Asylum Support Contracts

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am. That leaves us 34 minutes. There are seven people standing. The arithmetic is straightforward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this incredibly important debate. My constituency has the highest concentration of asylum seekers anywhere in the United Kingdom. In December 2015, we had 1,042 asylum seekers, which is way in excess of the cluster limit. The Minister may say that the number has been reduced by some small amount, but the figures are clear. In some communities, there is an asylum seeker for every 18 residents, and I hope the Minister will take that fact on board.

I am terrifically proud of Middlesbrough’s long history of compassion and support. We have Justice First, the Churches—Methodist Action, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church—and other faith groups, charities and individuals. A fantastic network of love and compassion underpins all that work, and I am delighted to celebrate it.

It was the red doors issue that brought this matter into focus. While I do not criticise Andrew Norfolk of The Times for his excellent piece of work that brought the issue into the light, I do not agree that the local contractor, Jomast, deliberately set out to mark the properties occupied by those seeking sanctuary, but it was clearly known to the contractor. They were its properties and it painted the doors red, so for it to plead ignorance of the issue is indicative of the arrogance that characterises how it goes about its business. However, it was not deliberate so let us paint the doors in other colours and move on.

G4S is the main contactor in my region. It has no record of running housing contracts and yet it still got the contract. The local subcontractor, Stuart Monk of Jomast, then had them over a barrel. He held out for the best deal that he could possibly extract, because he had the properties and G4S did not, and he has made a mint. G4S says it does not make any money out of the contract. Well, diddums. If it does not like it, let us bring the contract to an end and get G4S out of the picture as quickly as possible. It has demonstrated that it should be nowhere near Government public service business. Just look at what it did in our prisons. We only have to cast our minds back to the dreadful fraud it perpetrated on the taxpayer over the prisoner tagging contract. It is not a fit and proper company and the sooner it is out of our national life, the better.

The arrogance and contempt that characterises so much of G4S’s behaviour was never more evident than when John Whitwam, a managing director, recently appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. He quite deliberately tried to leave the Committee with the impression that the local authority was totally engaged throughout the process, but that is simply not true. Indeed, the problem is that local authorities have no standing in the business of housing asylum seekers and have been cut out of the loop. Following Mr Whitwam’s suggestion that local authorities are somehow involved in the approval and inspection of properties, I trust that the Minister will speak to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee because I think that Parliament was grossly misled and I hope that action follows.

What on earth are we doing as a country? Why do the Government think that the right thing to do in response to a humanitarian crisis is to create a structure that is all about making money—profits created by handing over taxpayers’ money to private companies? There is something wrong here. Of course, we want to carry on providing succour and support for our sisters and brothers, but the Government simply abuse our good nature. That support and sanctuary should come with a commitment to support the local services that have to respond. My town has been hammered by the lunacy of austerity. My local authority has suffered cut after cut, so that I am now questioning whether it can even begin to discharge the barest of statutory functions.

In addition, what do we learn today on the back of the abolition of the revenue support grant, which will cripple communities up and down the country? In The Guardian this morning it is laid bare: again, the Tory Government punish Labour councils and give support to their Tory boroughs. The Government’s behaviour is partial, inequitable, grossly discriminatory and ill-becoming a party that purports to govern for the entire country. It is beneath the shires and City bankers to trouble themselves with such matters—leave it to the northerners, the Scots and the Welsh—because those in their cosy world do not want to be troubled.

It will escape no one’s attention that in the Prime Minister’s constituency we will not find a single person seeking sanctuary, even though areas such as his receive the favourable local government finance settlement transitional relief, while areas that take asylum seekers get nothing at all. The unfairness is stark. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s mother should write him a letter. Understandably, the Tories will say, “Look to the regions, look to the Labour heartlands. They won’t protest, they won’t complain, so we can get away with it.” Therein lies the dilemma.

We are proud of our compassion and of the welcome given to strangers in our communities—many of us and the people we represent have been strangers too. We try to recognise our good fortune and to be generous to those who have not been so fortunate. Yes, we will not walk by on the other side of the road and we will try to treat people as we would like to be treated ourselves, but we look to the Government to behave in a patriotic, fair and balanced way. That means that we respond generously as a nation and we do not leave it only to those parts of our country that are already facing immensely difficult times.

We look proudly at our history as a nation. We are rightly marking the 71st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We rightly remember the Kindertransport of the 1930s as a positive response to the crisis faced by thousands of children throughout Europe. It therefore pains me to hear the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland describing the modern-day Kindertransportees as a “bunch of migrants”. I want better from our country’s Prime Minister and so do millions of our fellow citizens. I am afraid that that laid bare the true thinking of this cruel and pernicious Government.

If every town and city in the United Kingdom welcomed 5% of the distressed, vulnerable and persecuted people that my wonderful town of Middlesbrough does, no one would even notice that they were here. What happens instead? The whole exercise has been turned into a profit-making, value-extracting one for the likes of Stuart Monk and his company Jomast to make millions of pounds of profit from.

The Minister is a decent man and I look forward to further discussions with him about how things might be progressed. However, I met with him in November 2014 and many of the issues that are being raised now were raised with him then. I regret to note that absolutely no progress has been made since. I hope that he takes on board the comments of hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom today and accedes to the request for a formal review of a rotten contract. Let us start behaving properly.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call Stuart McDonald, I advise the Minister that the proposer of the motion does not require the two minutes or so at the end of the debate.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on putting before the House a simple and straightforward motion. This difficult and complicated issue involves sovereignty, international crime and the future of the European Union, so it is right that elected Members—even those of us who do not agree with the shadow Home Secretary—can vote on such a straightforward motion.

If the debate was just about the improvements that the Government have made to the European arrest warrant, it might be possible to vote for it, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) pointed out, many of those improvements do not go as far as they should. If this was simply a matter of the speed of getting through the judicial process, it would be easy to vote for it, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). But it goes much deeper than that. There are justices and injustices involved.

I do not know how to balance the injustices suffered by some people against the undoubted benefits derived from the European arrest warrant. How do we say to Symeou, Dark, Hainsworth, the Kings, Dines and other people who have suffered injustices, “Your injustice under the European arrest warrant is worth going through because it enables us to bring other criminals to court more quickly”? We cannot balance things that way. If we could, I would be interested to know what metric could be used.

The basic issue is not the speed of justice or improvements to the EAW. It is the fact that by entering the European arrest warrant system, we are giving recognition to courts throughout the European Union and passing sovereignty over to the European Court of Justice. To anybody who has read the accession documents just on Croatia—the same comments could be applied to Romania, Bulgaria and a number of other European countries—it is almost beyond dispute that those countries do not have a criminal justice system like ours. Theirs is subject to corruption and political interference, yet we are saying that the European arrest warrant procedure agreed in those countries will be recognised and followed through in this country.

I do not see how we can honour what has been honoured in this country for nearly 800 years—habeas corpus—when we allow British citizens to be taken by foreign courts that are subject to political interference and corruption, and locked up without the evidence being produced.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is not as though nothing is being done about that. The group of states against corruption, of which the UK is a very strong member, is doing work on these very issues—on corruption in courts and in Parliaments. It is going through the countries that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, reporting on these issues, highlighting them and pressing the Governments.

[Graham Stringer]

That is a fair point, but anyone who had been locked up in Romania or Croatia would not be pleased to hear that the situation will improve at some time in the future. The debate is among British politicians who are pragmatic; the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary were powerful, pragmatic arguments about how there would be immediate benefit, but that is not the argument going on in the rest of the European Union.

Like many of the changes in the European Union, acceptance of the European arrest warrant is seen as a way of furthering integration. We are not entering into arrangements for the European prosecutor’s role, but I can almost guarantee—as much as one can guarantee anything in future—that in four, five, six or seven years’ time we will have adopted the European arrest warrant, this country will be in Eurojust and it will not look right if we are not in the European prosecutor system. We may well get a decision from the European Court of Justice that says, in effect, that we have to be in the European prosecutor system.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, through the use of the European arrest warrant, British citizens could be extradited to face charges under the European public prosecutor’s office anyway if prosecuted for those charges?

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that might be one of the arguments used to drag us into the process. The European Union is a thin-end-of-the-wedge organisation; once it has started, it will move on to further integration.

The right hon. Member for Ashford made a powerful case, as have many Members, for dealing with international crime and keeping terrorism out of the country, which we all want—there is nobody in the House who does not want to deal with international terrorism—but what we have with the European arrest warrant is Hobson’s choice: we must either take what is put before us or have a poorer system, in pragmatic terms, in the short term. If the Government are serious about renegotiating our position in Europe, they should not be giving up negotiating positions like this. We should be asking for a better position, rather than saying, “Yes, we’ll go along with that because there is nothing else available.”

The right hon. Member for Ashford also made the point that many of our crime-fighting agencies, such as the police and the security services, like the European arrest warrant. They do not always follow the rules themselves, but our security services have for some time preferred to have terrorists in London, rather than elsewhere, so that they can watch them. I think that is a bad policy, but I mention it because I do not think that we should always take at face value what is said by police forces and the security services.

I will finish with a powerful point made by the shadow Home Secretary in the previous debate that I think is worthy of an answer. She said that the fact that there have been miscarriages of justice under the European arrest warrant does not mean that we should get rid of it. We do not remove the police’s power of arrest just because they sometimes abuse it. That is absolutely right, but it does not mean that, when opting into something, we should not look for something better than what we are getting from the European arrest warrant.

Criminal Law

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am not saying that. I suggest to my hon. Friend that I have been very clear about this matter. The Government have negotiated with the European Commission, and with other member states, a package of measures for us to opt back in to. We believe that those law and order measures are necessary for ensuring that our law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to catch criminals and to deal with matters of justice, which is why we have put before the House legislative measures that will enable United Kingdom law to accord with that package of 35 measures.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has dug herself into a hole. She will not allow the House to decide on the very important issue of the European arrest warrant. Why does she not simply support the procedural motion so that she can go away, have a think, and then come back and allow the House to vote on whether it wants to enter into the European arrest warrant or not?

[Mrs May]

The House said absolutely clearly that it wanted to debate the European arrest warrant, and we have been debating the European arrest warrant. I am very happy to speak about the issue, and I am sure that other Members wish to speak about it as well. I understand that, if the Question put by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is agreed to, the debate will be ended in relation to the European arrest warrant, and the debate will be ended in relation to the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

As my hon. Friend knows, he and I have been discussing this issue for many months. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic work he has done to make progress on the issue. He knows that I support many of the points that he makes in his private Member’s Bill.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

T5. A change to the royal charter on the press requires a two-thirds majority, so some hon. Members’ votes will have twice the weight of those of other hon. Members. Will the Secretary of State put this constitutional innovation to a vote in this House?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman must have missed the 11 debates we have had on that. There is all-party support for the way we are going forward. May I correct him slightly? It is not just a two thirds majority of both Houses, but unanimous agreement of the regulatory body that is required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

We are looking into the compulsory regulation of private investigators, which would apply to private investigators involved in covert surveillance. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we expect to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

T5. Last year, the number of inspections to enforce the minimum wage fell to half what it was in the final year of the last Government. Why?

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

That is really a matter for the Treasury, but I think I know where—[Interruption.] Let me just answer the question. I think I know where the hon. Gentleman is going with this. I have checked these matters carefully. If we compare the whole period of the last Labour Government, from when the national minimum wage was introduced, with the whole period of this Government, we can see that this Government have been prosecuting at a slightly faster rate. However, we are not doing it fast enough. We have set up a number of taskforces, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), which is taking significant action on these matters and will continue to do so.

Forensic Science Service

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

I will go through the Committee’s case—hopefully reasonably forensically—but one of the concerns we express is our worry that this could lead, in the worst cases, to miscarriages of justice. At the time the Government made their announcement, the FSS’s operating losses were claimed to be about £2 million a month and the projected shrinking of forensic markets was cited as the reason for the decision.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, does he agree that one of the appalling things about the Government’s decision was that there was no consultation? There were discussions afterwards about how to wind down the FSS, but no consultation either to look at the finances or, in particular, to determine what impact that would have on the science base.

[Andrew Miller]

I not only agree with my hon. Friend, who plays a sterling role in the Committee, but think that the Government, had they undertaken the kind of consultation he envisages, would have made savings by approaching the problem in a different way. There was undoubtedly a problem, because the GovCo would technically have been trading illegally if it had carried on trading at a loss, but for reasons I will set out there were solutions to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller]

I agree. The important point is to get things right, and I hope to demonstrate that that is what the Committee achieved in its recommendations. Indeed, the Government seem to have acted on one of the substantial recommendations, and we welcome that.

Police internal spend on forensics generally increased between 2005 and 2011, but although we have had explanations, such as increased efficiencies, reduced demand, competition and driving down prices, for the decrease in external spend, we have not been able to obtain from the Government a satisfactory explanation either for the increase in internal spend or of how the money was spent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) had a very unsatisfactory response to a series of freedom of information requests, and I raised that with the Minister on 19 December 2011. In answer to my question about whether it would be reasonable to add together revenue and capital to make sense of the figures that the police forces gave us, he rightly said that that would be mixing apples with pears—but that is exactly what the Metropolitan police did in response to my hon. Friend’s inquiry.

Let me put on the record what the Scrutiny Unit had to say about the period covered by the FOI requests. During that period only £10.6 million in total was classified as capital, and that was only by fewer than half the police authorities that provided data. That accounts for less than 2% of total expenditure, but the low level of expenditure might be down partly to how capital expenditure is recorded. The Scrutiny Unit notes, for example, that the Met police stated:

“The budgets for forensic science are revenue budgets and any expenditure incurred would have been through these revenue budgets. This includes any equipment purchases or building works.”

That is not in line with normal accounting practice, whereby expenditure over a pre-determined level on items with a lifespan of more than one year is classified as capital expenditure. That normally covers items such as building works and expensive laboratory equipment, so we agree with the Minister about not mixing apples with pears.

It remains the case, however, that there is no overall control of forensic budgets, and I think the Committee proves beyond doubt that the Government’s case remains seriously damaged. This situation also demonstrates the cavalier attitude of police authorities to a reasonable request from an hon. Member making an FOI inquiry.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is laying out the ambiguities in the finances, but on the two deep issues as the police changed from an FSS customer to a competitor: first, some bodies are not accredited to the right level in forensic science; secondly, the experience from the United States of America is that when the police do their own forensic work they end up with a conflict of interest.

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend’s first observation takes us right back to the first intervention that I took, on the risk of miscarriages of justice. His second point is interesting. Some laboratories that are currently up and running do not meet the standards that the regulator wants, and police authorities that have thought about that have started to bring some of the resources together in house. If we are not careful we will reinvent the FSS, and find that we have wasted a huge amount of money in the meantime.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that every senior official of the Home Office is required to read that New Scientist article, because, first, it would do them good to read some science, and secondly, it underlines an important point about the quest for justice that this should be all about.

Looking forward, one of our key recommendations was that the forensics market must be stabilised. Police in-sourcing must be regulated to ensure that there is a competitive market for remaining providers; otherwise, the UK’s forensic science capabilities could be further damaged.

We also considered the implications of closing the FSS in terms of the risks to the skills base available to the criminal justice system. Our primary concern was whether forensic analysis would be taking place in unaccredited laboratories. Forensic services provided to police forces by the FSS and private companies had to be accredited to the standard of ISO 17025, but police laboratories do not have to be so accredited, and that seems to be an anomaly. That standard assesses the competence of an individual scientist and the organisation in which he or she works, as well as the validity of methods used and impartiality. Adherence to the standard is therefore crucial in maintaining the confidence of the courts and the public in the scientific evidence used in criminal cases.

We concluded that transferring work from the FSS to an unaccredited laboratory would pose significant and unacceptable risks to the operation of criminal justice. We specifically recommended that the forensic science regulator should be given statutory powers to enforce compliance with quality standards, and we remain disappointed that the Home Office has not committed to that. To the regulator’s credit, however, since our report was published we have not heard of any work being transferred to unaccredited environments.

The FSS has maintained an archive of materials, case files and notes—a rich resource that has proved valuable in cold case reviews and investigations of miscarriages of justice. To give a flavour of the scale, the FSS estimated that in May 2011 its archive held 1.78 million case files. We were deeply concerned about the uncertain future of the FSS’s archive, and strongly considered that it should not be fragmented, whatever the future of the organisation. I am pleased to say that the Government agreed with that recommendation. This underlines the fact that both Governments should have dealt with the GovCo’s accounts in a different way. About 21 staff will maintain the archive, and the Government’s estimated running costs are stated to be approximately £2 million a year. It would not be appropriate to put on a side wager with the Minister, but I predict that that cost will inexorably rise significantly, because the bigger the archive gets and the more complex the science gets, the more expensive a project this will become, albeit one that we ought to maintain in the interests of justice.

The long-term future of the archive remains uncertain. There are still several archive-related activities previously undertaken by the FSS that must be picked up elsewhere. In particular, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates alleged miscarriages of justice, will need in future to pay a private forensic service provider for the services previously provided free of charge by the FSS. I would be interested to know what assessment has been made of the impact of these changes. This again illustrates my point about the fact that the issue crosses Government departmental boundaries.

Another facet of our inquiry was to examine the impact of closing the FSS on forensic research and development in the UK. The FSS spent £3 million to £4 million a year on R and D. Private sector players also spend on R and D, but often more towards the development end. Basic forensic science research in universities and other institutions has long struggled for funds, and this area has not been supported by the research councils with the degree of priority that it deserves. We therefore recommended that the Home Office and research councils develop a new national research budget for forensic science. Alas, while there have been some soothing noises, we have not yet seen any real commitments. If this is not the job of the research councils or the Home Office, then whose responsibility is it—or are we just going to leave it in the air?

Last but not least, the strength of any organisation is its people. That is why we took a particular interest in what would happen to the highly skilled forensic scientists facing redundancy. This country is a world leader in the field, having pioneered DNA forensic technologies, for example. One does not become a forensic scientist overnight; it takes years of training and experience. Much of the UK’s intellectual wealth in this area resides within FSS scientists, and once it is lost, I fear that it will not be easily regained. We recommended that transfer of FSS staff to other forensic service providers be conducted under TUPE regulations, which provide the necessary employment protections. Reflecting our concern that forensics expertise may be lost altogether, we were keen for forensic scientists to be retained within the profession and within the UK.

The FSS had over 1,000 staff, about 840 of whom have left since December 2010. Unfortunately, while 103 staff have moved via TUPE to the Metropolitan police service and another 11 staff will move via TUPE to Government agencies, no staff have transferred to other forensic service providers via TUPE. Furthermore, because the FSS is a GovCo rather than a non-departmental public body, FSS staff have thus far been unable to access internal civil service vacancies. I am awaiting a response from the Government on this point, having written to the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 9 February.

Adding this all together, we are talking about the loss of skills to the UK; the damage to the UK’s reputation from closing a world-class service; the cost of running the archive; the fact that what the Government estimated to be a £2 million per month loss was in fact £1 million; the lack of understanding of expenditure in this important area and of the way in which it spills over to other Departments; and the impact on justice. That combination of factors makes this matter far too important to be dealt with on an estimates day, and I regret that this debate cannot take place on a votable motion.

The picture is looking bleak overall. Last week the FSS suggested that the vast majority—up to 80%—of forensic scientists from the FSS have left the industry, with an even larger percentage, closer to 90%, of research and development scientists moving to a different sector. Although there are not yet any definitive data, it appears that the UK is losing that intellectual wealth. We often talk about the brain drain in science. This could be a mass exodus of talent.

I hope that Members will agree that our inquiry into the Forensic Science Service was both necessary and timely. Before I conclude, it is worth mentioning that we put on the record criticisms of the way in which the FSS has been handled by both the previous Government and the current Government. What I would like to see from the Government is a proper well-considered strategy for forensic science in the UK. It is important that this matter be addressed well before the imposition of police and crime commissioners. It is also imperative that the strategy be based on the delivery of justice, not just on the interests of the police as a customer, as important as those are.

[Graham Stringer]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful speech on behalf of the Select Committee. He mentioned justice. I advise everybody in the Chamber to read the oral evidence that Dr Tully gave the Committee, in which she made it absolutely clear that there will be cold cases, and perhaps current cases, in which murderers and rapists get off free because of the changes that have been made.

[Andrew Miller]

I repeat what was going to be my final point. It is imperative that the strategy be based on the delivery of justice, not just on the interests of the police, important as those are. I noticed the Minister nodding at that point; I am sure that it is one on which he and I would agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

That sounds like a perfectly sensible idea.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman referred to what I said earlier, and I should like to clarify two points. First, the private sector does an extremely good job on many occasions. It has sped up DNA analysis, and it has improved things where there is a regular scientific progress to go through.

Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman reads the evidence, he will see that there is likely to be a problem with the interrogation of the database. That service of the FSS is likely to disappear for ever. That was why some of the evidence given to the Committee indicated very strongly that cold cases would not be solved and that in current cases guilty people would go free.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that at all, but I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to give his view.

Private companies already provide 35% of forensic services to the criminal justice system. To counter points that Opposition Members have made about a potential conflict of interest in the police analysing forensic evidence, I point out that there are already numerous examples of constabularies up and down the country being responsible for analysing forensic evidence such as footprints, fingerprints and the like. They farm out some areas of forensic science, but there is no suggestion that there have not been numerous examples of the police analysing evidence themselves. I see no reason why we should fear impropriety.

The archives will be retained, which is right. It is also right that staff are being moved prior to the controlled shutdown of the FSS and that work is being safely transferred. I note with some interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Keir Starmer, who I believe was appointed by the Labour Government, remains satisfied that the closure is orderly and that things can be properly managed. The financial service regulator has also—

UK Border Force

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The matter related to the operation of border security controls, which is a matter for the Home Office.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am appalled that the Home Secretary set up a pilot at Manchester airport and did not know she had done so. That is extraordinary. Will she now answer without any ambiguity the question that has been asked four or five times: did information come from those pilot schemes into her or any other Minister’s office in the Home Office—yes or no?

[Mrs May]

As I have made clear, an evaluation of the pilot was going to take place at the end of the study, so that we could look at how it was operating and whether it was doing what it was expected to do. As I said in my statement, a decision was taken in the middle of September to extend the pilot until November in order to ensure that there was a fuller period of time to make the evaluation.

Identity Documents Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady is right that ID cards did not stop the bombing in Madrid, but does she accept that ID cards in Spain allowed the bombers to be traced from the fingerprints on the Atocha bombs?

[Mrs May]

The point that I am making is a simple one. The last Labour Government claimed that this would be—[Interruption.] A shadow Minister on the Front Bench says, “No. we didn’t.” As I had not said what I was going to say the Government had claimed, I suggest that she is being a little premature, or perhaps she is learning the ways of opposition rather earlier than some of her colleagues.

Many claims were made at various times about what the Government said. One of them was that the purpose of ID cards was to keep this country safe. The examples that I gave show that ID cards do not keep this country safe and are an intrusion into civil liberties. The imposition of an enormously expensive system, which will be a target for computer hackers, might result in greater identity fraud and would not make us safer, cannot be justified.

There is one other objection to such an extension of the state’s surveillance powers, and it is one that Labour never understood: it is unBritish. We are a freedom-loving people, and we recognise that intrusive government does not enhance our well-being or safety. In 2004 the Mayor of London promised to eat his ID card in front of

“whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”

I will not endorse civil disobedience, but Boris Johnson was expressing in his own inimitable way a discomfort even stronger than the discomfort to be had from eating an ID card. It is a discomfort born of a very healthy and British revulsion towards bossy, interfering, prying, wasteful and bullying Government. The coalition Government are determined to do things differently.

I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so vigorously for the abolition of ID cards. They include N02ID, Liberty, and the parties that make up the coalition Government. I am also grateful that Members in other parts of the House, including Labour Members, as indicated earlier, have had the integrity to speak out and vote against the issue and, in the case of Labour Members, against those on their Front Bench. Indeed, Labour Members may even find that voting for the abolition of ID cards curries favour with the next leader of their party although, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), none of the leadership candidates appears to have taken an interest in civil liberties.

Let me read to the House what the hon. Lady said during her impassioned speech against the Identity Cards Bill in 2005:

“As the evening has worn on, the Government Whips have subjected several of my colleagues to their usual rough-hew methods of persuasion. However, I say to colleagues in the closing minutes of the debate that voting against the Bill would be far from betraying our Government or going against Labour principles, because we would be doing the Government a great service. The more the public hear of the Bill, the less they like it, so the sooner it is stopped in its tracks, the better.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1248-9.]

I could not agree more.

I urge Members in all parts of the House to vote with their conscience, and to show their constituents that they stand for freedom, sound expenditure and common sense. The case for ID cards has not been made and will not be. It is an extension of state power that we cannot, in any sense, afford. I commend the Bill to the House.