Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Johnson

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members have implied that, in essence, the measure was a silver bullet and the solution, but that absolutely was not the case. The courts have challenged relocation in individual cases, and it is therefore important for us to reflect on that in the management of those individuals.

As my colleague the Home Secretary has made clear, TPIMs are only one weapon in our fight against extremism and terrorism. They are used only in exceptional circumstances as part of measures designed to disrupt a person’s activities—in other words, part of the bigger picture that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) mentioned. Alongside TPIMs, the Government provided additional funding of tens of millions of pounds a year to the Security Service and the police, substantially increasing their surveillance and counter-terrorism capabilities. In addition to TPIMs, a range of tough measures are in place to disrupt the activities of people engaged in terrorist activities, and prevent people from becoming radicalised.

We are using the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals whom we believe want to travel abroad to take part in terrorist and extremist activity, and who on their return would pose a threat to this country. We have strong controls in place at British ports, and the National Border Targeting Centre is able to check advance passenger information provided by carriers, and identify any known persons of interest who intend to travel. We have the power to exclude extremists and preachers of hate from coming to this country, and where necessary we may consider the use of other disruptive powers, including deprivation of British citizenship where an individual is a dual national and the Home Secretary determines that such action is conducive to the public good.

[Alan Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way briefly as I have only a couple of minutes.

[Alan Johnson]

I am grateful; the hon. Gentleman has a couple of minutes to tell Parliament what it needs to know. In the judgment of the Home Secretary, which of the six people who will be released from their TPIMs, and who were considered so dangerous that they needed to have those restrictive measures, still pose a security threat?

[James Brokenshire]

As the Home Secretary made clear, and as I said in my contribution this afternoon, the police and the Security Service have stated that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk associated with those individuals. The right hon. Gentleman, and others, have sought to make a point about the risk assessments. Those have been made but they are an operational matter for the police and the Security Service. It would seem that right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to have information disclosed on the Floor of the House that could make it that much harder for the police and the Security Service to do their job of protecting this country.

The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides for the appointment of an independent reviewer of the operation of that Act, and for that reviewer to report annually on the outcome of that review. David Anderson has been appointed to perform that function and reviews all TPIM cases. No doubt he will cover those coming off their TPIMs in his annual report.

We are returning dangerous foreign nationals who have no right to be here back to their home countries through deportation with assurances, just as we did with Abu Qatada last July—something the previous Labour Government failed to do. We are working to do more than ever to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. I am clear that the best place for a terrorist is in a cell, and those who endanger lives and threaten our national security deserve to receive long sentences. Unlike under the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentences, under new proposals, criminals convicted of serious terrorism offences and who receive a determinate sentence will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentences without any assessment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Johnson

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I just wish to check on the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about that case. I believe he said that this individual had been convicted. As he knows, under the arrangements—I think that there is agreement on this point—where there is a conviction, the DNA would be retained indefinitely.

[Alan Johnson]

I did not say that this individual had been convicted. He had been arrested but not charged of a non-serious offence and his DNA remained on the database. The Minister has all these statistics—the Home Office provided me with them, so it can provide him with them too.

[Alan Johnson]

I will not concede that argument because, as I said at the beginning, our job, in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights judgment, was to come up with something that is necessary and proportionate. There has to be a logic to this; we cannot have blanket and indiscriminate retention of DNA. Because that is the requirement on us, we need to examine and research, as the Home Office and others have done, the hazard curve for those arrested but not convicted—that is the whole nature of this debate. The Government are not proposing to not keep the DNA of those arrested but not convicted, they are not proposing to take the DNA on conviction and they are not proposing to take the DNA when someone is charged. They are taking the DNA of those arrested but not convicted—innocent—for a reason; they think that it should be kept for three years, with various permutations and lots of complications. Labour Members say that six years is the correct level.

I shall give a final example, because it is important to translate all this into people rather than statistics. In June 2009, Gary Grubb attacked two women while working temporarily in Middlesbrough, indecently assaulting them both and then fleeing for South Africa. However, a DNA sample from the crime scene matched a sample placed on the national DNA database after he was arrested but not convicted for drink-driving—a non-serious offence—in 2006. He was arrested when he tried to re-enter the UK in 2010 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He would be free today if the proposals in this Bill had been in force at the time.

Let me say to Members on the Government Benches that lots of these cases will crop up in the future and this will come back to haunt them if they decide to support what is in this Bill today. The Government are ignoring these and the many other examples of the folly of their dogmatic approach. Their attempt to take the moral high ground consists of trotting out a mantra about these measures being consistent with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That would be the case only if DNA were taken on conviction. Everybody is innocent when it is checked against previous crime scenes—there is nothing wrong with that, apparently—and the collective view is that DNA should be maintained to match against future crime scenes for a limited period. The Government do not even seek to return to the situation pre-2003, when DNA was taken upon someone’s being charged, not upon their being arrested. The Government will continue to take DNA upon arrest, when every person from whom a sample is taken will be innocent. They now propose, under amendment 5, to introduce a convoluted, bureaucratic system to retain the DNA of innocent people where

“the retention of the material is necessary to assist in the prevention or detection of crime.”

So someone is innocent until proven guilty, unless they are innocent of a serious offence, in which case they will have their DNA retained under a procedure that is bureaucratic, convoluted and complex, and that the police are unlikely to use, as with the Scottish extension.

We are now to have the gloriously named “biometric commissioner”. I remember when my son was small buying him a bionic man—Steve Austin was “the bionic man”—and we now have the biometric commissioner. At best, he will have to open a file for each of the 17,000 suspected rapists, and the police will have to put forward a case in respect of every one of those 17,000 suspected rapists that Rape Crisis says are likely to be wiped off the DNA database. At worst, as Rape Crisis fears, those 17,000 profiles, or a large proportion of them, will be wiped.

Although all the evidence points to the need to adopt this amendment, we all need to accept that much of the research is based on projection. We do not have the six years of actual evidence required to make a proper assessment, and if we carry the Bill unamended we never will. DNA profiles for those arrested but not charged or convicted that are more than three years old will be wiped, never to be retrieved. Let us accept the amendment so that the proper assessment of all the evidence, when we have six years’ worth of it, can take place in a few years’ time. We can go from six years down to three, but we will never be able to go from three years up to six, which is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has implored the Government—they might be right about the three-year limit, although we doubt it, and it might even be necessary to have a limit of four or five years—to wait until we have evidence rather than projections. Is that not eminently sensible, given that we are dealing with life and death and issues that are so pertinent to criminal justice and so important to our constituents?

The role of the Home Office for the past 229 years of its existence has been to weigh the rights of the individual against the needs of society as a whole. For the Government to pursue their retention policy against all the available evidence and in the teeth of fierce opposition from the police, who will be restricted in their ability to catch criminals, and in defiance of the sensible alternative of reviewing the situation when more reliable evidence is available, is a huge, avoidable and potentially catastrophic error that they will live to regret.

[James Brokenshire]

One point of agreement between me and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) is that I think that this is a question of balancing collective protection and individual freedom. We can agree on that much, but in some ways the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the other end of the telescope. Through the indefinite retention regime that was the hallmark of the previous Labour Government, he seeks to retain data and information for as long as possible in case it becomes useful. I think he was accusing us of being dogmatic on this point in some ways, but he and his right hon. and hon. Friends come at it from the perspective that they want indefinite retention of everyone’s DNA for as long as possible. Our starting point is different. Our concept is that of innocent until proven guilty, so we come at this from a different direction.

I shall address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s direct points, but, as this is a wide-ranging group of amendments, it might assist the House if I explain the Government’s amendments before responding to those tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a key issue—the retention of the DNA of those convicted of offences, with which I absolutely agree. Some 75% of those who were engaged in the rioting—or, at least, those who were brought before the courts—had committed prior offences. That clearly makes the point that there is a need to put the DNA of those who are guilty of crimes on the database, rather than keeping those who are innocent of any crime on it, which is the approach of the Opposition and was the approach of the previous Government. The Labour party persists in its approach of keeping the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people for many years, no matter what those people have been accused of and no matter how little evidence was ever uncovered in relation to them.

It is worth putting these issues into context. Of course, DNA is important. I fully recognise the scientific breakthrough of being able to take DNA to search against the database and, most importantly, to retain crime scene DNA evidence in a cold case database against which matches can be made. However, the collection of DNA is part of a process of investigation and is not a panacea in itself. I think that if the Labour party could have its way, it would continue with the previous approach of simply trying to put more and more data on the database regardless of people’s guilt or innocence. However, it is interesting to look at what has been the result of adding many more people on to the database. In 2004-05, 2.8 million people were on the national DNA database and in 2009-10, the figure was 4.8 million people. Now, let us look at the number of detections in those years. In 2004-05 there were 35,605 and in 2009-10 there were 32,552, so when there were 2 million more people on the database, there were 3,000 fewer detections. I therefore challenge the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that the more people’s DNA is on the database, the more effective it is. The figures do not necessarily equate in that way, as the historic evidence shows.

[Alan Johnson]

The total number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available fell by 11% between 2003-04 and 2008-09—that is what the Minister basically just told us—but over the same five-year period, police recorded crime fell by 17.1%. So there was an 11% reduction in DNA detections and a 17.1% reduction in recorded crime. Those are the figures that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) tried to fiddle in the previous Parliament. Burglary was down 29%, vehicle crime was down 40% and criminal damage was down 23%—so much for fewer cases being solved through DNA.

[James Brokenshire]

As a proportion of total detections, DNA detections have remained pretty static. If the right hon. Gentleman is right that the figures I gave were all down to there being less crime—I think that is his argument—what he said about DNA detections would not be the case. Some 2 million extra people have been put on to the database and if hon. Members are suggesting that that change has been positive and would generate many more detections, I am afraid to say that that is not borne out by the evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That point was made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, but I pray in aid Professor Fraser’s report. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman says that the terms of reference were not wide enough and that it is not appropriate to rely on the report, but those terms of reference took account of available information and experience elsewhere when the appropriateness of the Scottish system was considered. Indeed, it was the right hon. Gentleman’s colleague in the other place, Lord Bach, who said:

“In determining the appropriateness of the current legislation, Professor Fraser considered data on reoffending rates and conducted a wide consultation. He did not uncover any evidence to suggest that this approach to retention has caused any detriment to the detection of serious crime in Scotland.”

I therefore think it is appropriate to look to Professor Fraser’s investigation, as he is a learned expert on forensics, rather than simply trying to skate over and ignore it as the right hon. Gentleman appears to be doing.

[Alan Johnson]

According to the evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s Department gave to the Home Affairs Committee,

“It has been suggested that the research carried out into the Scottish system (by Professor Fraser) did not uncover any evidence to suggest that the Scottish approach to retention had caused any detriment to the detection of…crime…However, that is to misunderstand this research which did not assess whether alternative systems would have been more effective. It was also unable to review how many serious crimes went undetected as the relevant DNA profiles had been deleted and, therefore, was not in a position to conclude whether there was any detriment to the detection of serious crime.”

That is the hon. Gentleman’s Department’s evidence to the Select Committee—collapse of stout party.

[James Brokenshire]

Again, I would point to the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who obviously wrote the letter saying that Professor Fraser’s report came to the conclusion that there was no detriment to the detection of serious crime. As I have highlighted, Professor Fraser’s report was wide-ranging in scope. Needless to say, we have a difference of view on this important point.