Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Festus Akinbusoye, the inspirational police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire, has championed the use of addiction recovery programmes for low-risk offenders. Will the Minister tell the House what encouragement he is likely to give to police and crime commissioners to expand the role of such programmes? In particular, what encouragement will he give to Festus for his campaigns?

[Kit Malthouse]

I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the election of Commissioner Akinbusoye, who is one of the 29 Conservative police and crime commissioners—a full 70% of the available slots were secured by the Conservative party at the elections two weeks ago. My hon. Friend is quite right that police and crime commissioners have a critical role to play in offender management, given that more than half of crime is committed by reoffenders. At the severe end in particular, we know that, on average, all murderers in the country have committed at least seven previous offences. In my role as Policing Minister, I will work closely with police and crime commissioners to make sure that not only as chairs of their local criminal justice board but more widely they can play an important role in driving down reoffending.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Richard Fuller

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I would not go quite as far as saying it is an obsession, but there is certainly an interest in the Home Office in an authoritarian streak that we should be a little worried about. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) said about the benefits of regulation and a statutory underpinning in bringing forward efficiencies, my experience of regulation and statutory intervention in other markets is that they can have the effect of stifling innovation and putting to the back those who wish to challenge the modus operandi. My hon. Friend the Minister has come forward with a number of interesting stories, but he spoke with such zeal that perhaps he might help me when he responds to the debate by extolling the fact that the Home Office is strongly behind civil liberties in this country and sees no reason in the Bill for my concerns on that front.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

I see that my hon. Friend is prepared to intervene to reassure me.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am more than happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I come, I guess, from the point of view of the Thomas More philosophy. I think it was Thomas More who said:

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast”.

He then asked whether, if those laws were chopped down,

“you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?”

I understand my hon. Friend’s caution about greater regulation, but these are matters of sensitive intrusion into personal freedom by the state. In those circumstances, I believe they are warranted in the cause of freedom and, as I said earlier, to shield us from an over-mighty state; to regulate, not only for a well-tempered market for provision but so that everybody, when they are presented in court before 12 of their fellow citizens for adjudication on their crimes, knows that the evidence is presented to a quality and standard in which we all, including them, can have confidence.

[Richard Fuller]

How impressive it is to hear a Minister from the Front Bench quote so directly from the classics! We usually only hear that from either my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). To welcome the Minister to that pantheon of classic scholars, I congratulate him.

Maybe I can probe the Minister, or maybe provoke him, a little bit more on the Government’s view of the Bill. There seems to me to be some incongruity between exhortations about the independence of our police force from the interference or directions of the Home Secretary, which to a certain extent are part of the motivation for the Bill to achieve standardisation, and the use of a regulator to perform that enforcement through other means. Either we want the police to act independently and to make their own local decisions, or we wish to regulate and enforce them. I hope that how the Government, in providing a statutory underpinning to what is still, as all have observed today, a new—I guess that if “Quincy, M.E.” was in the 1970s, it is not that new—and rapidly progressing area of forensics, seek to balance the independence of the police with regulations can be considered in Committee. It is reassuring that there is such a broad consensus, including from the National Police Chiefs Council which indicates quite a wide range of support among our professional officers, that the statutory underpinning can be beneficial and a valuable aspect to bring forward.

The Minister and the promoter of the Bill will have heard the concerns raised initially by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the escalating costs of regulation. That is an issue I wish to return to as we look more broadly at the way in which regulators take their existing powers and, over time and usually with very little regard and oversight from this House, seek to extend their powers and expand their budgets. That is a matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and perhaps he can refer to it in his remarks.

Before that, I would like to draw the attention of the House to some thoughts on this matter in the US. In particular, I do not know if the Minister has seen the “Seton Hall Law Review” paper by Professor Simon Cole at the department of criminology at the University of California, in which he cites some of the general problems with American forensic science and talks about the issue of standards. He also mentions 14 other problems with forensics, as they emerge in the United States. I would be interested to know if the Minister or the hon. Member for Bristol North West will consider them as we move forward. For example:

“Forensic science is inadequately resourced by governments to do what is asked of it.”

We are looking today at what the costs may be of providing a statutory underpinning, but are police forces comfortable that they have sufficient resources?

“Forensic science is insufficiently connected to “mainstream” science or “national science assets.””

The Government have a very strong agenda on promoting their data strategy. They have a very strong agenda on research and development, with significant increases in public expenditure, support, research and development. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any thoughts, as we look at the Bill and at the future for forensic science and its application to law and justice, on whether the Government see a role for Government policy in that area.

Other problems were raised in “Seton Hall Law Review” paper:

“Forensic science testimony and reporting often over-claims—that is, overstates the probative value of the evidence.”

We have had a tour de force today about dead hands being transported from Germany, and about lebkuchen in forensic science—is that right? Not pfefferkuchen? [Interruption.] Okay, just to be clear on our kuchens. We must remember that one kuchen is not the same as the next. Is there a sense in which regulatory underpinning will enhance or evaluate whether forensic evidence is being used in a fair way in the judgment of cases?

The Minister himself spoke about the 12 citizens in a jury. If we are presented with forensic information about which we, if we are called on to a jury, have very little personal understanding, but it is presented with such authority and from a body that has a statutory underpinning, do we give more authority to that evidence than perhaps the evidence itself warrants? Have we investigated whether this doubling down on the potential value of forensic evidence is perhaps taking one strand of evidence and giving it a more forceful value in the deliberations of a jury? We must admit that, when we consider certain areas, we just look at the expert and think, “Well, they’re smarter than I am—they must be telling the truth. It’s a science and I don’t really understand it, but I know that I’ve seen it on TV.” In fact, in addition to “Quincy, M.E.”, there are 112 other TV shows and movies related to forensic science.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

Perhaps the Minister has watched all of them and can advise us.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman is raising, but he surely cannot believe that faulty or non-standard forensic evidence should be tolerated within the judicial system or that we should have no sense of regulation or, indeed, standards that need to be adhered to. Of course, he will also recognise that while forensic evidence, underpinned by statutory codes or otherwise, is entered into court as evidence, it is still subject to challenge, as is the skill, the technique and the science used, by defence counsel or, indeed, prosecution counsel, when it is entered in. It is part of our adversarial system of justice that, whatever evidence is put in is still open to challenge and is not taken as definitive, and it is then for the jury to make a judgment. If forensic evidence is offered and it is from an accredited organisation, which is reaching a certain standard or not, then we would hope that had some weight with the jury, but it does not absent it from challenge by the defendant’s counsel.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister makes some very sensible points in rejoinder. Let me see if I cannot unpick some of them, although generally I agree with him, if I may say so. The point that I am trying to make, in the context of evidence being under challenge in a court, is that if the audience—in this case, the jury—does not have specific scientific knowledge and has been in a culture where forensic science is seen as always on the side of the good guys and always trying to do the right thing, and it is presented with evidence that has the authority of a statutory underpinning of standards, we are doubling and trebling down on the scale of what a defence barrister has to do to overcome the presumptions of a jury that is saying, “Oh well, it’s evidence, it’s expertise. I’ve seen it on TV and therefore it must be right.” My concern is that, with this marginal move to provide a statutory underpinning, we are in a sense giving another stamp of validation that makes precisely the challenge of juries, which he is saying is so important, a little bit more difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

I will give way to the Minister and then respond to both hon. Members.

[Kit Malthouse]

To amplify that point, my hon. Friend and I may be drawing the line in a different place, but presumably he does believe that anybody who attends as a witness at court to present forensic evidence should have some kind of scientific qualification that is certified and held as a standard, and which therefore underpins the expertise they are giving? Presumably he does not think that anybody could walk in off the street and present forensic evidence. There needs to be such a regulatory hurdle, as it were, before they are allowed to appear as an expert witness. I guess what we are saying, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said, is that we would like to get to a situation where the question in people’s minds about whether these people are amateurs, cowboys or actually know what they are doing—on both sides, because do not forget the defence can present opposing forensic evidence should it so wish—is settled earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

If I may say, that contribution from my hon. Friend has been one of the most valuable. He talked about how the Bill, in providing a statutory underpinning, will provide an opportunity for those listening to evidence to have more of a structure for what they are hearing that is completely independent from the case at hand. I am grateful to him for raising that.

I would like to move, if I may, in the second quarter of my contribution—or the second half of my contribution—to the broader issue of Parliament, regulators and the way in which we review the powers we give to regulatory agencies. Notwithstanding how a regulator is welcome in this particular sense, there are broader issues at stake about what Parliament and Government do next with regulators.

I point out to the House that this regulator will, I presume, be responsible to the Home Office—I hope so, because that is the only Department for which I have the data to hand—but 30 agencies already report into the Home Office, and that is of 413 agencies and other public bodies listed on the gov.uk website, all of which have an array of statutory or other regulatory enforcement powers. I ask hon. Members to consider when was the last time any hon. Member conducted a thorough review of any one of those agencies.

[Kit Malthouse]

I hesitate to intervene on my hon. Friend, but I think that in the early days of the Cameron Government, Francis Maude, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, undertook a thorough review of all bodies and quangos across government and consequently reduced the number significantly.

[Richard Fuller]

Indeed, he reduced it to the 413 I just mentioned. Heaven knows what it was before. It is evident that although the number may have reduced, parliamentary oversight has not improved. As politicians, we are far more interested in looking forward to the new and the additive than in looking in the rear view mirror to see how well the agencies we have already created are operating and whether they are keeping to their original scope. Are they implementing the powers that they have, whether or not statutorily underpinned?

Automated Facial Recognition Surveillance

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Richard Fuller

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I can absolutely give that assurance. The police, who are of course operationally independent and have devised the system themselves, have reassured me that there is, first, no mass retention of movement data. As I say, if there is no match on the system someone’s presence in the area is instantly deleted, and any other data is deleted after 31 days unless evidential requirements are taken forward. There is no intention that we should use this other than for the apprehension of the most serious and violent criminals which, as my hon. Friend says, will pay benefits across the country.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

The usual prize—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) made an important point. The embedding of bias in technology is a major issue that will worsen with the early widespread adoption of artificial intelligence. The Government will inherit these biases as a user of these technologies, so will my hon. Friend, noting that the American studies show that the disproportionality of false recognition for ethnic minority women was between 10 and 100 times that for Caucasians, look seriously at how those technologies are improving as he progresses the adoption of this technology?

[Kit Malthouse]

Of course I will. I recognise the possible controversy that my hon. Friend points to. As I say, in the trials and deployments thus far there is no evidence of bias either way that we can see, but in a world where technology is to come under democratic control, we all have a duty to watch for these unintended consequences and correct them when they occur—and he has my undertaking that we will do exactly that.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Richard Fuller

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

No, I will not.

Clearly, there is much more to be said about our future relationship. There are many more people who wish to speak and many more amendments to be moved. I will draw my remarks to a close—[Interruption.] It is disappointing for me, too.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—