come to different points of view, we would respect them. I perfectly respect the hon. Lady’s point of view, but it is just a shame that she seems so intolerant of anybody who happens to disagree with her. I am not entirely sure that that is the kind of lesson we should be teaching the members of the Youth Parliament.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am perfectly respectful of people who have a different view from me, but I also respect that young people have different views from one another and want to take the opportunity to debate them in this place. This is the first of the hon. Gentleman’s speeches on this subject that I have listened to and I ask him to forgive me, as I have not listened to hours of his former speeches on it. Why is he ashamed of this place being used when we are not using it? What does he oppose? Why does he not think that young people should use this place when we are not here? I do not understand his argument.

[Philip Davies]

If the hon. Lady did not keep intervening, we might get on to the arguments so that we could outline them for her. She is far too impatient—she obviously wants to get on with it. I want to get on with it, too, but I am trying to be generous with people who want to intervene. I shall try to outline the arguments, but I am surprised that she seems to think that the only place that a debate of the Youth Parliament can take place is in this Chamber. Why cannot a debate of the Youth Parliament take place in other forums? They can have a very good debate in Westminster Hall and in the House of Lords. Why do they have to be here to have a debate? That is the point that the hon. Lady is making, which I do not really follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Surely it is not sensible to suggest that people who support the motion must be in favour of the Youth Parliament and that those who are against it must be against the Youth Parliament. Nobody could be more supportive of the UK Youth Parliament than I am.

[Emma Reynolds]

If the hon. Gentleman is so supportive of the UK Youth Parliament, why will he not let it use the Chamber when we are not here?

[Philip Davies]

Once again, the hon. Lady springs up like a jack-in-the-box. [Hon. Members: “Jill-in-the-box.”] Indeed. I am not entirely sure whether there is a wasp on that Bench or something else that is prompting the hon. Lady to jump up at every opportunity. If she will allow me to advance the arguments, she might learn why I think as I do. I am very proud of the fact that I spend an awful lot of time meeting people who are members of the Youth Parliament in my area. I am very proud of the fact that I went to visit Bradford council chamber, where an excellent debate took place involving the Youth Parliament in my locality, and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to those arguments and that debate. I am all for engaging with members of the UK Youth Parliament.

DNA and CCTV (Crime Prevention)

Debate between Emma Reynolds and Philip Davies

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope, and I hope that you will pass my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting the debate. It is a welcome opportunity because the debate on the effectiveness of DNA and CCTV in tackling crime has, up to press, been rather sterile. It has been characterised as a debate between those who claim to believe in civil liberties and those who are seen as authoritarian; if one believes in the use of DNA and CCTV, one is automatically regarded as an authoritarian, and if one does not believe in their use, one must believe in civil liberties. I do not accept that rather simplistic premise. Today I want to make the pro-freedom case for CCTV and DNA.

I am a Conservative because I believe in freedom, and I am also proud to be a member of an excellent organisation called the Freedom Association. The last Government were one of the most authoritarian, intolerant and illiberal Governments that the country has ever seen, so I certainly do not support some of the measures they introduced. I consider measures such as identity cards and the ability to lock people up without charge, potentially for 90 days, to be authoritarian

The police asking to see one’s papers is something one would expect to see in an authoritarian state; that would impinge on my individual freedom. However, CCTV cameras being installed on a particular street and forensic laboratories holding my DNA do not in any way impinge on my freedoms, because they do not stop me doing anything that I would otherwise want to do or going about my daily lawful business. We need to distinguish between those measures that impinge on people’s freedoms and those that do not.

The coalition Government have pledged to regulate CCTV and remove from the DNA database the profiles of individuals who are not successfully prosecuted after three years. I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public; it is for that reason that I believe we need, if anything, more CCTV cameras and more people on the DNA database, rather than fewer. Some might argue that that would be an infringement of people’s civil liberties, but I do not know what that term really means. “Civil liberties” is one of those terms bandied about that we are all supposed to believe in because they sound good, such as sustainable development, but no one really knows what they mean. We all believe in social justice, but no one really knows what it means. I am sure that we all believe in civil liberties, but we do not know what the term means. In fact, the definition of civil liberties states:

“They are given to treat all the people equally under the law and make them enjoy rights of speech, protection, enjoyment and liberty.”

It seems to me that the word “protection” is often missed out when people quote about civil liberties. I believe that one of my civil liberties is to walk down the street safely without being the victim of a serious crime. If DNA and CCTV means that more rapists, murderers and muggers are in prison, that enhances my freedoms rather than diminishing them.

I want to be clear from the outset that I am not in favour of the overuse and abuse of CCTV cameras. I do not agree, for example, with local authorities putting cameras into people’s bins to see what kind of rubbish they throw out, which is ludicrous. I am talking about using CCTV as a crime-fighting measure for identifying and prosecuting criminals. There are many reasons for further regulating CCTV; it has been suggested that the images are often of poor quality, that the cameras are costly to install and run and that they can be used for underhand purposes. I want to tackle all those concerns. We should not, however, be provoked into a knee-jerk reaction and, as a result, remove cameras, reduce their numbers or over-regulate their use, which would make them worthless. CCTV images are now often of high quality and have good time frames, and many pictures are now in colour. It is possible to see things from different angles using footage taken from different cameras.

A Scotland Yard study into the effectiveness of surveillance cameras revealed that almost every Scotland Yard murder inquiry uses CCTV footage as evidence. In 90 murder cases over one year, CCTV footage was used in 86 of the investigations, and senior officers said that it helped in of the 65 cases by capturing the murderer on film or the movements of suspects before or after an attack. Scotland Yard’s head of homicide, Simon Foy, said:

“CCTV plays a huge role in helping us investigate serious crime. I hope people can understand how important it is to our success in catching people who commit murder.”

In many areas, CCTV is watched live by monitoring teams who can call the police to the scene of a crime.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that CCTV evidence has had a big impact in reducing the number of contested prosecutions and, therefore, the cost to the criminal justice system?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and has pre-empted what I was about to say. In this age of austerity, we should be trying to find ways of reducing the cost of the criminal justice system, and as she rightly noted, CCTV is a key way of doing that.

Unless millions of police officers are stationed on every street corner, in every park and on every road, without CCTV those crimes would go unreported and often undetected. A prime example is that of the so-called “crossbow cannibal”, who was arrested on suspicion of murdering three prostitutes in my home city of Bradford, but only because he was caught on CCTV. Without CCTV, that arrest would never have been made. We would never have been able to identify the 7 July bombers without the CCTV footage from the tube because the police would have been unable to track their movements on that day.

Let us look at the cost-effectiveness of CCTV. The average running cost of a CCTV system with 150 cameras is about £320,000 a year, and on average 3,000 events are monitored every year by each system, giving an average cost of about £100 per incident. It seems to me that that is good value for money in this age of austerity. It seems even better value when we consider that a 12-month experimental study in Burnley showed a 28% reduction in crime in an area with CCTV, compared to a 10% increase in crime in an area that relied solely on policing. Therefore, CCTV is not only cost-effective, but effective in reducing crime in the real world. An initiative in my constituency in west Yorkshire set up a CCTV camera, which cost only a few thousand pounds, and Crimestoppers has stated that the number of arrests and charges has increased by 40% as a result, so its cost-effectiveness has been proved beyond doubt.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, CCTV is a valuable tool not only for the police, but for the courts. It is an invaluable tool on two levels: for convicting the perpetrators of crimes; and for acquitting those who have not committed a crime. CCTV footage provides conclusive and unbiased evidence, void of anyone’s spin or mistaken recollection. When viewed by defendants and their solicitors, footage often leads to a change of plea, from not guilty to guilty. That invariably happens in cases in which defendants were drunk or on drugs when they committed an offence and could not recall it. That not only saves the courts time and money, as the hon. Lady suggested, but prevents witnesses having to give evidence in court, which is often a stressful and unpleasant experience. CCTV prevented Richard Whelan’s girlfriend from having to testify against his murderer, Anthony Joseph, who brutally stabbed Richard on a bus when he was attempting to defend her. That attack was caught on camera and Joseph, a paranoid schizophrenic, was jailed.

Equally, CCTV can prove that someone has been wrongly accused of committing a crime, as was the case with Edmund Taylor, who was convicted of dangerous driving. His conviction was quashed on appeal, when CCTV footage showed that a white man had committed the offence—Mr Taylor was black. Similarly, Garry Wood was cleared of raping Natalie Jefferson after police studied CCTV footage of his movements on the night of the rape and realised that he had not committed the crime.

I want to touch on the automatic number plate recognition scheme because it was through its use, and that alone, that the murderers of PC Sharon Beshenivsky were caught. Without an ANPR system around Bradford, those people would never have been brought to justice. On 18 November 2005, PC Beshenivsky was shot and killed during a robbery in Bradford. The CCTV network was linked in to an ANPR system and was able to identify the getaway car and track its movements. Because of that system, the police realised that the people responsible were in London, virtually before those people knew it themselves, and six suspects were arrested. At the system’s launch in May, Chief Superintendent Geoff Dodd of West Yorkshire police called it

“a revolutionary tool in detecting crime”.

Many of my constituents are sick to the back teeth of drivers who do not have insurance, and who not only put other people at risk, but cause them unnecessary expense. Many of my constituents think that it is absolutely fantastic that the police can use ANPR to stop people who drive without insurance, and can confiscate the cars. I would not want anybody to try to stop the police doing that.

I am obviously interested to know what the Minister thinks of CCTV. In 2007, he was calling for more CCTV cameras in his then constituency of Hornchurch. On his website he stated:

“I think CCTV would help to make an important difference in supporting the local police. It will also make clear to those intent on causing crime in Elm Park that their images will be recorded, increasing the likelihood that they will be identified, prosecuted and punished for their offences.”

I could not agree more. I absolutely endorse everything that the Minister said then, and hope that he still feels the same.