Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Why does the Labour party never admit that its proposed spending reductions of over £1 billion would also result in a reduction in the police work force, and why does it also never admit that it supports the two-year pay freeze, and that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow policing Minister, supports further savings to the police budget, which means it is committed to a greater saving than we are? That is a fact, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) should attend to the real issue, which is that there have been 25,000 police officers in backroom positions rather than on the front line. We are seeking to redress that.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

11. Whether her Department has carried out an impact assessment on removing the deterrent of a criminal record in dealing with antisocial behaviour.

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

No, because we are not removing the deterrent of a criminal record in dealing with antisocial behaviour.

[Robert Flello]

I thank the Minister for that interesting answer. Under Labour, antisocial behaviour was driven down and my constituents saw the real benefit. With front-line policing now being hit by Tory cuts, my constituents are facing a weakening of powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, despite the spin we heard a moment ago. In drafting the upcoming White Paper, will the Minister acknowledge that public confidence is low and a weakened rebranding of antisocial behaviour orders is the wrong priority at the wrong time?

[James Brokenshire]

It may not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not share his characterisation of the antisocial behaviour measures on which we have been consulting. The criminal behaviour order would carry a tough criminal sanction for breach, and other measures, such as the crime prevention injunction, are about having speedier justice to bring relief to communities. These measures are about strengthening the response to antisocial behaviour, not weakening it. The hon. Gentleman will see that when the White Paper is published tomorrow.

Home Affairs and Justice

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

There is a difference there, so we can yet persuade the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to hear that, and we will do that.

Most people in this country are sickened at the thought of terrorists or suspected terrorists winning, as they have been winning, large sums in civil courts by reason not of their innocence, but because the authorities have not been able to use sensitive intelligence information which, if discussed openly, could endanger public safety in open court. We need a system—with checks and balances, admittedly—that will provide for this issue in the small number of cases where it is relevant.

Our core aim in introducing the Defamation Bill—

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Before the Minister moves on, perhaps he can shed some light on a concern raised by the Royal British Legion and Inquest, about secret inquests. [Interruption.]

[Mr Djanogly]

I am advised that we are looking carefully at the issue, and we would be pleased to engage with the Royal British Legion and others on it.

Our core aim in introducing the Defamation Bill is to reform the law so that it strikes the right balance between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. As the points raised illustrate, there is a wide range of views on exactly what that balance should be and how individual issues should be dealt with. We look forward to an extensive and informed debate both here and in the other place as the Bill proceeds.

The draft communications data provisions provide for targeted, practical measures that are essential to enable our law enforcement agencies to keep pace with new technologies, with strong safeguards to protect civil liberties. We can protect the public while continuing to uphold civil liberties in an internet age. As the Home Secretary clearly set out, there will be no single Government database, no real-time monitoring of communications of individuals, and no new powers to intercept e-mails or phone calls of members of the public. That will address the concerns raised by several Members.

My right hon. Friends the Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed and for Carshalton and Wallington raised the issue of collection of data. I can assure them that we will be extending the role of the interception of communications commissioner to oversee the collection of communications data by communications service providers, and it will continue to be the Information Commissioner’s role to keep under review the security of information kept up to the end of the 12-month retention period.

Members clearly share views on the scourge of antisocial behaviour, to which several of them referred. Antisocial behaviour is an issue that really matters to the public, and for too many people it remains a nasty fact of everyday life. Despite the years of top-down initiatives and targets handed out by the previous Government, more than 3 million antisocial behaviour incidents are reported to the police each year and many are not reported at all. That is why this Government want a transformation in the way that antisocial behaviour is dealt with, and I thank hon. Members for their useful contributions and interventions. The Government have stripped away the targets that hampered professionals’ ability to crack down on this kind of crime. We will introduce more effective measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, including replacing the bureaucratic and ineffective antisocial behaviour orders, more than half of which are currently being breached at least once.

Abu Qatada

Robert Flello Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an attempt by Abu Qatada and his lawyers to delay the action we have taken. It is, as I said, educational— and, I believe, very significant—that Abu Qatada’s lawyers did not make a referral or attempt to make a referral until they had seen the strength of our case in SIAC on Tuesday after we had arrested him and taken him before the courts. It is, of course, essential to ensure that we continue with the deportation, and we will do so as soon as this process in the European Court is completed.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said this is a simple matter. If, then, in the days and perhaps weeks ahead, it becomes clear that the Home Secretary did have advice from officials that there was some ambiguity, will she resign?

[Mrs May]

It is a simple matter because the deadline was Monday 16 April and the decision will be taken by the judges in the Grand Chamber of the European Court. What is also a simple matter is the fact that it is this Government who got the assurances from Jordan that will enable us to resume the deportation of Abu Qatada. That is what we want to see and what the British public want to see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about what Merseyside police are doing. It is a very good example of how it is possible for police forces to make savings while improving the service to the public.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T2. There is real concern across the country that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will lead to a patchy, postcode lottery in victims’ support services. Will the Secretary of State support ring-fencing the vital resources devolved to commissioners?

[Mrs May]

We are ensuring that there is a local voice in the services available to victims and in local policing. It is right that police and crime commissioners will, in due course, be able to commission victims’ services, thus reflecting what is necessary in the local area.

Metal Theft

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on the way he introduced the debate and on the lead he has shown on this important issue? I congratulate also the other authors of the excellent motion we are debating. This is an important time for tackling this issue.

I start my brief remarks by congratulating the Government and agreeing with them on some of what they are doing. I agreed with the Home Secretary when she said last month that people who deal in stolen metal are criminals “pure and simple.” Yes, they are. I also agree with the crime prevention Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) when he said last year that metal theft is not “a victimless crime.” No, it is not.

My constituents would agree with both those statements, particularly if they use the east coast rail line, where cable theft seriously disrupts services at least once a week. Tynemouth residents would agree too, because they are angry when war memorials are vandalised or cowardly thieves steal commemorative plaques from seafront benches. They ask why it is taking such a long time to get to the right place on the matter.

The Government sometimes stand accused, particularly by Opposition Members, of going too far, too fast, but on this issue they are not going far or fast enough. For example, when the pilot scheme to tackle metal theft in the north-east was announced—Operation Tornado—I sincerely welcomed and supported it, but there was an earlier pilot, Operation Fragment, in 2009, and when I asked the Home Office in a parliamentary question whether any evaluation of that pilot had taken place since the election, the Government said that they were learning from previous operations.

The Home Office then announced a metal theft taskforce, which sounds very much like the metal theft unit in the Home Office that was disbanded. Yesterday in another place, the Government announced that they are considering legislative changes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn said, he has introduced a private Member’s Bill that is fit for purpose, so the Government need consider no further.

It is baffling. Why has it taken so long to act? Was it because after the general election Home Office officials were told to disregard everything that had gone before and start a year zero policy? Has the Home Office, like the Justice Secretary, been convinced of the view that in a recession crime will inevitably go up? It did not go up during the 2008 recession and it does not have to be inevitable now. Alternatively, did the Home Office fail to see the link between commodity prices and theft and thus what was coming?

What can be done? Certainly cashless sales and increased fines will help, but the answer is not reform of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, but its replacement. The police need real powers to enter scrap yards and to close premises if necessary.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. I am sure that, like me, he goes on operations with his local police force, and if he has not done so, he should. I have sat outside a scrap yard in my constituency with police officers, observing the arrival of vehicle after vehicle that was known to the police. They know the criminals are there, but they are powerless to do anything. Does my hon. Friend share that view?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) for securing the debate; I am grateful to colleagues from the West Midlands and West Mercia police areas for signing the motion. As Members will know, the iron bridge is in my constituency, so it is appropriate that I should speak. When I left yesterday, it was still there, I am pleased to say. People sometimes call my constituency the birthplace of global warming—I do not know whether that is a tribute or not.

I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn in saying that metal theft has reached epidemic proportions. It is not a new problem, let us face it: it has been going on for many years. Households face repeated problems, including power cuts. Commuters face delays on their way to work; metal is being stolen from churches, schools, factories, private homes and public buildings.

[Robert Flello]

One of my constituents recently faced a ridiculous situation. They cleaned their fridge-freezer, put it out by the back door, washed it down and went inside for a cup of coffee. When they came out, they found that it had gone. Does my hon. Friend agree that theft is happening at all sorts of levels?

[David Wright]

I do, and I shall come on to the gangs who travel round estates taking property from people, often from their premises. Those gangs may do a good job clearing up material that would otherwise be fly-tipped, but they need to do it with permission, and they should be regulated.

I have been contacted by the chairman of my police authority in West Mercia, who told me that there has been an alarming increase in the number of recorded metal theft offences. An additional 131 offences were recorded when comparing April to December 2011 to April to December 2010—a 12% rise—and those figures exclude the figures for the theft of catalytic converters, which have risen by 152%, and of lead flashings, which have shown a 92% rise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), the hon. Members for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) and for Worcester (Mr Walker) and others on securing this debate. In the few minutes that I have, I should like to concentrate on one line in the motion, which calls for

“a radical change in how the scrap metal industry is regulated”.

We have heard a lot about the behaviour of the scrap metal man who goes round in his van, hawking and trying to get bits of scrap metal, and who is, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention, not averse to lifting anything that is not nailed down. Indeed, sometimes he goes so far as to rob roofs and memorials, and to commit other shameful acts.

I want to focus on the scrap metal yards, and on one in particular. I would like to be able to say that it is dear to my heart, but it is quite the opposite. It epitomises the worst aspects of the industry, which we need to stamp out if we are to start to regulate it properly. The people who bought the yard put up two buildings in it, for which they had no planning permission. They built them 15 months ago, irrespective of any rules or regulations, to service the end-of-life processing of vehicles. They also put up CCTV columns. The yard abuts a large housing development; it is right behind people’s houses, and the 360 CCTV cameras can look into those homes. The owners also put up lighting columns that illuminate the yard late into the evening, seven days a week. This, too, was done without planning permission.

The owners also built a wall. Regardless of the fact that the existing planning permission for the area allowed for a 2-metre high fence, they built a wall that was higher than that, so that they could pile the scrap higher. Such a fence was banned under the previous planning permission, which they have ignored. They have also built supports for the wall on council land that they do not even own.

The most incredible thing that those people have done is quite recent. Residents in the area have understandably expressed concerns about the noise, dust and vibration pollution that they have to put up with. The noise is terrible; the crashing can be heard from a mile away. To get round the problem, the owners came up with a great wheeze. They constructed a wall of shipping containers, piled three high and welded together. And, yes, this was done without planning permission. Thankfully, the council managed to act quickly, and it issued a stop order that has another week to run.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is painting an appalling picture of one particular rogue operator. In South Yorkshire, we have the fourth highest incidence of metal theft in the country, and in Sheffield it rose by 46% last year. The acting chief constable has raised the issue with me, and he told me that it is the issue on which we in the House could do the most to support what he is trying to do to crack down on crime. Does my hon. Friend agree that we therefore need to give the police greater powers, particularly powers of entry and the power to shut down rogue dealers of the kind that he is describing?

[Robert Flello]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We need a complete review of everything relating to the scrap metal trade. We also need to bring in a really robust set of proposals quickly, if we are to eliminate these problems.

The problem is one of identifying the rogue traders. The company in my constituency, European Metal Recycling, says that it is the biggest scrap metal firm in Europe. What a recommendation that is, if it behaves in such a way in my constituency and treats with shameful disdain anyone who lives within earshot of the site. The council got wind of the plan to put up the wall of shipping containers when the company started to prune some of the trees. When council officers went to the site to ask why that was happening, they were told, “It’s just a bit of routine pruning”—but, hey presto, a few days later, up went the shipping containers.

Unfortunately, sorting out the rogues from the good guys is very difficult. We need a robust, detailed system that will cover all metal dealers: the folk who drive round our estates at all hours of the day and night calling for scrap metal; those who walk around with carrier bags full of metal that they have liberated from somewhere; and the supposedly large concerns that trade internationally in the metal that they process. We need a system that will do a proper job of clamping down to ensure that our communities are no longer blighted by this menace.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing a debate on an issue that rightly concerns all of us. I congratulate the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) and for Worcester (Mr Walker) on tabling the motion.

Metal theft is a crime that affects us all and strikes at the very heart of our communities. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, it is a dreadful crime. They have painted a thoroughly depressing picture of the mentality of those who would desecrate churches and commit theft—whole brass bands gone and a building having to be demolished because of the amount of metal taken from it. There were really horrible stories from every constituency.

The consequences are there for all to see, not least the loss and disruption to telecommunications, as every hon. Member mentioned—I am not going to go over everything that was said, as more than 22 contributions were made—as well as to electricity and transport networks, and the damage to our religious and heritage sites. There were horrific stories right across the country.

We are not prepared to stand by and see our infrastructure and heritage destroyed, which is why the Government are taking the problem of metal theft so seriously and taking action. We are clear that the only sustainable, long-term solution is legislation, but we are equally clear that legislation alone is not enough. That is why we propose a coherent package of measures to tackle metal theft. We want to cut out the easy, anonymous reward for metal thieves by banning cash payments for scrap metal and making it much harder for illegitimate dealers to trade in stolen metals by introducing a more rigorous licensing scheme, which many Members across the House have called for. We want to deter thieves and illegal metal dealers by introducing more focused and sustained enforcement and tougher penalties.

To those who say that the Government are not going far enough or fast enough, I say that we are going as fast as we possibly can. Metal theft is a horrific crime, and the Government are stepping forward to take action. Two weeks ago the Home Secretary announced to Parliament the legislative action we will take as part of our package of measures. We will increase the fines for all offences in the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964—the maximum fine will be unlimited—which will strengthen the deterrent and improve industry compliance with the current registration scheme. We will also create a new criminal offence in order to prohibit cash payments for the purchase of scrap metal. That has been welcomed on both sides of the House.

Prohibiting cash from an entire sector is a bold step, but cash transactions for scrap metal are often completed without any proof of personal identification or that the individual legitimately owns the goods being sold. This leads to anonymous transactions that create such a low risk for criminal activity that we have seen this epidemic across our country. Requiring transactions to be completed with traceable payments will dramatically improve the ability of the police and local authorities to enforce the existing registration scheme. The widespread use of cash, coupled with lax record keeping, also creates easy opportunities for tax avoidance. We will work constructively with the British Metals Recycling Association on how his measure will operate in practice.

The legislative changes to increase fines and ban cash payments will be made through Government amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. This is the quickest and most practical way that we can get these measures into law and crack down on metal theft. Members across the House have made it perfectly clear tonight that the House wants us to go further, but let me stress that we need realistic, achievable and effective legislative measures.

[Robert Flello]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will not, as I am really short of time.

That is why we took the difficult decision not to support the private Member’s Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Hyndburn. It was not because we do not agree with the principles, but because unfortunately the Bill would not have received the necessary parliamentary time to achieve Royal Assent in this Session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

First, I welcome the Minister’s words, because we are beginning to move in the right direction. We still have some outstanding issues, including whether the Government are going to be robust enough, but we have heard everybody’s comments tonight, and we in the plural sense—the public, Members and those in the other place—want to see tough action, so that is a key question for the Government.

Secondly, on the point about timing, Members want to see measures introduced as soon as possible, and one key issue for many Members is the fact that we have the summer recess coming up and the Queen’s speech, so legislation needs to come forward. We also have the Olympic games, and, to cite again the words I mentioned earlier, we are not far from a national catastrophe. Paul Crowther from the British Transport police said that the issue is second only to terrorism, so urgency is key in this issue, and many people both nationally and locally feel that way.

[Robert Flello]

Would it not be extremely embarrassing for this country if the Olympics were disrupted by metal theft?

[Graham Jones]

I say politely to my hon. Friend, “It wouldn’t be very good, would it?” It would not be a good advert if London ground to a halt and the rail network stopped, so it is imperative that we are seen to act.

I am grateful to Members for being here tonight in such numbers in order to express their opinion on the need to act on metal theft. The Government need not just to look at the timetable and to bring forward legislation as soon as they can; they need to go beyond legislation. We need to consider being far more proactive, so I am very grateful for Members’ contributions this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that metal theft is becoming a serious issue for the UK; welcomes the Government’s announcement on introducing a cashless system and higher penalties; is concerned that the comprehensive package of measures which is needed to address this issue is not being introduced at the same time; believes that to effectively stamp out metal theft there needs to be a radical change in how the scrap metal industry is regulated; and calls on the Government to introduce a number of additional measures as a matter of urgency, including a robust licensing scheme for scrap metal dealers to replace the present registration scheme, a licence fee to fund the regulation of the licence, greater police powers to close unscrupulous scrap metal dealers in line with alcohol licensing, police authority to search and investigate all premises owned and operated by scrap metal dealers, use of photo identification and CCTV to identify sellers of scrap metal, and their vehicles, vehicle badging for mobile scrap metal dealers, and magistrates’ powers to add licence restrictions and prevent closed yards from re-opening.

Operation Ore (Staffordshire)

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

May I begin my thanking Mr Speaker for granting this debate? Those watching and listening will no doubt wonder why I want to raise something that happened such a long time ago. The simple answer is that my constituents have had to wait such a long time for an apology, and indeed are still awaiting an apology from Staffordshire police. I hope that following the debate the current chief constable, who is an honourable man, will move to ensure that that wrong is corrected without further delay.

I want to say something about Operation Ore in general. All aspects of child pornography are horrific, and I pay tribute to all agencies that act to stamp out that appalling crime. The victims need so much more than just sympathy. However, Operation Ore was not handled well: thousands of people were falsely accused, leading to 100,000 children being wrongly removed from their homes, people’s reputations wrongly being destroyed and, tragically, a number of people committing suicide. It is with that in mind that I turn to the circumstances of a constituent who, quite understandably, wishes to remain anonymous. Staffordshire police are fully aware of the case and know to whom I refer.

I wish to take the opportunity presented by the debate to raise the case of that constituent, who in December 2002 was arrested by Staffordshire police as part of Operation Ore, the British part of the global operation against internet child pornography. When I conclude my remarks, I will seek a number of reassurances from the Minister, whom I am grateful to see here this evening to respond to the debate.

Almost four years before the circumstances of December 2002, in January 1999, my constituent reported that his Barclaycard had been stolen. He reported it to a police station in Stoke-on-Trent, which issued him with a crime number, and to Barclaycard, from which he received a refund of £179.76 for some unlawful transactions made in the period between the theft of the card and his reporting it at the police station.

However, on 12 December 2002, eight officers arrived at my constituent’s home early in the morning amid a high police presence. Vans were parked for most of the day outside his home, which he shared with his parents, understandably arousing a great deal of interest in the neighbourhood. During the day a considerable amount of property, including computer equipment, was removed from the home. He was arrested on the grounds that the Barclaycard registered to him had been used in 1999 to access a website containing child pornography. I reiterate that it was in January 1999 that he had reported the theft to the police.

My constituent suffers from ulserative colitis, for which he had been taking prescribed medicine, which he informed the police doctor about early in his detention. His medication was brought to the police station promptly but was withheld from him until he was released at 7 o’clock that evening. As a result of the stress of his arrest and the withholding of his medication, his medical condition worsened, necessitating a medical referral to a consultant in order to rebalance the medication. It is only in recent years that his health has improved following the stress of that incident.

On 13 December 2002, the following day, my constituent was able to provide Staffordshire police with evidence that he had, indeed, reported the theft of his credit card in January 1999, and of the resulting refund from Barclaycard. As a result, no charges have ever been brought against him, and on 18 December 2002 all the property that had been seized on 12 December was returned. The police had checked the credit card database, but incredibly only back to 2002; the incident to which it related took place in 1999.

After much deliberation, during which the family tried to rebuild their standing in the community and to move on from the awful experience, my constituent and his parents decided in February 2003 to make formal complaints to Staffordshire police for wrongful arrest. These were acknowledged in writing on 25 February 2003 by the then deputy chief constable, David Swift, who informed both parties that their complaints had been passed to the force’s professional standards unit, where it would be handled by a Mr Hulse. On 6 March 2003, DCC Swift wrote again to my constituent’s parents, asking them to contact an Inspector Humphries within 14 days, which they did.

My constituent and his parents met the inspector in March 2003 and were told that, as my constituent had been the person arrested, any complaint should come from him. Therefore, the parents withdrew their complaint. My constituent was also persuaded not to pursue a formal complaint—he was told that this would be interpreted as a personal attack on the police officers—but to go down the route of an informal complaint.

Later that month, my constituent’s parents engaged a firm of local solicitors, and during a meeting Mr Hulse informed my constituent that, owing to a change in the police computer system, only records dating back to 2002 had been checked prior to his arrest, so the 1999 report of the theft of his credit card had not shown up. My constituents were advised by their solicitor that it would thus be difficult to proceed further with any complaint, as negligence would need to be proved, and that that would be an expensive undertaking for which legal aid would not be available.

In June 2003, my constituent’s parents wrote to the Metropolitan police, the lead force on Operation Ore, but their letter was merely forwarded to Staffordshire police, who informed them in July 2003 that the matter was now being dealt with by a detective inspector from the local CID.

In September 2003, my constituents engaged new solicitors, and a formal complaint for wrongful arrest was made on 1 October 2003, which Staffordshire police once again referred to the PSU in a letter dated 10 October. On 17 October, my constituent received a further letter informing him that Inspector Humphries was again handling their complaint.

There exists a withdrawal of complaint form, dated 24 October 2003, which apparently has been signed by my constituent. My constituent remains adamant to this day, however, that at no time did he agree to withdraw his complaint, sign any such document or have the inclination to withdraw his complaint. Staffordshire police appear to have no record of the original complaint, just the withdrawal of it, and in addition there are factual errors on the withdrawal form. In an effort to try to resolve that particular aspect of the case, I sought to view the original withdrawal form, and was told in no uncertain terms by the solicitors for Staffordshire police, “Who are you to be even considering reviewing such a document?” I am sure that the Minister will agree that so far the whole issue is of great concern.

In February 2004, my constituents’ solicitors informed Staffordshire police of their intention to seek damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment, and that was acknowledged by Staffordshire police on 24 February 2004 and by the force’s insurers on 5 March 2004. In June 2004, my constituent was asked to provide some proof of his inability to work, and he was able to provide some evidence.

On 25 October 2004, however, Staffordshire police’s legal adviser, a Mr Griffiths, wrote to my constituents rejecting their claim, stating that in his opinion the arrest of my constituent had been lawful for the following reasons. First, my constituent did not inform the arresting officer of the 1999 theft of his credit card until part way through his first interview, not at the time of his arrest. Given the circumstances, it took some time for my constituent to be made aware of what he had been arrested for and all the implications of it. Secondly, the use of a credit card raised a prima facie case of suspicion, and the report of the theft of the card was not in itself proof of theft. Thirdly, officers had reasonable cause to suspect that my constituent was, according to Mr Griffiths’s letter,

“merely trying to pass the blame onto others.”

Those claims were rebutted by my constituents’ solicitors on 1 November 2004, who noted in particular that the use of a credit card online leaves a unique IP address, which would allow investigating agencies to ascertain the exact computer that had been used to access the illegal websites and whether my constituent had access to it. Indeed, that point has never been addressed by Staffordshire police. Mr Griffiths acknowledged that letter on 6 December 2004, and went on to concede that my constituent had made the arresting officers aware of the theft of his credit card at the time of the arrest, but that, apparently, that would make no difference.

Unfortunately, in January 2005, my constituents’ solicitors advised that they could see no reasonable chance of progressing the complaint further, and closed their file. In August 2005, my constituent made another formal complaint, this time on the ground of failure to provide prescribed medication. On 29 September 2005, Mr Griffiths wrote to my constituent, advising him that if he wanted to pursue the complaints, he should do so through legal representatives. In October 2005, my constituent complained further, to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which informed my constituent by letter on 18 October that the IPCC had arranged for my constituent to be contacted by Staffordshire police to discuss the issue. According to my constituent, however, no such contact was ever made.

The years were now rolling on, and in December 2005, my constituent received a letter from the then Deputy Chief Constable Lee of Staffordshire police upholding the initial rejection of my constituent’s complaint, at which time my constituent asked the IPCC to undertake an investigation into why no pre-2002 records search had taken place, as such a search would have shown that the credit card had been reported stolen in January 1999. Unfortunately, the IPCC wrote back to say that, as the original complaint predated the IPCC’s formation and fell under the auspices of the Police Complaints Authority, it was unable, under law, to accept the complaint.

In August 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in his then role as Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, advised me that the Home Office could not become involved in the specifics of the case as it was an operational matter for Staffordshire police, and that he had forwarded my representations to Staffordshire police. He also suggested that any complaints about the IPCC be initially taken up with the IPCC caseworker. My constituent made a further complaint to the IPCC about its refusal to take up the complaint, but that was subsequently rejected. During 2007, again following further representations from me, Staffordshire police refused to reconsider my constituent’s early complaints. I was also, somewhat disturbingly, advised by the IPCC that it had no record of my constituent’s case file.

Having spent some time setting out the background to the case and the reasons behind the continuing anger and unhappiness of my constituent and his parents at the system of making a complaint against the police, I would like to ask the Minister to give me some reassurance on five specific points. First, will he use his good offices to persuade Staffordshire police to apologise, at long last, to my constituent and his parents, if for no other reason than for withholding the prescribed medication, for which I can see no justification?

Secondly, will the Minister assure me that, in future, all records—not just those from 2002 onwards—will be checked prior to any arrest, so that no other innocent person and their family suffer the trauma and indignity experienced by my constituent and his parents? Thirdly, will the Minister clarify whether he believes it correct that any complaint made before the creation of the IPCC cannot be pursued by it, and will he tell me what, if any, recourse is open to any other complainants in a similar situation?

Fourthly, is the Minister happy that, when a complaint is made either against an officer or, as in this instance, against a police force in general, it is handled in a way that is liable to produce an outcome that leaves the complainant feeling less than reassured? Fifthly, will he send the message today to all police forces that, when a mistake is found to have been made, a swift apology must be forthcoming? This is a dreadful case of sloppy practice leading to an injustice, yet, even now, all my constituent really wants is an apology.

Child pornography is an appalling crime, and those who are guilty rightly face public shame as well as the full force of the law. However, those who have committed no crime and who are wrongly accused also face public anger and horror. The police should therefore behave with the greatest level of professionalism. In this case, that professionalism was sadly lacking. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my five points, and that, despite what the force’s solicitors have said, Staffordshire police will make a full apology to my constituent and seek to right this wrong.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That would certainly be our aim and we will try to ensure that home owners are well aware of exactly who has a right of entry to their property.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary had discussions with Ministers and the Justice Secretary about the overlap with issues relating to bailiffs and credit enforcement agencies and their rights of entry?

[Mrs May]

I have been in touch with colleagues across Departments about powers of entry, because they are found in all sorts of places. All Departments will be required to review powers of entry, and duplication is exactly the sort of issue we will be looking at.

We know that powers of entry are of great concern to the public, and another issue of great concern is wheel-clamping. The Bill will protect motorists from cowboy clampers, making it a criminal offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority. For too long, motorists have fallen victim to extortion and abuse from rogue clamping companies. We have heard stories of drivers being frogmarched to cash points late at night or left stranded by rogue operators who have towed their vehicle away. Clearly that is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. This is a difficult area. People will raise concerns if they feel that there are inappropriate burdens in reporting arrangements, and of course it is right to try to reduce those and to prevent inappropriate checks or bureaucracy, but it is also right to put safeguards for our children at the heart of the measures that we set out, and not to do things that feel inappropriate given the potential risks, given the evidence, and given the security that parents want for their children.

[Robert Flello]

My right hon. Friend is talking about the incredibly important issue of safeguarding our children. Given what we have seen in the media over the past week about the risks to vulnerable adults, would she care to comment on the fact that, although those of us who are parents are deeply concerned about children, including other people’s children, there are serious implications for vulnerable adults too?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Some cases of very distressing abuse have taken place involving vulnerable adults, and it is important that they, too, should have protection against that. The key is to ensure that if one authority or organisation knows that somebody has a history of abuse, that person should not be allowed to work again in a position where they may put vulnerable adults or children at risk in a way that other authorities, or the families, were not aware of, and which might lead to harm.

I want finally to turn to DNA, which is another area where we believe that the Government are going too far. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle had already legislated for safeguards on DNA use, including a six-year limit on retention for those who were not convicted. He based those safeguards on analysis of reoffending rates and the benefits in terms of preventing and solving crimes. The Government have decided to reject those safeguards and to go much further in restricting the use of DNA, but not on the basis of evidence. Some people object, as a matter of principle, to DNA being held at all if the person has not been convicted. I do not agree with that, but neither does the Home Secretary. She claimed that nobody’s DNA should be kept at all if they were innocent, but that is not what the proposals in her Bill achieve. Rightly, she recognises that there must be a balance that supports the needs to prevent crime and to ensure that crimes are solved. A balance needs to be struck, but she is not striking the right one. The changes go too far in restricting the use of DNA and will make it harder for the police to solve and prevent serious crimes.

This is a particular problem in rape cases. As the Home Secretary knows, rape cases not only have a notoriously low conviction rate, but a notoriously low charge rate. That is because the trauma for the victim is so great and because of problems with evidence. Many perpetrators of serious sexual crimes are not brought to justice for their first offence. In about 70% of cases in which a rape suspect is arrested, there is no charge. According to Home Office papers, in cases where there is no charge, DNA will be kept only in very limited circumstances, so in most of these cases the DNA will be destroyed, even though it might be critical in catching a repeat offender for a nasty and violent sexual offence.

The Home Secretary will know that a considerable number of cases have been solved because of DNA. Kensley Larrier was arrested in 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. The case never reached court, but two years later he raped someone and was found because of a DNA match. Lee and Stephen Ainsby raped and kidnapped a 17-year-old girl in Barnsley. A match with Lee Ainsby’s DNA was found years later in a case review. It had been taken because he had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Under the Home Secretary’s system, his DNA would not have been kept. Without that DNA, those two men would still be free, and justice for that young girl would not have been done. Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder in Birmingham in February 2005, but released without charge, according to the Forensic Science Service. In July 2005, he raped somebody in Stafford and was identified only because the police had his DNA. The senior investigating officer for the case said:

“We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database—he didn’t even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either.”

Case after case would have been much harder for the police to solve under the Home Secretary’s new rules. Yes, she has an obligation to ensure that individuals are protected from unjustified interference, but she also has an obligation to protect people from crime and to deliver justice for the victims of horrific crimes.

Policing in the 21st Century

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of special constables. I thank him for what he did as a special constable and place on record the thanks of the whole House for the work that all special constables do in helping the fight against crime. They play an important role, and we intend to encourage more people to take it on.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Many of the improvements that the Home Secretary has talked about are already happening on the ground in Stoke-on-Trent, thanks to people such as Inspector Sharrard-Williams. Recently, however, the House might have seen a man who runs the British National party claiming that he has 1 million followers—that is, 1 million people voting BNP—in the UK. What happens when the BNP stands for one of these commissioner posts, as will happen, and gets it?

[Mrs May]

This is something that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have raised on a number of occasions, and I will give him two answers. If he looks at the voting record so far, he will see that the British National party has never managed to get more than 15% of the vote in an election. But let us set that to one side; I actually believe in trusting the people of this country.

Identity Documents Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I feel honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be the subject of your first pronouncements from the Chair. It will be a pleasure to serve under you.

We on the Labour Benches will not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Although we do not think the general election was in any way a referendum on ID cards, we accept that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have a mandate to abandon the measure. We believe that the 15,000 cards already in use should continue to be a legitimate form of identity, and that those citizens who have purchased them should not be treated in the unfair and arrogant way that the Home Secretary proposed: it is arrogant to punish the public because the Government believe that the public were duty bound to presume a Conservative victory at the general election. That is constitutional nonsense and I have never heard anything so arrogant from a political party in my life.

We think a version of the national identity register must continue to exist in some form, and that second generation biometric passports need to go ahead. However, we will pursue those arguments in Committee and at other stages of the Bill’s passage.

In recent times, my party has been consistently in favour of an identity card scheme, the Liberal Democrats have been consistently opposed and the Conservatives have been inconsistent to the point of perversity. The Bill before us to abandon a voluntary identity card scheme, which the right hon. Lady says is intrusive, bullying and unBritish, was in the first semi-Conservative—I suppose we could call it—Queen’s Speech for almost 14 years.

The irony is that the previous Queen’s Speech under a Tory Administration, in November 1996, included a Bill to introduce a voluntary ID card scheme, following extensive public consultation by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, who said that the potential benefits fell into two categories. It is worth repeating them to the House. This was a Conservative Government, proposing a Bill at the Queen’s Speech—[Interruption.] “Fifteen years ago,” says the Minister for Immigration. We will get on to what has changed in the almost 15 years since 1996, and how the problems that led that Conservative Government to put forward an “unBritish, bullying and intrusive” Bill have actually worsened in the ensuing period. However, Michael Howard summed up the benefits succinctly, noting first, the

“direct benefits to the individual holder (e.g. through use of an identity card as a travel card or to provide reliable proof of identity including for commercial transactions)”;

and, secondly,

“the wider benefits to all citizens, (e.g. by reducing the level of certain crimes or by providing more efficient or less costly provision of state services).”

That description of the benefits is as accurate today as it was then. The consultation under the Conservative Government found that 64% of the public supported ID cards, with 36% opposed, and the last Tory Government to be elected to power in their own right—perhaps the last in more ways than one—proceeded to include the measure in the Gracious Speech.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I, too, very much welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Does my right hon. Friend understand the concerns of my constituents, who have been in touch having bought that voluntary ID card precisely for the reasons that he just gave? They saw it as an opportunity to get proof of identity without going down the route of obtaining a passport and to have something in their pocket? Does he also understand their concerns in writing to me and asking me to vote against this measure because they want either to get some recompense for the card that they have bought, or, if hon. Members will pardon the pun, to passport it for use in another way?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend should write and tell them that the Government believe—this Government, who believe in the big society and in listening to people—that the scheme into which they bought, which Parliament approved at every stage and which was in the 2005 manifesto of the party that was elected to government, is somehow illegitimate. His constituents should realise that it was their mistake in not presuming a victory for the Tory party at the recent general election. That seems to be the reason.

That description of the benefits to which I referred is accurate, and the consultation carried out by the previous Conservative Government showed overwhelming public support. The Labour Government resuscitated the proposals and subjected them to a fresh, six-month public consultation and further scrutiny in the form of a draft Bill in 2003. The Select Committee on Home Affairs held a simultaneous inquiry, and the outcome of all that was, again, overwhelming public support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which has rather bedevilled this debate, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden well knows. There was a confusion among the public and politicians about whether the scheme would be compulsory or voluntary, and the whole debate in 2004 and subsequently was about whether future Parliaments would have the opportunity to declare the scheme compulsory. It would have taken a vote of Parliament, but yes, that was implicit in the legislation.

In the debate on 20 December 2004, Charles Clarke, who is sadly no longer in the House, said in his very first address to the House as Home Secretary, “Don’t vote for this Bill if you don’t want to see ID cards become compulsory.” The current Home Secretary voted for the Bill. I can only imagine what she would say if we proposed a compulsory ID cards scheme, having heard her rhetoric about how a voluntary scheme is the end of civilisation. However, she voted for that scheme on the clear statement of the then Home Secretary that Members should vote for it only if they wanted it to become compulsory. I disagree with a compulsory scheme and believe that we can have simple proof and protection of people’s identities without it becoming compulsory.

Second-generation biometric passports, planned to commence in 2012, would provide a crucial additional level of security, enabling verification that the person presenting a passport had the same fingerprints as those encoded on the chip. Amazingly, the Liberal Democrats appear to have convinced the Tories in their political pre-nup to scrap second-generation passports.

[Robert Flello]

There were appalling events fairly recently involving British passports being used in state-sponsored terrorism. Would not that extra layer perhaps have prevented that atrocity?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend pre-empts a crucial point that I shall come on to in a moment.

There was no mention of scrapping second-generation biometric passports in the Conservative manifesto. In fact, the Tories have not only been in favour of biometrics but wholeheartedly and enthusiastically in favour of them. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) summed up the matter in 2007 when he said:

“There is not a Conservative Member…who disagrees with the notion that there should be biometric passports.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2007; Vol. 456, c. 671.]

The Prime Minister himself has admitted that

“there is a need for the use of biometrics on passports”.

Why the change of heart when we know that by locking people to one identity using advanced passport technology, we would help protect our country against the use of multiple identities by criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists? Why, given that updating our passports would bring us in line with the rest of Europe, which has already set minimum passport standards to include facial and fingerprint biometrics, do we intend to allow our country to become an easy target for illegal immigration and our citizens to be subject to onerous checks at airports and ferry ports around the world? We had already introduced facial recognition image biometrics in British passports in 2006, but now the countries in the Schengen agreement are going further and the US has already imposed a fingerprint requirement on all visitors who have not historically required a visa—in other words, those from the UK.

I turn to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised. In March, when I was Home Secretary and sitting alongside the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), the House heard about the inquiry carried out by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, at the request of the Dubai authorities, into how 12 people with joint UK-Israeli citizenship had had their passports cloned without their knowledge. Those were pre-biometric passports. Second-generation biometrics would make such cloning impossible. Indeed, the current Foreign Secretary, who was then shadowing the position, when that statement was made, said:

“The Foreign Secretary said that the biometric passports introduced four years ago are more difficult to counterfeit. Does he consider these new passports to be as invulnerable to counterfeiting as it is possible to make them, or will the Government review whether any other steps are needed to protect the integrity of British passports? Is there any suggestion that British passports are more vulnerable than those of other countries, including other EU countries?”—[Official Report, 23 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 135.]

No, there was not such a suggestion then, but there is now that, amazingly and incredibly, this Government are planning to abandon second-generation biometric passports and leave our country more vulnerable to attack. It is beyond me to understand how the new Home Secretary could have been lulled into that decision. Identity fraud, illegal immigration, terrorism and organised crime are international problems, and it makes sense for Britain to continue working with our international neighbours to tackle them. Biometric passports are part of an international drive to make travel documents more secure. Their electronic security features, including fingerprints, are a significant impediment to forgers and counterfeiters, and we need to keep pace with our neighbours if the UK passport is to continue to be recognised as having the highest integrity.