Refugees from Ukraine

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

If the hon. Lady had listened to my statement earlier on, she would have heard what the process is. In fact, the application can be done digitally from Tuesday. If she would like to present me with the case, I would be very happy to look at it straight after —[Interruption.] Well, we do have the hub in Portcullis House, which has been working through cases. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been using that service. If she has difficulty with that, she is very welcome to give me the case straight after the urgent question and I will make the calls myself directly.

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

I was shocked to hear the shadow Home Secretary imply that Labour would throw away or downplay essential security checks in its mad dash to be seen to be doing something. I know that our Home Secretary will stand firm on our borders. Will she also use this opportunity to thank the many thousands of families around this country who have stepped forward to say that they wish to give support to Ukrainian families and will she tell them—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To be honest, I do not remember it quite how the hon. Gentleman does. I do not want a slanging match, and we need to be correct on the information that we challenge, so, please, let us check Hansard.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, and if I got that wrong, I apologise to the shadow Home Secretary. My point was about the balance that the Home Secretary has to take. Will she use this opportunity to thank the many thousands of British families who have stepped forward to say that they wish to help Ukrainian families, and tell them that she will work night and day to enable them to fulfil their generosity?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything he has said—there is no question whatsoever about that. The Ukrainian community across the United Kingdom has been extraordinary in its resolve and fortitude at a very difficult time to provide much-needed support and resource and, importantly, to support people coming over to the United Kingdom. I do not want to pre-empt any further statements on community support, primarily because there is a scheme under development in Government, but many members of the community have been shaping that scheme and how that help can be given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) suggested that the Opposition Front Bench had said that we should throw away security checks, which has never been the case. On that basis, I will accept the apology that he put forward, if he confirms that apology.

[Richard Fuller]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Thanks for that.

Royal Assent

Nationality and Borders Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

The fact that by far the greatest number of referrals to the NRM last year were of British nationals raises the question of why these provisions are in a Bill about immigration at all. The way part 5 has been drafted means that some of the most vulnerable people, who have been subject to the worst possible trauma, will face the greatest barriers to support, protection and justice, and I hope that hon. Members have heard our concerns and will support our amendments.

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

I rise to speak to new clause 39, standing in my name and the names of the Chairs of the Procedure Committee, the International Development Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. For a variety of reasons, none of those colleagues can be with us today, and I feel that I am a poor substitute for them in making these points—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller]

With great modesty, I shall.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Can I just reassure my hon. Friend that, by the very fact that he is speaking to this new clause, he is more than a substitute and that he is on the side of right?

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One other aspect of this is that it has given me the opportunity to have a fresh look at an area of legislation that I have not been as deeply involved in as he has. I might therefore raise some concerns that the Minister might not get from other quarters, with a keen focus on the legislation dealing with modern-day slavery.

I wish also speak in support of amendment 3, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I will be pleased to hear him later expressing his support for my new clause, as I also hope the SNP will. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her indication of support. The reason I say that is that my new clause has not been selected for separate Division, and it is therefore important that this House sends a clear and unequivocal cross-party message to the other House, where this issue can perhaps be looked at anew.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure that the House will be on tenterhooks to know, so I can put it out of its misery and tell the hon. Member that I will be more than happy to support his new clause.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very pleased to be off those tenterhooks, although I am never very sure what tenterhooks are. They do not sound very comfortable.

New clause 39 provides the Government with an opportunity to achieve their objectives but on a more considerably secure legal footing than their current proposals would permit. The new clause has been informed by the concerns raised by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton. Clause 62 currently seeks to disqualify potential victims of trafficking from the protections afforded under the national referral mechanism. Those protections are important not just as a manifestation of the mercy of our country towards those whose lives have been made wretched by the exploitations of others but to enable more effective prosecution of the perpetrators of such trafficking. Consideration of exclusion from these protections therefore requires careful assessment of the consequences for both those factors. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, it should be considered in the context of our country’s leading position in international law on human trafficking. That is a position that we should not give up at all lightly.

My first concern with clause 62 as proposed is to ask: where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that access to the national referral mechanism is being abused, and where is the evidence from the Government on the impact of their proposal? My second concern with clause 62 is that it does not appear to address vexatious or unwarranted claims regarding access to the national referral mechanism. That point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green when he was speaking to his new clause. This is the wrong piece of legislation to do what the Government hope is the right thing, but which many of us fear will make the situation worse rather than better. In the absence of evidence for why this is a logical measure to adopt, I am perplexed as to why clause 62 has been drafted in this way.

My concern is also that subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) provide a very low bar for disqualification based on criminal sentencing. For those, like me, who are not familiar with modern slavery, it may sound odd that there is public interest in supporting people who have committed crimes either here or, more likely, overseas that carry a 12-month sentence—that is the bar—but that public interest is the same public interest as we have in trying to reach the main perpetrators in county lines drug gangs or serious fraud cases.

The public interest is in enabling sufficient evidence to be collated to bring successful prosecutions against the co-ordinators of those crimes, which is where I fear this clause falls short in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f). I see good reasons in the other subsections and paragraphs for why clause 62 makes sense, but subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) are clearly very different. I am interested in understanding the Minister’s logic.

Although this is an immigration Bill, clause 62 will largely apply to people already here, including British citizens, who currently make up the majority of victims. Because it refers to the national referral mechanism, most British victims will fall foul of this clause. The data suggests that the vast majority of British victims would fail under the Bill’s disqualifying remit, as the majority of cases involving British victims involve criminal exploitation. Even those who fall under labour or sexual exploitation often participate in criminal activities as part of their exploitation and so may end up being “unworthy” of support. I fear that is not what we are trying to do, and it should not be in an immigration Bill.

Another concern that has been raised with me is that there are currently significant difficulties in bringing prosecutions for modern slavery. As previous speakers have mentioned, with approximately 10,000 potential victims of modern slavery identified in the UK last year and only 238 convictions, it is clear that the process is at risk of being overloaded.

How does it help for there to be new additional legal requirements to investigate the criminal history of each and every potential victim who is seeking access to the national referral mechanism? How on earth will that help? Have we not been here before, more than a decade ago? I do not like to refer back to the bad old days of immigration under Labour, but what a complete mess Labour made of it. The lives of many of my former constituents in Bedford, and the constituents of many hon. and right hon. Members here, were ruined by the Home Office’s processes, and those processes are still not where they need to be. With this new provision on access to the national referral mechanism, the Home Office is at it again, making it more complicated, making it more difficult and, ultimately, making a rod for its own back.

New clause 39 would remove children from the scope of clause 62, which is important. We do not want children to fall foul of other rules and regulations, certainly when it comes to their criminal record or otherwise. Will the Minister address that directly?

The new clause preserves the Government’s power to remove individuals from the UK who pose

“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”.

We understand the Government want to make these changes, and there may be good reason for doing so, but let us set the bar higher and let us make it more pertinent so that we do not block the whole system and unduly use immigration law to address modern slavery. That seems a sensible change to make.

New clause 39 would change the wording of the Bill so that a person who claims to have been trafficked improperly will not be treated as having acted in bad faith, which is more in line with the trafficking convention. When a Government seek to conflate effective modern slavery legislation a little too much with immigration law, it is important that we refer to the founding principles of that first set of legislation. Let us not be wishy-washy by saying we can make it up as we go along. Let us not import one schedule from one Act and say it will work fine in this Bill, which seems sloppy. It seems much better to place it more firmly and resolutely in international conventions and other aspects of international law.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know from our discussions that we will continue to work with him and others to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I will come to part 4 later in my remarks, but let me expand on exactly where we are seeing the problems and anomalies within the system. Of course we want to close them down, because modern slavery is absolutely abhorrent, but there are key elements that we also need to address.

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

I cannot let the comment from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just pass. He made the point that people who seek asylum here are always fleeing their country because of persecution. I have many concerns about the immigration Bills that have been passed in this place, many by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister. It is naive to think that the people coming through irregular routes are only seeking asylum for reasons of persecution. There are a large number who are seeking asylum based purely on economic migration. Is that not one reason why separating out regular and irregular people is such an important change in the way that we are pursuing the legislation?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is where the system becomes conflated and there is no separation between the two. He is absolutely right to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Welcome to the Chair. Edmund Burke said:

“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”

Restoring justice and order to the chaotic and confusing asylum system broadcasts that a line in the sand has been drawn that will not fade away with every new boat that arrives on the beach. The Bill is a testament to the principle that laws must be just and be seen to be; otherwise, we can hardly call them law at all.

According to poll after poll, the vast majority of the public see illegal immigration as a serious problem. Is it any wonder when there were 16,000 illegal entrants into Britain last year, with 8,500 on boats? Those are the ones we know about. This year alone, 7,000 have arrived on those boats.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my right hon. Friend not think that somehow turning the debate simply into, “Everyone who claims asylum must have a legitimate claim and everyone who is against it must be racist” does not help in trying to get to the just law that he is talking about?

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely, it does not, nor is it just to pillory the public and those who speak for them when they argue that we should enforce the law and that migration should be controlled. As a number of hon. Members have said, legal migration has been out of control for some time, and illegal migration, by its very nature, is both unjust and unfair because it breaks the law. It breaches that principle that people who arrive here and pursue legal routes are doing the right thing and that those who do not are simply doing the wrong thing and should be deported. That is what the public think, and that is what we should say very clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

For many of my constituents, rightly or wrongly, the success of the Bill depends on whether it stops or clearly limits three persistent and frustrating problems with our immigration and border controls. First, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the use of the channel crossing by boat or truck to make a claim for asylum; secondly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the filing, over many years, of speculative further asylum claims—frequently on specious grounds—that clog up our system, crowd out legitimate claims, and generally make a mockery of our legal processes; and thirdly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the opportunity for cherry-picking that leads people to make an asylum claim in the UK rather than in the one or many other safe countries through which they travel.

It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister to bear in mind that it is on those bases that my constituents will judge the success or failure of this measure, not the rhetoric that accompanies it. To me, however—and, I would say, to some other Conservative Members—there are further aspects that are important. Let me pick up the challenge from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), on the views of those on this side of the House, because there are aspects of nuance and detail that I think it important to bring out.

First, if the assessment system is to be quicker, it is important for the Government to ensure that claimants have much better access to legal advice. Secondly, if the system is to work effectively, there needs to be greater availability of counselling, psychiatric and other medical assessments. Thirdly, we should once and for all have a culture of getting to the truth, rather than the culture of disbelief that has for too many years permeated the Home Office asylum system.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am intervening for a specific reason. What is actually happening is that the truth is being obscured by repeated claims which many of the people whom my hon. Friend is describing are encouraged to lodge by the unscrupulous lawyers who were given such a plaudit by the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend speaks very wise words.

Let me just say to Opposition Members that there is no monopoly on compassion, and that it does not mean saying that the system must apply to everyone in a particular process. Compassion applies to an individual claim. The importance of our system is that we get to that individual and do not lose sight of him or her. In a previous life as a Member of Parliament, I spoke in a debate on another immigration Bill and bemoaned the lack of compassion in our immigration system. It was encouraging to hear the Home Secretary use the word “compassion” so often, and to hear stories of compassion from other Conservative Members, whether they were about how a council looks after the people who are claiming asylum or about people’s feelings about the system. So there is no monopoly on compassion here, and I look forward to working with Opposition Members in finding ways in which we can make it work more deeply in the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, particularly for his stance on immigration detention and his campaigning for time limits on it. The Home Secretary talks about compassion, but at the end of the day—I have said this a few times, but people do not seem even to acknowledge it—the Bill would criminalise people it recognises as refugees, strip them of their family reunion rights, strip them of recourse to public funds, limit the amount of leave that they are allowed here and never let them even apply for settlement. That is not remotely compassionate. We are talking about refugees.

[Richard Fuller]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman talking about specifics, because again there was a bit of broad generalisation there. However, one thing that I will say for SNP Members is that at least they have some ideas, whereas 10 minutes into the shadow Home Secretary’s speech he said, “Let me tell you what the Labour party will do”—and in the rest of his speech he came up with one idea, which was to set a legal target for how quickly asylum claims get processed. Is that it? Is that all the Labour party has to offer? I see that it is, so let us work with the SNP.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East where I think we can work together. Let us have some compassion for victims of slavery; there is plenty of support on the Conservative Benches for that. Let us have some compassion in how we treat children in the Bill; there is lots of support on both sides of the House for that. Let us have some compassion for how the particular issues of women will be affected by the separation of regular from irregular routes. And let us have some compassion, Minister, by ending indefinite detention once and for all.

Immigration Detention: Victims of Trafficking

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. As there are only two Members here, I will just remind them that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of immigration detention on potential victims of trafficking.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been extremely helpful to me with my questions about immigration over many months. It is a pleasure to see him here. The core of the issues I wish to raise relates substantively to the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021, which make amendments to the guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention. In brief, the changes remove the special rules governing the use of detention for potential victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery where there is already a strong presumption against the use of detention. I note the prayer against this negative statutory instrument in the form of early-day motion 1696, tabled on 24 March 2021, which has attracted 77 signatures. I also note that, subsequent to Mr Speaker granting this debate, a further debate has been scheduled for tomorrow in the main Chamber, so the Minister will certainly be busy. Again, I am grateful to him for being here today.

One of the reasons I called for the debate is that Yarl’s Wood, which has been a detention centre for women, is in my constituency, and over the years I have worked closely with a number of groups related to the detention of women in particular, including Yarl’s Wood Befrienders and Women for Refugee Women. I would like to thank Medical Justice in particular for its help in putting together some points. I will fire a series of questions at the Minister, which I am sure he will not have time to respond to immediately—it is in the nature of these 30-minute debates—but, if he will commit to writing to me with responses on those he does not have a chance to address, I would be grateful.

Let me start by quoting from the explanatory memorandum accompanying the statutory instrument, which says:

“This statutory instrument brings into effect amendments to the guidance on Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention…The purpose of the statutory instrument…is to bring people who are potential victims of modern slavery and/or trafficking fully within the…AAR Statutory Guidance. This is intended so that detention considerations for potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking will be made using criteria consistent with those that apply to other categories of vulnerable people.”

The reason provided by the Home Office for the change is that it will bring those with a positive reasonable grounds decision through the national referral mechanism fully within the scope of the adults at risk in immigration detention statutory guidance. The Home Office describe it as a measure to amend a “policy anomaly” and the changes will come into effect on 25 May. That leads me to my first and fundamental question to the Minister: why does he want to make this change, which will make it more likely that victims of trafficking will be held in immigration detention?

The Minister will be aware that a Home Office report confirmed that, in 2019, of 1,949 individuals referred into the national referral mechanism after being detained, 89% received a positive reasonable grounds decision and 98% were subsequently released from detention. However, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner noted in her letter to the Minister:

“Having looked at the data on the AAR policy, between November 2017 and October 2018, the rates of rejection for detention by Detention Gatekeepers due to the person being an AAR fluctuated between 3.8% and 36.2%.”

She notes that that is a wide range, but it is substantially lower than the 89% to 98% rates under existing rulings. It seems to me that that is a significant difference, not just a policy anomaly. Can the Minister confirm that he expects more potential victims of trafficking to be detained for immigration purposes as a result of the policy change? What are his thoughts around that?

I understand that the Minister held a consultation on the statutory instrument before laying it. Can he confirm whether that is correct, state which organisations he has consulted with, and give a summary of their views and opinions? Why did the Home Office not include the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner in its consultation prior to making these changes? The Minister will be as aware as I am that it is important to get all expert advice prior to laying legislation before the House.

Let us spend a moment on concerns raised about the changes. Medical Justice makes two crucial points; first, that the

“new regulations…downgrade protections afforded to potential victims of trafficking held in immigration detention”,

and secondly that they

“run entirely counter to the government’s stated aim to protect victims of trafficking.”

Does the Minister accept that the statutory instrument will, in practice, downgrade protection for victims of trafficking? He may be aware that this week the Royal College of Psychiatrists released its report “Detention of people with mental disorders in immigration removal centres”, which includes the following paragraph—it is quite a long quotation, but worth listening to:

“It is the view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people with mental disorders should only be subjected to immigration detention in very exceptional circumstances…There is substantial and consistent research evidence that detainees with pre-existing vulnerabilities (e.g. mental health issues or survivors of torture and other forms of cruel or inhumane treatment, including sexual violence and gender-based violence) are at particular risk of harm as a result of their detention. Detention centres are likely to precipitate a significant deterioration of mental health in most cases, greatly increasing suffering and the risk of suicide.”

Does the Minister agree, or does he not, with the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ conclusions? Does he, or does he not, agree that the changes that the statutory instrument makes may go directly against its advice?

Guideline 6, paragraph 1, of the UN’s recommended principles and guidelines on human rights and human trafficking states that trafficked persons

“should not be held in immigration detention centres”

or other forms of custody. There is no a priori reason for the UK Government to agree with everything that the United Nations says on the matter, but does the Minister agree that this change risks being seen as a significant step back from the UK’s international reputation of playing a leading role against modern-day slavery?

The direct effect of changing this policy anomaly on victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery seems to me quite profound. The practical impact seems to be that after a person has already satisfied the Home Office that they were subject to trafficking or slavery, the Home Office now expects them essentially to re-live that experience so that they can demonstrate the harm they will suffer from further future incarceration or detention—this time by the Government. Why would the Government want to do that?

Let us take a moment to see whether the adults at risk policy is working sufficiently well to warrant its application to this particularly vulnerable group. There are substantial grounds to suggest that it is not proving suitable for the policy anomaly change; let me share some concerns with the Minister.

Women for Refugee Women has commented that a key reason for the continued detention of survivors of trafficking under the adults at risk policy is the lack of a proactive vulnerability screening mechanism before the decision to detain is made. Under AAR, a new detention gatekeeper was introduced

“which assesses vulnerability and provides challenge to decisions about who enters immigration detention”.

However, the gatekeeper looks only at information that the Home Office already holds on record to assess whether a person is vulnerable. There is no proactive screening process to identify vulnerabilities that the Home Office may not be aware of before the decision to detain is made.

Let me note some findings from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons on Yarl’s Wood, the detention centre in my constituency. Its reports have also highlighted how, while it was operating as the main detention centre for women, Yarl’s Wood consistently struggled to maintain an appropriate proportion of female staff, both those in direct contact with women and managers. Further, HMIP reports also identified a lack of understanding and knowledge among Yarl’s Wood staff about women’s specific experience of violence and abuse, including sexual exploitation and trafficking. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the very capable staff at Yarl’s Wood in my constituency. My point is that, with this change, we are placing more reliance on individual case-based judgments and therefore on what might appear to be a rather more fragile decision process.

Let me note some more comments from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton:

“Whilst I acknowledge the rationale for bringing all categories of vulnerability under the AAR policy, there are multiple factors that are specific to victims of modern slavery that are significant.”

Also,

“under Article 13 of ECAT potential victims of modern slavery with a positive reasonable grounds decision are entitled to a reflection and recovery period where they cannot be removed from the UK. I am aware that in order to detain there must be ‘a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale’. It is therefore important to highlight that in 2019, it took the Home Office Single Competent Authority an average of 452 days”

to make a conclusive decision. Does the Minister acknowledge the tension in timescales between a realistic prospect of removal and an average of 452 days to make a decision?

I draw attention to the Independent Chief Inspector of Border and Immigration’s report “Annual Inspection of ‘Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention’ (2018-19)”. The first inspection report, which was published in April 2020, noted that

“there is a lot more that the Home Office can and should do to make each component”

of the AAR policy “more efficient and more effective.” Further, the inspector said:

“I have set a deadline (31 March 2020) for the implementation of the recommendations that are specific to Adults at Risk”.

Can the Minister confirm whether the specific recommendations identified for implementation by 31 March last year have been accepted and implemented?

I understand the 2019-20 report is now in draft with publication due in September. Can the Minister advise whether the ICIBI has concluded whether their concerns have now been allayed? Or do those concerns remain, or have they risen? Even relying solely on the concerns raised in 2018-19 report, did they not give the Minister pause in making the changes? Can he, in his response, share what guided his thinking?

Finally, I want to touch on some comments in The Independent about the rationale so the Minister can clarify. The newspaper said:

“Ministers are planning to make it more difficult for trafficking survivors to be released from detention as part of plans to prevent serious criminals from taking advantage of modern slavery safeguards by using them to prevent their removal from the country.”

Essentially, this is a misuse of a provision. Is that the case? If so, what consideration did the Home Office give to improving the existing process rather than closing it down? What consideration has the Home Office given to managing a definition of a foreign national offender that will likely include actions that victims of slavery or trafficking were forced to undertake? Many survivors of modern slavery are forced to commit criminal acts, such as pickpocketing, drug cultivation or even fraud, as part of their exploitation. In 2020, potential victims were most commonly referred to in the national referral mechanism for cases related to purely criminal exploitation, which accounted for 34% of all referrals. I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify this point, because it would be a shame if the references to foreign national offenders were getting caught up with the issue, whereby many people who are subject to trafficking are forced into crime as part of their victimisation.

May I just repeat how grateful I am for this opportunity to raise these points with the Minister today? There are issues with the adults at risk policy. I know that it was only introduced in 2016, but I think that both the Minister and I wish to see improvements to our immigration policies, to ensure that loopholes are not exploited by those who do not deserve the right to exploit those loopholes. Equally, however, I know that the Minister, the Home Office, the Home Secretary and I are committed to a system that is compassionate and that has eyes on that individual who might otherwise be lost in a very bureaucratic system. I am therefore very grateful for the opportunity to put these points to the Minister today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray; I think for the first time, but I am confident not for the last.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for raising the matter in this afternoon’s debate. As he said, we will have the pleasure of discussing it twice in two days. He is an assiduous campaigner on these issues and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss them with him today, and, I am sure, on future occasions as well.

As a starting point, it is important to understand that the United Kingdom’s commitment to looking after victims or even potential victims of modern slavery is resolute. We enacted the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has some very substantial protections for victims of modern slavery. We launched a modern slavery strategy back in 2014 and we are assiduous as a country in upholding our obligations under the ECAT treaty—the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, many more modern slavery claims are made and accepted in the UK than in comparable European countries; I think that we had around 10,000 last year, which was many times higher than in countries such as France and Germany. I think our record on identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery is second to none across Europe, which we can all be extremely proud of.

However, we should also be clear that someone being recognised as a victim of modern slavery does not and should not automatically result in their being given immigration status in the UK, or in their being exempted from immigration proceedings. There are protections granted by the modern slavery provisions. My hon. Friend mentioned the reflection and recovery period, which is 45 days. Of course, if there is a recovery need that can only be met by the person remaining, that is obviously respected as well. However, it does not follow that every single potential victim of modern slavery should be exempted from immigration proceedings or indeed from detention.

Therefore, it is very important that we have a proper way of weighing up the various considerations that come before decision makers: on the one hand, there are questions of vulnerability, or potential vulnerability; and on the other hand, there is the need to operate a proper immigration system. That is an important balance to strike. Both those things are important; we are not minimising the importance of either one of them.

It is worth observing that the reasonable grounds threshold for a modern slavery decision is, by design, extremely low. At the moment, it is set out as “suspects but cannot prove”, which is an extremely low threshold. We are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the policy statement a few weeks ago, consistent, of course, with our ECAT treaty obligations. However, once the reasonable grounds decision is made, that does not mean that the person involved is a victim of modern slavery. It means that there are reasons to suspect, but without proof, that they might be a victim of modern slavery, which is extremely important to bear in mind.

There has been some evidence recently—I am talking about the last 12 months in particular—that for some cohorts in particular, including some foreign national offenders, it appears that modern slavery claims are increasingly being used as a means of disrupting immigration proceedings. We need to be mindful of that, and mindful that we should do everything to protect genuine victims of modern slavery, many of whom will have suffered appalling trauma and mistreatment. It is in the spirit of achieving that balance that the changes we are discussing today and will discuss again tomorrow are being made.

The change that my hon. Friend outlined so eloquently, enshrined in the statutory instrument laid on 25 February this year and coming into force, if passed, in a few weeks’ time, to make the release decision in relation to people with a positive reasonable grounds decision if they might be a victim of modern slavery is inside the ambit of the existing adults at risk policy. That is not to say that their potential vulnerability will be ignored, but the issue will be considered in the round and a balancing exercise will be performed, as it is with other forms of vulnerability in the existing scope of the adults at risk policy to make sure that everything is being properly accounted for in the round.

Having done that exercise, release decisions might, and in many cases will, still be made. An adults at risk policy, as my hon. Friend said, was introduced in 2016. It has had time to bed in and is being continuously improved upon, but it has a well-defined grading scale—level 1, level 2, level 3—and the more serious the evidence of vulnerability or potential harm, some of which my hon. Friend laid out in his speech, the higher the balancing factors have to be in order not to release.

Viewing the matter in the round and considering everything is an appropriate thing to do. It is a balancing exercise that we are trying to achieve. The caseworker guidance that will be published in due course will address the specific situation of potential victims of modern slavery. My hon. Friend laid out some of the unique circumstances associated with them, and the caseworker guidance will take into account the particular vulnerabilities that my hon. Friend drew attention to in his speech.

I hope that gives some reassurance about the approach that will be taken. The detention decision making process will of course include an assessment of the individual’s recovery needs. That will ensure that detention is maintained where the balancing criteria are met, and also where those needs can be provided from within detention. If those needs cannot be met from within detention, that would obviously argue very strongly and persuasively, probably decisively, in favour of a release decision being made.

It is also worth saying by way of context—I know my hon. Friend has a wider interest in detention; we have discussed it on many occasions—that detention is used sparingly. At any one time, 95% of people who might be eligible for detention are in fact in the community. The numbers being detained are relatively small by historical standards. If I take the figure from 31 December 2019, before coronavirus, because coronavirus has caused the number to go down even further, there were 1,637 people in immigration detention, which is a pretty small number when we measure that against the number of people who probably do not have the right to be in the country.

The 1,637 number approximately halved in the two-year period preceding. From 30 September 2017 to 31 December 2019, the number of people in immigration detention roughly halved. The vast majority of people—we have debated this previously—are in detention for relatively short periods of time. Some 74% are detained for 28 days or less, so detention is not being used on a widespread, indiscriminate basis, but it is an essential component of running a proper immigration system. Where someone does not have the right to be here, or where they have committed a serious criminal offence and they are a foreign national, it is right that we take steps to remove them. Without having immigration detention available, it is extremely difficult to do that, so it is an important thing to be able to do.

As I have set out, we accept that modern slavery is a truly despicable crime. We take our responsibility to identify victims very seriously. We also take our responsibilities in using immigration detention very seriously as well. Our focus as we take forward these changes will be to make sure that the right balance is struck and that potential victims with genuine vulnerabilities are protected. We are determined not only to protect those vulnerable individuals, but to bring the perpetrators of modern slavery to justice. It is in that spirit that we have introduced the changes that will be debated in the main Chamber tomorrow.

[Richard Fuller]

I have a very small point. Will the Minister respond to specific questions that I asked and commit to reply in writing?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I am happy to give that commitment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Plan for Immigration

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will not take any lectures from hon. Gentleman about resettlement schemes, when this Government have successfully resettled 25,000 people through that resettlement scheme—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is true. I have made it quite clear that we are in discussion with partner agencies already. That work is under way. He can shake his head and be as dismissive as he chooses to be, but if he bothered to read the new immigration plan, he would see the details of exactly how we will start to introduce new safe and legal routes through legislation.

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

Yarl’s Wood detention centre in my constituency was set up under a Labour Government in 2001, and is a manifestation of the historical weaknesses of our immigration processes and, in particular, how they have failed women. As my right hon. Friend knows, women asylum seekers are more likely to be individually targeted as victims of gender-based violence, forced marriage—sometimes to very powerful people—or rape as an instrument of war. Will my right hon. Friend please assure me that her reforms will provide a fairer and more effective assessment of such cases?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is why we have to fix the system. We are currently not able to safeguard and protect those who absolutely need that help and support. The categories that the plan covers include women—women who have been treated abhorrently, quite frankly, in conflict zones, as well as those who have been trafficked and who have had had the most awful crimes undertaken against them. Some of these women are also used in modern-day slavery; how we protect victims of that is also a feature of the new immigration plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we will definitely be looking at all of that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I prepared a one-minute speech, but I will try to stretch it to two minutes. The constituents of North East Bedfordshire will welcome this Bill. They will particularly welcome the fact that it begins with the police covenant, which codifies our responsibility to recognise the obligations and sacrifices of our police officers. They will very much welcome the end of automatic early release, but I must say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): he should see this as the start, not the end, of ending automatic release, so that the public understand that sentences mean what they say.

My constituents will particularly welcome the actions on illegal encampments, which are a blight for so many in the countryside and urban areas. On the issue of policing demonstrations, let us listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said and take more responsibility for ourselves in setting the laws, rather than the obligations of the police for policing them. I welcome the sensitivity in the Bill in terms of the interactions of young people with our justice system. If we can get that right, it will preclude many faults later on.

It is welcome that we have clause 164, which at last recognises that deaf people can have access to British Sign Language interpreters. For hundreds of years, we have recognised that every citizen in this country is entitled to a jury of their peers, and now those juries can include our deaf citizens as well as everybody else. Finally, I believe, in all generosity, that Labour Members have made a terrible mistake in opposing the Bill, and neither my constituents nor theirs will ever understand the reasons why.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned—(Michael Tomlinson.).

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021

Contingencies Fund Act 2021.

Policing (England and Wales)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), but even more of a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and my colleague, the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). I am now the third of the three Members of Parliament from Bedfordshire to press the case to the Minister for solving the problem that has beset our local force: the conundrum of the national funding formula.

I will, if I may, add to my colleagues’ thanks to the officers of Bedfordshire police for their outstanding service to the community. In our relatively small county, our police not only have to deal with the regular crime that affects many other parts of the country, but have a special responsibility for security in and around our airport at Luton. They have responsibilities for motorway networks that course through Bedfordshire. They have issues of social community cohesion in our urban centres and they have to deal with rural crime as well. For any police force, they would be immense challenges at the best of times, but for Bedfordshire police in these difficult covid times, it has required of our officers an exceptional level of dedication and service. On behalf of all the Members of Parliament for Bedfordshire, I thank them for their service.

I have listened to some of the contributions to the debate. I have heard some—if I might call it this—knocking copy against certain police and crime commissioners. In Bedfordshire, we do not need to do that. We have an outstanding police and crime commissioner in Kathryn Holloway, who has cleaned out some of the problems she inherited, strongly implemented a number of her programmes and created a strong basis for Bedfordshire police. She and Festus Akinbusoye, the candidate for PCC in the elections in May, have clear plans that will deliver a fair amount of effective policing across the whole of Bedfordshire. I will pose a couple of questions to the Minister a little later about some of Festus’s proposals so that we can be confident that, when he is elected, they will be able to be funded and go forward.

On the national funding formula, it is sobering to realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire said, that this goes all the way back to 2004. Since then, there have been a total of 10 policing Ministers, including the current Minister, and five Prime Ministers, yet the pervasive underfunding of Bedfordshire police persists. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister is that one in 10 who will say, “You know what? I’ve found a solution to it. I’ll find a way of giving Bedfordshire police the funding they deserve.” Seeing as it is nearly 6,000 days that the police officers of Bedfordshire have gone out every day and done their service for the community, it is time that we had a police Minister who says, “Yes, this is a challenge that I will meet and face up to.” I have every confidence that the Minister will respond positively to that.

The success of Bedfordshire police requires a clear strategy, and under Kathryn Holloway we have seen a reallocation of police resources towards dealing with rural crime. That is very important for Bedfordshire, where it is an undue weight on our limited resources. As a number of Members said, we ask our taxpayers to fund our police, and they have an expectation that the police will be there when they need them.

This Government and this Minister have delivered increased numbers of officers into Bedfordshire, and this year have delivered an above national average increase for Bedfordshire police. We are very grateful to the Minister and the Prime Minister for being so clear in their resolve to support our officers by putting funds behind them and more officers into the police force, but there are still some things that we need to do.

I turn to two issues that are of importance locally, and which Festus said are his priorities. They bear listening to by the Minister. The first is community-based policing. To be able to continue the commitment to provide policing across Bedfordshire, we need to be 100% sure—there needs to be a cast-iron guarantee from the Minister—that he will ensure that the Conservative manifesto commitment to increasing police numbers will continue, and that Bedfordshire police will continue to get its fair share, if not more, of the increase in officers. We stood on that manifesto pledge, and I am confident that when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box he will give us that confirmation.

Secondly, in Festus’s plan there is a renewed focus on drug rehabilitation programmes. I am very interested to hear from the Minister where he sees the priority for drug rehabilitation. I am sure he heard my colleagues talk about how Bedfordshire is the source of quite a lot of the drugs that spread across the country, so this is a very well targeted campaign by Festus. It will help with crime prevention in Bedfordshire and across the country too.

I am very grateful for the Minister’s positive words about the defence of our police officers. I know that he and all Members, whatever their political persuasion, are disgusted at the ways in which some people are using the covid pandemic to put extra pressure on our police by threatening them in despicable ways. I hope the clear message comes from this debate that the force of law will come down very strongly on people who abuse our police in that way.

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Glasgow does accommodate a large number of asylum seekers. We work very closely with Glasgow City Council and the Communities and Local Government Secretary in the Scottish Government on that topic. Glasgow is the only Scottish authority to receive asylum seekers. It would ease the pressure on Glasgow, and indeed across the United Kingdom, if other Scottish local authorities were able to accommodate asylum seekers as well. In terms of the type of accommodation provided, the inadmissible cohort, although inadmissible, will be entitled to accommodation, as I have said, and the support that goes with that. We will make sure that the support they receive fully complies with all our legal and moral obligations.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for asking this question. The vast immigration detention estate, in all its forms, is a standing indictment of our failed immigration system, which, as the Minister knows, every day carries with it a risk. He is right to focus on reform, although I would say that the goal is not so much to be fast and furious as to be fair and accurate.

My question relates to the security of some of the barracks accommodation and other accommodation that is being provided. There have been some reports of asylum seekers leaving these estates and not coming back. What inquiries has the Minister undertaken, and what reassurance can he give to communities where these sites are located?

[Chris Philp]

The size of the immigration detention estate has actually shrunk considerably over the past five or six years. I think I am right in saying that it has reduced in size by, very approximately, 50%. Detention is used sparingly and only as a necessary precursor to removal. On the accommodation for people seeking asylum, this is not detention. The people are not detained and are free to come and go as they choose, but obviously those operating the sites keep a very careful eye on them. For example, there is a process of signing in and signing out, and if people are not back on the site by 10 pm each evening, then inquiries are made. Although the people in the centres are not detained, very careful measures are taken to understand their whereabouts to make sure that nothing untoward happens in the local communities. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as reassurance, but I would be happy to discuss these issues further, particularly in the Yarl’s Wood context, if he would like to do that.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who spoke so eloquently about the impact of Lords amendment 1 and the importance of wages for people who do some of the most important work in our country.

I will speak to Lords amendment 6, which would place a time limit on immigration detention and was moved so well by the noble Baroness Hamwee in the other place. Immigration detention is the ghastliest aspect of the failed immigration system we inherited from the last Labour Government. However, we can no longer apportion the blame to them, because it was so very long ago.

This amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to start to modify the worst aspect of immigration detention, which is that we never tell people when they will come out. That is the most atrocious thing to do to anyone. Those of us who have been through the national lockdown or quarantine know how psychologically debilitating it can be. Imagine being in that position and never knowing when you will come out.

This is an opportunity to make change. This is an amendment that the Government could have adopted. It is an amendment that screams, “We can do better. Please accept this.” The Minister said in his opening remarks that 28 days was a very short limit. Of course, the Government had the opportunity to put in their own limit, if they had wished to. They did not do that. It is another indication of the lost opportunity we see with this amendment today.

Unfortunately I do not compliment the Minister on this too often, but I was very pleased that he did not use the usual Home Office trope that putting a time limit on immigration detention would let out the rapists, the murderers and all the other people they like to scare others about. As he well knows, that argument does not hold water. There were 24,500 or so people in detention in 2019, of whom 26% were detained for more than 28 days. That is 6,373 people—a vast number—who were detained for over 28 days. That has nothing to do with failures in the criminal justice system in processing people’s immigration claims while they are in prison.

As the Minister indicated in his speech and as others have said, we are looking towards a new system that promises to speed up application processes and make our asylum system more effective. I say gently to him that the Government cannot speed up a broken immigration system without causing more harm. It is better first to recognise the failures in the system we have before seeking to speed the process up, thinking that that will somehow provide a solution.

It is for that reason that I am so disappointed the Government have not taken this opportunity to put in a time limit or to say, “We understand the psychological problems that come when we detain someone without telling them they can leave.” As the Government come forward with the new system, I want them to say, “When someone comes here to claim asylum, we will provide them with access to the best psychological resources, so that we can understand what underpins why they have sought asylum.” I want people to have the best access to legal aid and legal rights so that their claim can be made with the greatest precision and so that honourable claims for asylum have the best chance of being heard and recognised.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

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

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

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

Further to the Minister’s point of order, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express our condolences following the tragic death of a police officer in Croydon overnight. For most of us, it is impossible to comprehend what the officer’s family, friends and colleagues must be going through this morning, and the thoughts and prayers of everyone in the House are with them.

Like other Members who have had the strange fortune of winning a parliamentary raffle for private Members’ Bills, I spent the first weeks of this strange year being inundated with submissions making the case for the noblest crusades and the worthiest causes, as well as some of the strangest. I realise that, at first blush, the minimal changes proposed in this Bill may seem a little arcane or marginal, but my purpose today—to give the Forensic Science Regulator the statutory powers necessary to do its job—is, in reality, an urgent and necessary one for the functioning of our criminal justice system.

Access to high-quality forensics is vital so that victims and defendants get the justice they deserve, prosecutions are successful and our system commands and justifies the public’s confidence. Poor-quality forensics, as noted by the regulator, has without doubt lead to the failed prosecution of criminals and a failure to secure justice for victims. As it stands, the market for providing forensic services is flawed, with grinding delays, gaps in capacity and skills and a lack of real competitiveness. The first step in fixing it is to enable the regulator to enforce effective standards, which I hope the House will support me in doing today. It will not take a forensic scientist to note that the title of my Bill also anticipates action on the biometrics strategy, which is no less essential but will have to wait for another time, and I will speak more about that later in my speech.

The profusion of acronyms that, of necessity, opens the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual report gives some sense of the range of scientific disciplines and expert processes on which our justice system must rely. It incorporates not only crime scene investigation but digital forensics, drugs and toxicology analysis, firearms and ballistics, the comparison of tool marks and footprints, as well as DNA and fingerprints. For even the most established forensic practices, the maintenance of high standards is vital to the course of justice, but rapid advances in technology continue to reshape the tools with which forensic scientists can collect, store and analyse evidence and data, as well as the nature and complexity of the crimes they are working to combat. We therefore rely on experts to do that work for us and to present it in a way that is intelligible, accurate and reliable. As the regulator’s report observed last year:

“Courts should not have to judge whether this expert or that expert is ‘better’, but rather there should be a clear explanation of the scientific basis and data from which conclusions are drawn, and any relevant limitations. All forensic science must be conducted by competent forensic scientists, according to scientifically valid methods and be transparently reported, making very clear the limits of knowledge and/or methodology.”

Isolated slip-ups in the science threaten to imprison the innocent and exonerate the guilty. The potential for ubiquitous failings—made more likely by shortfalls in skills, expertise and funding—risks not only isolated miscarriages of justice but the integrity of the entire system. The stakes, therefore, are uniquely high. Plainly in such a world we should expect robust, mandatory and enforceable quality standards for the providers of forensic science, matched with an oversight regime with the independence, the teeth and the resources to do its job.

That insight is what inspired the creation of the office of the Forensic Science Regulator in 2007-08. It was tasked with enumerating those standards, ensuring the quality of providers and processes, assessing the soundness of the scientific techniques being used, and monitoring the competence of the individuals carrying them out.

In its inaugural mission, the Forensic Science Regulator was tasked to

“influence the strategic management of UK forensic science to place quality standards at the heart of strategic planning”.

That, among other issues, formed the seeds of the regulator’s present shortcomings. It can encourage police forces and their providers to seek accreditation, but it cannot compel compliance. It can establish assessments but not enforce their results. It can advise the Government of the day, but it does not weald any power on the market.

Virtually since its creation, therefore, the office and the voluntary model of regulation centred on it have been visibly short of the teeth they need. It is operationally independent, but unable to compel the change that is required.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with the hon. Gentleman on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which he chairs. I am interested in his observations about the non-statutory powers since 2007-08. To what extent does he have evidence that the absence of statutory powers has had an impact on particular cases? That may be something he wants to speak about in more detail.

[Darren Jones]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s delight at serving together on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The evidence speaks for itself, to stretch a metaphor when we are talking about evidence. The Science and Technology Committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as the Government’s own reviews and the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual reports, have all pretty much concluded the same thing: where standards cannot be enforced by providers and the validity of the forensic process is brought into question in prosecution, miscarriages of justice will have followed. The forensics regulator has been pretty bold in making that case in her annual report to Parliament. That is why, I am pleased to say, there has been broad consensus on the measures brought forward in the Bill to ensure that she can enforce the standards for more providers of forensic services.

That is why successive Governments have been notionally committed to putting the regulator on a statutory footing for nearly eight years. Many right hon. and hon. Members have called for this for a long time. That is what underpinned the conclusions of the reports from the Science and Technology Committees in this House and the other place that I mentioned to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).

Last year the Science and Technology Committee, of which I was a member, concluded in its inquiry on this issue that

“the Regulator—now more than ever—needs statutory powers.”

A couple of months earlier, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee had said:

“It is hard to understand why…the Forensic Science Regulator still lacks powers they need… The Forensic Science industry is in trouble; such action is now urgent.”

The regulator herself said in the report:

“Legislation is urgently required to give the…statutory enforcement powers”

needed to do the job properly.

I therefore appreciate the Government’s willingness to co-operate in seeking to carry the Bill, and the support of the Minister and his officials in producing the Bill and the explanatory notes, and in helping to secure the Bill’s passage through the House today. It is especially important that the Bill does pass today, because the availability of these services on time and to reliable standards is often patchy.

When the then Government announced the wholesale closure of the loss-making Forensic Science Service in November 2010, the Science and Technology Committee warned that they had failed to give

“enough consideration to the impact on forensic science research and development (R&D), the capacity of private providers to absorb the FSS’s 60% market share and the wider implications for the criminal justice system.”

That warning has proved prescient. Today, many scientific processes are conducted in-house by police forces, but this is piecemeal in its extent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

It is not for me to conclude on that issue in debate on a private Member’s Bill. My personal view, for what it is worth and to entertain the hon. Member’s intervention, is that one would not want an employee to be dismissed as a consequence, but they might receive further training to meet the accredited standard and be able to continue their duties. However, as I say, it is not for me to judge an employment issue in such a setting.

As a consequence of some of the points that the hon. Member raises, individual services are often outsourced by police forces, but a lack of clear incentives for providers to seek accreditation, given the overriding need to compete on price, has created a vacuum of accountability. Last year’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report set out the situation. Their lordships concluded:

“Simultaneous budget cuts and reorganisation, together with exponential growth in the need for new services such as digital evidence, have put forensic science providers under extreme pressure. The result is a forensic science market which is becoming dysfunctional and which, unless it is properly regulated, will soon suffer the shocks of major forensic science providers going out of business and putting justice in jeopardy… This is not just a budget issue: structural and regulatory muddle exacerbates the malaise. There is no consistency in the way in which the 43 Police Authorities commission forensic services. Some Police Authorities have taken forensic investigation predominantly in-house whilst outsourcing some services to unregulated providers. These actions call into question equitable access for defendants and raise issues over the quality of the analysis undertaken and the evaluation of the evidence presented.”

Their lordships therefore recommended that

“the Forensic Science Regulator should urgently be given a number of statutory powers to bolster trust in the quality of forensic science provision.” This is a multi-layered challenge that defies simple political or partisan characterisation, but the enduring message is that consistent standards, consistently applied, must be foundational to the effective provision of a forensic service across the whole country. Although forensic evidence is generally of good quality, the consequences of a market that is failing to perform that function to measurable standards are, of course, serious, specific and widespread.

The Home Office commissioned a joint review of the provision of forensic science, which identified a growing perception about the risk of unsafe forensic evidence and demonstrated the twofold impact of an inadequate enforcement regime. Some judges, the report noted,

“were not specifically aware of accreditation requirements or”

the Forensic Science Regulator’s codes of practice, and defence lawyers expressed concern that

“perceived compromises regarding quality standards meant that challenges to the integrity of forensic evidence presented in court could soon become routine.”

I think that it is of value for us to pause and reflect on that submission to the Government’s review. Defence lawyers had a concern that the forensic science process itself was being used as a mechanism to provide arguments in prosecution cases. Of course, the service itself should not be the basis for such submissions.

[Richard Fuller]

Frequently, regulators fall back on a requirement for statutory enforcement powers, citing that they are not in a position to be effective with the powers that have been given to them, whereas the issue could be that the regulators are not effective in using the powers that they already have. I admit that that is more usual in the economic sphere and there may be particular issues in the legal sphere, but in his research in preparing the Bill, has the hon. Gentleman reached any conclusions about how well the existing powers are being used versus the requirement for statutory underpinning?

[Darren Jones]

Yes, and the repeated conclusion, not just from the regulator but the other officials and bodies I have mentioned, is that the powers that the regulator has been given for some time—since 2007-08, when the office was created—are not sufficient to bring providers up to the accredited standard. There has been strong messaging, encouragement and co-ordination to try to bring providers up to the accredited standard voluntarily, but that has still not happened. After many years of trying, the regulator and others have concluded that statutory enforcement powers are required. On the evidence, that seems a reasonable request.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. When a direction of travel is set, it is sometimes difficult to change it around.

The Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, in her foreword to the 2019 annual report, published earlier this year, sets out clearly and comprehensively what we ought to think about in the debate. I will therefore read from the foreword at length, which says:

“Whether it is data science, computer science, physics, chemistry, biology or another discipline, forensic science should be firmly rooted in good science. Courts should not have to judge whether this expert or that expert is ‘better’, but rather there should be a clear explanation of the scientific basis and data from which conclusions are drawn, and any relevant limitations. All forensic science must be conducted by competent forensic scientists, according to scientifically valid methods and be transparently reported, making very clear the limits of knowledge and/or methodology. Implementation of quality standards is a means to this end, ensuring a systematic approach to scientific validity, competence and quality. It therefore remains my absolute priority to publish a standard for the development of evaluation opinions, to ensure that this systematic approach to quality covers all scientific activities from crime scene to court.

Some practitioners and leaders understand quality. They may be (and indeed should be) challenging about the detail of how to adopt the standards and may rightly point out the need for additional resources. However, they seek to use the requirement to adhere to quality standards to innovate in terms of process and/or technology and, in doing so, they bring about positive change. Often, they are truly inspiring.

Others misunderstand. They may grudgingly implement standards, but in a way that cripples their productivity and locks staff into rigid protocols, no matter what the case requires. Or they may devote much time and energy to avoiding compliance, arguing against change and sticking to ‘how we’ve always done it’. The problem is that technology has moved on. ‘How we used to take anti-contamination precautions’”—

for example,—

“is no longer fit for purpose in a world where the sensitivity of DNA methods has increased by several orders of magnitude.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not currently in his place, but, on his point, perhaps with ever-changing technology and a need for higher levels of technology, there is a requirement for additional resources in this area, not just in general but for the regulator and her team.

The foreword continues:

“‘How we used to do digital forensics’ is no longer fit for purpose in a world where data volume and complexity have ballooned, and a substantial subset of the data required is in the cloud. Throwing massive volumes of extracted data to investigators, who generally lack the tools and methods to interrogate the data effectively, just shifts a problem; a more integrated approach could be transformative.

Leadership and innovation are critical, because trying to transpose quality standards onto ineffective processes without change only succeeds in adding inefficiency to ineffectiveness.

Whilst the body of this report deals with the year to 16 November 2019, the foreword presents an opportunity to comment on more recent events and I am pleased to note that the Government has committed to investing approximately £28 million over a year to improve forensic science, via the Transforming Forensics Programme. It will be a massive challenge for the programme to deliver effective change, but it is my hope that the work will design quality into innovative approaches, in a way that brings together the best of the public and private sectors and academia.

A new government has been elected and I have been assured that there is no change from the policy to legislate to provide statutory enforcement powers for the Regulator. I am, however, disappointed to note that there is, as yet, no definite plan for government legislation. I therefore welcome the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Private Member’s Bill, proposed by Darren Jones, MP. The delay in legislating has, without doubt, resulted in slower progress towards compliance with quality standards, particularly in very small companies and police forces. Nonetheless, there is much learning from the progress thus far and this is reflected in my priorities around assisting with and improving the adoption of standards.

I will continue to lobby for change to ensure that the policies for commissioning forensic science support the provision of high quality forensic science. That has two main elements: the first is that those making case-specific commissioning decisions do so in a knowledgeable, collaborative and outcome-based manner, proportionate to the seriousness of the case and the potential for forensic science to contribute to criminal justice outcomes. I therefore welcome a new project, in the”—

Home Office,—

“that aims to better quantify the impact of forensic science in the Criminal Justice System. The second element is to ensure that a longer-term strategy for sustainable provision of high quality forensic science is developed as a matter of urgency. The pricing uplifts put in place to stabilise the market this year were the beginning but not the end of this process and I have recently been made aware of concerns in the digital forensics community about unsustainable pricing, driven by high weighting on price in procurement. We must not go back into a spiral of unsustainability.”

The sense of a spiral of unsustainability is incredibly important for the future, for the resources are allocated, encouraged and supported through the regulator and for those that police forces around the country allocate to different parts of what they deliver on justice and policing. This cannot be as underfunded as it has been. Ground needs to be regained.

Fundamentally, this is about the credibility of a significant body of evidence that should be used to convict the guilty and, in many cases, set the innocent free. Without rigour and the statutory enforcement power to back it up, too often, we will not see justice delivered and law and order upheld. In recent times, there have been a couple of very significant instances where we have seen failures in the system, if not necessarily in the market, and we have to be careful even though they are market providers—I am thinking of the failures of Randox and Key Forensic Services. Fundamentally, these could and perhaps should be seen more in the context of a lack of oversight, or a lack of ability to enforce concerns in the oversight position, as opposed necessarily to being a failure of the private sector. Whether we are talking about the police forces and their forensic units, or the market forensic units outside the police forces, they are all under pressure and under constraints, so we ought not to use Randox and Key Forensic Services as case studies against the market sector. However, we can reflect on the impact that those cases have had and how we should go forward.

Many thousands of cases are affected when a laboratory, in whichever way, goes wrong. Thousands of samples may not be analysed in the right way or may be contaminated, and that can have an impact on trials. In some cases, the guilty can get off; in other cases, the innocent may be found guilty.

We can just imagine the circumstances if someone who needs to drive for their living is convicted of drug-driving and can no longer do their job. That has a massive impact on them personally—perhaps they have to switch jobs or they become unemployed—it has an impact on their ability to look after their family and pay their mortgage, and it will have an impact on family life. Even though in many ways this issue can seem abstract and niche in its concerns, it has an impact, because law and order and the courts system have such a wide impact on so many people’s lives right around the country. That is an important reason why we need to tighten regulatory oversight.

There are two broad categories for forensic science: trace forensics, which is perhaps what people will be familiar with, thinking of DNA, fingerprints and drug samples, and digital forensics, which looks at computers, smartphones, mobile devices and social media. Increasingly, there are concerns about cloud computing and the colossal volumes of data we produce these days. It is thought that about 90% of crime has a digital element and, hearing the awful news of what happened in Croydon overnight, we can be pretty sure that there will be a significant forensics contribution to that investigation.

That digital element can expand to cover many different areas, including CCTV and cyber-attacks. I was startled to read that the average British household now has on average 7.4 digital-enabled devices, and we have to look at that being set to continue into the future, so there are massive challenges. That perhaps goes into the whole idea of big data, because big data is not just about large volumes of data but about the extraction, manipulation, use and interpretation of that data. There is far more to it than just getting hold of a device; we have to do so in a managed and controlled way.

As with any science, these disciplines do not sit in isolation, so increasingly we see that any given crime will require that expertise from both the trace element and the digital element of forensics. How we manage those two sectors coming together and working together places increasing demand on the sector, requiring more and more advanced management. If we do not have the resources to look into how we manage the system and perhaps do not have the resources going in, that creates increasing strains, which then have an impact on the rest of the criminal justice system and policing.

[Richard Fuller]

I have been listening with interest as my hon. Friend has explained an ever-expanding list of areas, including data, big data and artificial intelligence. It seems to me that his vision for what may be within the ambit of the Bill is much more expansive than perhaps was my first assessment of what may be contrived in this Bill—certainly, as we were hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), within a budget of £100,000 going up to £400,000. Have I got the scale of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) is envisaging right, or is it more restrictive, perhaps closer to what the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said in his opening remarks?

[Chris Green]

I think that point reflects on what the hon. Member for Bristol North West said about this being a starting point in terms of the regulator body. This also reflects upon the sphere of law and order and the justice system that it ought to be looking at and investigating. It is those two aspects together that overall will require significant resources, and to get more and increasingly specialist skills to look at artificial intelligence, cloud computing and those sorts of areas. There may not be those skills necessarily within the regulated service, but certainly there would be an expectation of commissioning people to come in to inform and enable the regulator to have that oversight position, perhaps, later on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

I agree with the concerns that my hon. Friend highlights. When the system looks in one way or another at a victim’s smart device, which has so many personal messages and so much personal information on it, the victim needs reassurance that it will be done in the right way and they ought to feel safe. I am cautious that that ought not to be an impediment to their seeking justice.

[Richard Fuller]

I am cautious about trying to have a dialogue with the Minister through my hon. Friend while he makes his speech, but may I just add a counterpoint to his response to the Minister about the assurance that comes when “the system”, as my hon. Friend called it, has access to data? If we provide a statutory underpinning to the powers that can be taken in the use of data for forensics, does that not provide a stronger basis for the state to intrude even further into the data requirements that law enforcement can pursue in pursuit of forensic evidence? Would that not be a cause of concern for many people?

[Chris Green]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns, but I would be cautious about going down that route. Increasingly, the policing system as a whole reflects on the specialist skills required to do the work and within that system there is increasing recognition that the police need people who are perhaps badged as police but who would not fit into the traditional view of policing. Whether those people are employed and recruited through the policing system or for a private sector provider, ensuring the standards are equally high and equally well adhered to is key to this aspect of the work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

I agree entirely; my hon. Friend makes an important point. This legislation, and our having this debate, is incredibly important in giving victims the confidence to come forward and know that they will be looked after and supported in the right way. There would be an ongoing duty and responsibility for the Forensic Science Regulator to work to raise standards in the system, so that people can recognise that.

I have not touched much on the digital side of a forensic science laboratory’s work. I am more familiar with mass spec, high-performance liquid chromatography and the other analytical techniques that can be used. I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee from 2015 to 2017, and we went on a visit to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in Teddington. I had worked there a little bit beforehand, but it was fascinating to see the digital side of its work. I want to give a sense of the challenge ahead and the resources required.

The police and forensic scientists have to monitor, judge, analyse and access smartphones, smart watches, iPads, computers, desktops and many other devices. All those devices have different levels of software, different editions, newer versions and different operating systems. We need to have a compliant system within the digital sphere to ensure that that analysis can be done in a way that cannot then be challenged or undermined in the court system, and it can be shown that these standards have been adhered to and in no way have the digital services interfered with or corrupted the data being drawn from these devices.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is outlining the expanding scope of the work that will be undertaken. I take the point from the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones): this is about the statutory underpinning. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend think that all this work he refers to about digital watches and digital whatsits can be done within a budget of £400,000 a year? Are we not really just seeing the first step in what will be an ever-increasing budget for this regulator?

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Williams]

It is extremely rewarding for my constituents who deal with that day in, day out to see the scale of the arrests today—more than a thousand. Again, I pay tribute to those officers. As the Minister alluded to, forensic science plays a huge role in the intelligence gathering and the prosecution of those evil people who commit such offences on vulnerable people across our constituencies. We need standardisation to ensure the quality of the forensic science that the Bill and statutory powers would provide.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is right that no hon. Member would want to give any solace to those evil people, as he puts it, but it is also the case that the Government are involved in those issues, and they are not always the beneficent wonderful huggy bear of an organisation that our socialist colleagues opposite sometimes seem to think. My concern, which was provoked by the Minister’s response, is that giving the standardisation a statutory underpinning would not only create equivalence across agencies, but be a back-door way for the Government to extend their powers and the investigatory authorities against local police forces that may not think that wise.

[Craig Williams]

My hon. Friend brings a sobering note to the debate. Clearly, we need the powers and the standardisation of the quality of evidence to ensure that our constituents are protected, but Parliament, having put them on a statutory footing, needs to keep playing an active role to watch that the fears that he describes do not arise. I would say that about any power that we give to any colour of Government.

To stick to my practical points, I underpin what I was saying about the county lines raids and welcome the quality of evidence. The Bill will bring more power to the persecution of those evil people. I also pay tribute to my force, Dyfed-Powys police, and its trailblazing efforts in forensic science, which have seen cow DNA used for the first time in a conviction earlier this year. Any hon. Member who represents a rural agricultural community will know that forensic science is changing the way that we police our great countryside and shires.

A farmer in Dyfed-Powys lost a heifer in 2017. Like any good farmer, he soon recognised it in a neighbouring field but of course could not prove it, and the case went on with Dyfed-Powys police for some years. Luckily, a breakthrough in forensic science proved through DNA sampling that the lost heifer, which was next door with a naughty neighbouring farmer who happened by chance to find that obviously prize-winning heifer in his field and who produced a fake cow passport and, indeed, fake tagging, was his. He was reunited with his cow and there was a successful prosecution. I am pleased to tell the House that there was a £4,000 fine and £500 in costs. It was indeed a very moving occasion for all of us in Dyfed-Powys.

--- Later in debate ---

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

You have caught me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

To allow the hon. Gentleman time to catch his breath, I will just say that I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) has just made the shortest speech on a Friday that I have heard, although it was none the less effective.

[Richard Fuller]

Let me assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall not be following that example. On the issue of brevity, I am sure that, like me, you were hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) might be persuaded away from his characteristic brevity in Friday sittings to give a peroration of some length about his scepticism with regard to the Bill, but alas he was resolutely brief in his comments today. Perhaps I can make up for his brevity too in my contribution.

I add my congratulations to those already given to the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for introducing the Bill, which apparently has wide support across the Chamber. I see no reason to stop it progressing to the next stage and wish him well as it goes through the further deliberations. I am grateful to him for clarifying the parts of the initial Bill which, on consideration, he has thought best to leave to others. As he rightly says, and as the Minister has said from the Front Bench today, the Government themselves have some ideas, coming from the manifesto, to implement and that will help the good passage of the Bill. The willingness on the part of the Bill’s promoter to listen and to be collegial with the Government will ensure that this Bill becomes the law of the land.

Notwithstanding that expectation, let me set out some reasons for caution and concern. My reasons for caution have been exacerbated and enhanced—brought to a higher peak, one might say—by some of the contributions from my hon. Friend the Minister. He exhibited in some of his comments an uncharacteristic enthusiasm, perhaps some would say a worrying desire—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

An obsession.

[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.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller]

If I may, I will make some progress and then give way.

Let me try to share a little bit more of my concern. Of course, I understand what the Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol North West are saying. I do not doubt that people coming in should, in principle, have qualifications personally. I am not anti-expert, for want of a better phrase, but I do not agree with the Minister because I want all doubt to be eliminated from the jury about whether the person making such claims is speaking with ultimate authority.

This is precisely my point: we are all fallible, and even the best methodology is fallible. There are many instances where the best evidence of the time was presented and there was a huge miscarriage of justice. There is, I think, a sentiment among us that we think experts are experts and that science and data are fantastic. We have cultural impressions that reinforce that. My concern is that the Bill is taking us even further on that. If we are going even further away from the understanding that whoever is in front of us is subject to human failings when we are talking about complex issues, I find that somewhat more alarming than perhaps the Minister does.

I do not think that is a particular fault of the Bill; I raise it as a concern about how we operate in a much more complex world, and the jury system needs to be suffused with doubt about human intentions in the information presented. If we do not have that doubt, innocent victims will never get the full benefit of the judicial system. That was my point.

[Chris Green]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the quality of evidence and expertise. That was covered in the forensic science regulator’s report, published earlier this year, which talked of:

“Implementation of quality standards is a means to this end, ensuring a systematic approach to scientific validity, competence and quality.”

The report therefore covers the regulator’s approach, and the report produced in the Lords last year touched on such concerns in a more robust way. I think that what we are trying to achieve in this area will reinforce and improve the situation. There is also the perspective that there ought to be better briefing and understanding within the system, so that, in fields where there may be a variable quality or understanding of certainty, that is explained as a trial makes progress.

[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?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The debate is not about the wish to raise standards—we all want to raise standards—but the method of doing so. I return time and again to the Financial Conduct Authority and its complainant body, the FOS—the Financial Ombudsman Service—which represent a collective cost to the taxpayer of £837 million a year. Who would say that the financial services industry was well regulated, bearing in mind the succession of scandals involving particularly the banking sector in the past two decades?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about those matters and he cites one of what I think may be many examples of where regulators continue to act, but we as a Parliament, having devolved those powers to them, pay them scant regard. I am afraid that it is not in the nature of Members of Parliament to be interested in what they have done, but to be oh so very interested in what we shall do. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that. The Institute of Economic Affairs is undertaking a study on regulating the regulators. I encourage hon. Members to look at that work and perhaps participate in that organisation’s efforts.

Several hon. Members have rightly raised the costs that will be imposed on our police services. I am interested in whether the Minister will say whether he anticipates that making the powers statutory will put additional costs on our police services and what his answer to that is. We know that costs will increase from £100,000 to £400,000. Will the Minister confirm that that is the current figure and whether he anticipates that it will increase? I would also be interested to know whether that includes the cost of compliance and enforcement. If we put the powers on a statutory footing, is the £400,000 estimate supposed to cover all the enforcement actions and the regulator’s investigatory requirements, or will that require an additional amount of money? I am concerned about the additional costs that we may incur.

Putting a regulator on a statutory footing is not a panacea. It does not assure us that errors will not be made. Another concern is that if several police forces are consistently found to breach statutory guidelines, will that information become evidential in courts that other forensic evidence from those forces should be viewed as not up to standard? I am worried that the change will have unintended consequences, and I would like the Minister to reassure me about that.

Sadly, I know that I have to end so that other hon. Members can participate. I would like to go on—and on—but I hope I have raised a couple of points, perhaps from a slightly more sceptical point of view, that other hon. Members in their brevity did not have the opportunity to make. I wish the hon. Member for Bristol North West the best of luck with the progress of his Bill.