Protection of Freedoms Bill

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in thanking all hon. Members who have toiled throughout the passage of the Bill, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), whom I congratulate on his appointment to the shadow Cabinet, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who, conveniently, has been moved to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport just in time for the Olympics. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who has done important work particularly on child protection, and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who has kept us all in order. I thank, too, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who in the last couple of days have stepped in admirably to steer the debate through its final stages in this House.

There are sensible measures in the Bill that we support, such as removing old convictions for gay sex, removing restrictions on marriage, adding sensible extensions to freedom of information and putting in place tighter restrictions on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and stop-and-search powers. We also welcome the action on rogue wheel clampers, but we would have preferred the Government to go further by taking further action on rogue ticketers. We agree, too, with the principle of moving down to 14 days of pre-charge detention. However, the Home Secretary was unwise not to have made changes as a result of the last debate, in which Members from both sides of the House who served on the Joint Committee that she set up raised concerns that the mechanism that she has put in place to deal with emergencies will be impractical and unworkable. Why did she set up a Committee if she was just going to ignore its expert views?

We have some serious and deep concerns about the Bill, however, which mean that we cannot support it tonight. We agree with making changes to child protection, especially now that Criminal Records Bureau checks can be made portable, but it is vital that as we do so, we make sure this House can reassure parents throughout the country that sensible and strong safeguards are still in place to protect their children.

The Government cannot now do that, as a result of this Bill, because they are creating serious loopholes in child protection. They have been urged to close them not just by our Front-Bench team but by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Action for Children, the Children’s Society, the Government’s own Children’s Commissioner, the Scouts, the Rugby Football Union, UK Athletics and many more sports organisations. The Government have consistently ignored their advice.

I wonder how many Conservative Members realise what they voted for in the Lobby this afternoon. They voted to stop someone who has committed a sexual offence against children being automatically barred from working with them in future. Conservative Members voted today to stand up for the right of convicted child rapists not to be included on a barred list: that is what they voted for. The Bill also means that if someone who has been barred for grooming a child applies for a supervised post working with children, the organiser will not be told that they have been barred.

The Government have chosen to stand up for the privacy of people who have been barred by the experts from working with children, against the concerns of head teachers, sports organisations, children’s charities and, above all, parents who want to know that their children are safe. I say to the Home Secretary very strongly, as a parent, that parents across this country do not want to discover that a voluntary teaching assistant or a supervised sports coach who spends hours with their child has, in fact, been barred by the experts from ever working with children again, but that—thanks to the Home Secretary’s decision to protect that person’s privacy—nobody was told. That is the consequence of her Bill; it is the decision that Government Members have just voted to support.

It is not just on child protection that the Government are getting the balance wrong. The Home Secretary’s decisions on DNA will also make it harder, not easier, for the police to fight crime. She has talked with pride about the 13,000 convicted criminals that she wants to put on the DNA database, but what she fails to point out is that taking retrospective DNA, which we strongly agree with, was made possible only by Labour’s Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed before the general election and which she opposed. Not only did she oppose the whole Bill then, but she failed to enact those provisions when that should have happened, straight after the general election. She waited for a year to get round to it, and she still has not enacted the provisions in Labour’s Act to take DNA from people who commit crimes abroad.

As for the provisions in this Bill, the Home Secretary is ignoring the evidence. She is ignoring not only the evidence from the police, who estimate that 1,000 fewer crimes will be solved every year as a result of these measures, and the wise words from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who tabled amendments, but the evidence that Ministers tried to hide, which was produced by their own Department. It shows that every year crimes will be committed by 23,000 people who would have been on the DNA database under Labour’s plans but will not be on it under her plans. We are talking about 23,000 criminals each year, and these are cases in which she wants to make it harder for the police to bring them to justice. Some 17,000 rape suspects will be taken off the database straight away as a result of these measures.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I ask him whether he can give a good reason for removing those 17,000 rape suspects so swiftly from the database, against the advice and the pleas from Rape Crisis.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s anticipation of what my intervention might be. What would she say, and what would her party say, to the millions of innocent people who regard it as offensive that their DNA is retained when they have never been convicted of any crime whatsoever? Is that really the policy that the Labour party thinks ought to be pursued in this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is his policy and that of his party. That is what he has voted for. People will be on the DNA database who have not been convicted of any crime, but his party wants to hold their DNA for three years, based on no evidence whatsoever, whereas we believe that it should be held for six years, based on the evidence, because that is the best way to ensure that we get the balance right between protecting people’s civil liberties and ensuring that we can take the action needed to solve crime. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given an answer to Rape Crisis and others who are deeply concerned about the impact of these measures on our ability to prevent rapes and to solve rapes in future.

We know that every year there are nearly 5,000 cases in which someone has been arrested on suspicion of rape and the police believe that there is a case to answer and have passed the file to the Crown Prosecution Service, but the CPS has decided—we know that rape cases can be complex—not to charge. In all such cases, the DNA will be wiped straight away under this Government’s proposals, despite the fact that there is considerable evidence, as well as the concerns raised by organisations such as Rape Crisis, that more, not less, needs to be done to tackle the crime of rape and to bring more rapists to justice.

Government Members have their priorities wrong if they think that it is more important to keep people’s DNA for three years rather than six than it is to solve 1,000 more crimes, that it is more important to do that than to have DNA matches for 23,000 more criminals each year, and that it is more important to protect the rights of a rape suspect to keep their DNA code off the database altogether than to take the action that Rape Crisis has called for to make it easier to catch rapists in future.

Finally, on CCTV, which was critical in identifying the culprits in the riots, the Bill adds layers of bureaucracy that make it harder for the police to do their job.

We believe that it is important to protect people’s freedom, but protecting people’s freedom means not just protecting them against unwarranted interference by the police or by the state but protecting them against unwarranted interference, abuse or violence by other people. Freedom means protecting people from crime, too. The measures to which the Home Secretary objected in her speech helped cut crime by 40% and mean that there are now millions fewer victims of crime each year because we brought crime down. Yes, balancing acts and difficult decisions are required, and the freedom of victims of crime as well as the freedom of crime suspects should be considered. Decisions should be based on evidence, and time and again the Government have either ditched or denied the evidence in front of them.

The Home Secretary has made great play of attacking the Human Rights Act 1998, which at its heart includes protection for people’s freedom against oppression or abuse, but we should be clear that it is not the Human Rights Act that is putting privacy for child sex offenders ahead of sensible child protection measures, or putting the privacy of rape suspects above action to prevent rape in future, but this Government. It is not the Human Rights Act that is putting three years of holding DNA above action to solve 1,000 crimes a year, but a Conservative-led Government. Although the Home Secretary is very keen to be tough on the Human Rights Act, it would be rather more effective if she were tougher on crime and made it easier for the police to do their job.

We believe that this is a risky Bill that puts at risk freedom for crime victims, makes it harder for the police to do their job and ignores important evidence about the way in which crimes need to be solved. That is why we cannot support it on Third Reading, and will vote against it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

If overall crime is falling, that is extremely welcome news, although there are disputes about the figures. But it is obvious that the last Government created an enormous number of new offences, without which we lived perfectly well for hundreds of years. We need to review how many criminal offences are on the statute book.

[Stephen Phillips]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we probably did not need the new criminal offence, introduced by the last Government, of impeding an apricot orchard inspector in the course of his duties?

[Mr Redwood]

My hon. and learned Friend has come up with an admirable example that I did not know about; there are many others, but we do not have the time to list them all. I hope that the Home Secretary and her colleagues will review the number of crimes so that we can concentrate on the serious ones—the ones that most people consider to be proper crimes—rather than spending so much time arguing about and enforcing things of rather less significance, for the convenience of some bureaucrats and not others.

I know that others wish to speak, Mr Speaker—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood]

I take all issues of crime and the victims of crime extremely seriously, and so must this House. I would not distinguish between them in that way.

I move on to the question of a six-year limit versus a three-year limit. The Opposition have decided to lay the accusation that their choice of six years is based on secure evidence, but one of their pieces of so-called statistical evidence was based on an extremely small sample that was carried out by the Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science. Its director later noted, in September 2009, that that research study

“was probably a mistake with hindsight, we should have just said ‘you might as well just stick your finger in the air and think of a number’”.

[Stephen Phillips]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no magic in six years, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) would have us believe? There is no significant or substantial evidence that supports six years; it is a number that has simply been plucked from the air in an opportunistic attempt to attack the Bill.

[Nicola Blackwood]

The decision to go for three years is based on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee, which took extensive evidence on the issue. Three years versus six years is merely a matter of judgment. Furthermore, it will be three years plus an extension of two years, to ensure that there would be the option of retaining the DNA for five years. I weigh that against the fact that the Bill will remove the DNA of 1 million innocent people from the database—people who feel that they have been criminalised by the system that was put in place. It was done with the best of intentions, to ensure that victims are protected—that is well understood—but it is important to bring proportion into the system, and that is what the Government’s proposals are designed to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I rise, of course, to lend my support to this welcome Bill and to thank the Government for starting to deal with the plethora of inroads into our civil liberties that were made by the last Labour Administration.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said that this is a Christmas tree of a Bill. It deals with a number of separate matters or, as he described them, baubles on the tree. It is none the less welcome for the simple reason, of which the House will be aware, that inroads into the fundamental freedoms that this House exists to protect and that we have taken for granted for the entirety of our lives and our history need only be made, in short order, for us subsequently to see further inroads made into those liberties, in a way that none of us in this House ought to welcome.

One has only to consider the point I put to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) about the retention of the DNA of innocent persons to know that the last Labour Government struck the wrong balance. The proposals in the Bill, in my judgment—and it is a question of judgment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) made clear a few moments ago—strike the right balance.

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is mathematically wrong. It is not a question of judgment, it is a matter of probability, tending towards certainty, because 23,000 people will now be out there with the potential to commit crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

The hon. Gentleman expresses a view with regard to his judgment, but it is a view—

[Andrew Miller]

It is not judgment, it is a fact.

[Stephen Phillips]

It is an exercise of judgment, and in my judgment and that of the Government whom I support, three years is sufficient to retain DNA. Making inroads into the civil liberties that we have come to expect and respect, and that we wish to have in this country, is not a reason to go beyond three years. The hon. Gentleman debates whether to retain for three or six years, but I ask him and the whole House, where is the magic in the six-year figure? If six years, why not nine? If nine, why not 15? If 15, why not retain the DNA of 11 million people never convicted of a crime for the entirety of their lives and into the future?

[Andrew Miller]

Simply because the curve produced by the self-same Home Office that produced the Bill demonstrates what the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said: that there is a clear mathematical relationship and in six years we have a way of dealing very neatly with a substantially greater number of potential criminals than the three-year period offers.

[Stephen Phillips]

So there we are, the House has it—it is a curve. Does that not savour of the statistics, initiatives, targets and strategies that we had from the last Government? Is it not about time that hon. Members started exercising judgment with regard to what is important? In my judgment, what is important is that the British people are entitled to have their liberties respected. They were not respected under the last Government, and this coalition Government are beginning to address the inroads that the last Government made into the liberties of the British people.

I am going to draw my remarks to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Well, I am pleased to have some assent from the Opposition Benches. We have a Bill before the House of which we can all be proud, and I urge right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who sat idly by while the liberties of the British people were not respected to go through the Aye Lobby tonight and give the Bill the Third Reading it deserves.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As far as this Government are concerned, extremist organisations have no role in delivering the Prevent strategy, and if organisations do not support British values, we do not intend to fund them. Organisations funded by central Government must clearly demonstrate that they are working in the public interest. In this area, the transparency that has been adopted by this Government, both at central and local level, will be an important part of the process of enabling people to see where the money is being spent and to challenge that, if necessary.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Yesterday was, of course, the 10th anniversary of the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. None of us will ever forget the events of that day or those attacks on our own shores, including the 7/7 London bombings and the decades of terror campaigns waged in Northern Ireland. The Government remain as committed as ever to preventing future acts of terrorism and keeping the public safe. Following the death of bin Laden, al-Qaeda is weaker than at any time over the past decade. New threats will evolve, but so will our security measures to counter them. While we remember the victims, we must also remain vigilant. I commend those, particularly our front-line emergency workers, who continue to work against terrorism and risk their lives to protect ours.

[Stephen Phillips]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House about the meetings she has had with chief constables and colleagues following the recent rioting, which was of great concern to so many of my constituents, to ensure that there is no repetition and that those involved are speedily brought to justice?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that question. We have had a number of meetings with chief constables and others. As I said in an earlier answer, I am chairing an inter-ministerial group that works on tackling gangs—it is looking at that particular aspect of the riots—and we have already had a number of discussions about public order policing, in particular. I have, of course, asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the issue and advise on guidance for forces on matters such as tactics and the number of police that need to be trained in dealing with riots.

Public Disorder

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Ken Livingstone was very clear about the need for people to take responsibility for their actions and for those involved in recent events to be punished. He was very clear about there being no excuse.

I have to say to the Home Secretary that we still do not have an answer. In the discussions I have had with the Met police, they have expressed concern that the additional cost of the extra policing required as a result of this criminality will come not from the Treasury reserve, but from their own reserve. Like the reserves of many police authorities across the country, the Met reserve is extremely stretched as a result of the police cuts. If this situation continues over many days, I am deeply concerned that the Met may end up having either to reduce the level of policing on the streets before it is ready to do so or to make cuts elsewhere in its budgets on routine policing. The Home Secretary has still not given any answer as to what she would do to support the Met police and other police forces. She really does need to think again on this and provide more information to the House, and to police forces and communities across the country about what support they will get.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I must, I am afraid, take the right hon. Lady back to what other members of her party have said, and seek clarity on that. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) tweeted that

“the Tories are back alright. Why is it the Tories never take responsibility for the consequences of their party’s disastrous policies”,

with the hash tag “tottenham”, but the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has said:

“Cuts don’t turn you into a thief.”

Which of them does the right hon. Lady agree with?

[Yvette Cooper]

I noticed the hon. Gentleman’s nerves when holding his piece of paper to read out what was clearly another Whips’ question, but I say to hon. Members that serious issues need to be addressed in this House about what the Government are doing, and what this House should be doing, to address the serious criminality that is taking place.

Let us deal with the wider problems this raises about resources for our police and the views that are being expressed to us—and, I am sure, to Members on the Government Benches in their constituencies—about the scale and pace of the policing cuts across the country. The Prime Minister claimed that he was making only 6% cuts, but he used cash figures, not real figures, when he knows that inflation is high and that the cuts set out in the spending review—according to the Treasury’s figures, not mine—were for a 20% cut in the Government’s police budget. The independent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report makes it clear that 16,000 police officers are going as a result—the equivalent of every one of the police officers on London’s streets last night will go.

Any of us who were on London’s streets last night will know quite how many police officers were on the streets of our capital. We have heard the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary tell us that front-line, visible policing will not be hit, but, with respect, it is being hit already. The HMIC has confirmed that front-line officers will be lost this year. The Prime Minister himself used a figure of 7,000 officers in back-office jobs, but 16,000 will be cut.

We agree that the police need to make savings and efficiencies, that they need to do more to get police officers out on to the streets and that they can sustain sensible reductions in their budgets, but the cuts set out by the Government go too far, too fast, and we do not agree that now is the time to cut 16,000 police officers across the country.

Gangs and Youth Violence

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If intelligence of such activities is not passed on, young people will die. It is as simple as that. I could not agree more with him.

My hon. Friend underpins the point I was making. The relationships between young people and the police, who in this context are represented in the best way, in most cases, by safer neighbourhood officers, are critical, but above all are the relationships between young people and youth services. We are most likely to build the relationships of trust that ensure that intelligence flows between young people and voluntary or statutory youth services.

One of my big concerns is that the scaling back of youth services is leading to reduced capacity to provide diversionary activity and to work and build connections with those young people, but in addition there is an increasing tendency—this did not start in May 2010, although I sense that it is becoming more entrenched—for so many projects on gangs and young people who are at risk of being drawn into violence to be short-term, piecemeal and fragmented, although I pay tribute to the quality of those projects. In Westminster, the Brathay project works with young men in Queen’s Park. The UNCUT project went and came back—but for how long? A local scheme called ENDZ United does mediation work, which is one of the most constructive ways in which we can deal with gang violence, but its funding is for only 30 weeks. It is almost counter-productive for young people to build up a connection with a scheme that will be gone after six months or a year, and those relationships of trust between youth workers and young people are dissipated.

When I talk to young people after such projects end, they respond by saying, “I’m afraid that just goes to show how little anybody cares about us, because no sooner do we get connected with important schemes than they are over.” The consistency of project work is critical, as is the scale of the work that we do with young people. Despite the good work that I have mentioned, sadly, Westminster is cutting £225,000 from its youth service this year. Although around £100,000 is being put into various anti-gang initiatives, Westminster managed a few weeks ago to find £100,000 just to replace railings in Sussex gardens, and it has spent £144,000 to send managers on away days. That is a problem with spending priorities.

We need to do better than we have been doing on cross-border liaison. Brent council, which is central, has such major problems on the Stonebridge estate that it has been unable to focus as much as I would like on south Kilburn and Paddington. Kensington council, I am afraid, has something of a head-in-the-sand attitude—it seems to think that it does not have a problem at all.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Is he satisfied that there is a coherent, strategic approach to gangs and youth violence across Departments, and if so how is it demonstrated? Will he take steps to satisfy himself that boroughs such as mine that were not previously regarded as high risk do not sink into complacency, but develop their own strategic plans and monitor progress towards them? Will he liaise with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education to review the impact of spending cuts on youth services, especially in higher-risk areas? How can the Government help to ensure that interventions aimed at those at risk are not always short-term, fragmented programmes whose premature end undermines so much of the value that may have been achieved? Far too many lives are being lost on our city streets, and an even greater proportion of young lives are being blighted under the shadow of violence, at least some of which is accounted for by the growing problem of gang association.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

This is an extremely important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing it. The House spends an enormous amount of time talking about the bad things that young people are responsible for, of which this is one, but does she agree with me, and no doubt the rest of the House, that there are many things for which young people are responsible that we should, and do, celebrate? Neither this debate nor the bad things we read in the media are indicative of what young people are for.

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. In an way, it is because I see so many young people whom I admire and love, and because I see the damage that violence and the fear of it are doing to them that I am motivated to come here and raise this issue. Many—almost all—of the young people whom I see who commit crimes do bad things but are not bad people, and they deserve the chance of an alternative life and rehabilitation.

That is the context. We have heard much about the many tragedies affecting south London, Nottingham, Manchester and so on. That was confirmed again by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. I know that many of my parliamentary colleagues will want to return to this issue, but I have to tell the House that when a problem this grave affects even the streets of a place such as Westminster, we have a graver problem than anyone has recognised, and I look to the Government to help us respond to and deal with it.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). It has also been an enormous pleasure to listen to the contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that the issues with which the Bill grapples are not, as I suspect many Members have found, necessarily easy. I have not found them easy. For my part, during my consideration of the measures proposed by the Government I have from time to time changed my mind, or at least changed the direction in which I thought I was travelling, before finally alighting on the position that I intend to set forth this evening.

What, then, is the dilemma for all Members? On the one hand, it seems plain from the responses to the Government’s consultation that there is general agreement among the majority of those who offered their views that in the case of a very few individuals there is a continuing need for the Government to have access to the sort of powers proposed in this Bill to protect the public from potential harm. One simple reason for that, as the responses make clear and as I, at least, am persuaded, is that in the case of some of those very few individuals prosecutions are impossible for either security or legal reasons. By the same token, not every threat to national security is or has yet become a criminal offence. Are such threats to be ignored, as some would urge us to do? I venture to suggest not.

On the other hand, the suggestion that the sort of powers that we see in this Bill should exist at all—they effectively permit the Executive to detain individuals without trial—is naturally abhorrent to Members of this House and is regarded as such on both sides, as it is by all right-thinking people. It is said with force that we now have, and that within the memory of this House we have always had, a system of open justice and it is legitimate to ask, as many Members have done, why in those circumstances we should make even one exception, no matter how carefully hedged about with safeguards, to the principles that have long underpinned our democracy and the rule of law in this country.

The question, then, is how that dilemma is to be resolved. That is essentially the question faced by the House in deciding whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. Differing from hon. Members of all parties and some people outside the House who advocate the complete revocation of any system of civil measures that interferes with the rights of the individual, I have come to the view that what the Government propose, subject to the amendments that will no doubt be made in Committee, strikes the right balance for reasons that I shall come on to. That is, I accept, my judgment. It is my opinion, consistent with the position that my conscience dictates, but that is not to say—and I do not say—that it is the only view that it is possible to take. This is very much one of those issues where reasonable people may come to completely contrary conclusions and where Members have come to contrary conclusions. My task, if I have one at all, is to explain in the course of this debate how I have come to my conclusion and my reasons for having done so.

The starting point—I suspect that all Members would agree that this should always be the starting point for any Government, but it is one which might perhaps have been lost sight of from time to time during the course of the debate—is that the primary duty of the state to its citizens is to keep them safe. National security and public safety are and must always remain the first duty of the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her statement on 23 May 2011 and as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, acknowledged in her opening remarks in this debate. If one accepts, as I think one must, that that is the starting point, it must in my judgment follow that if there are circumstances in which those who threaten the United Kingdom from within her own borders cannot, for whatever reasons, adequately be dealt with by a system of open criminal justice, which I accept should remain the norm in the vast majority of cases, their rights cannot override those of the majority to the safety of their existence, which the Government are bound to protect.

In one sense, of course, this is a question of degree. Is the derogation from the ordinary principles of the rule of law and the rights of the subject that this Bill entails justified given the threat that we know we face at the beginning of the 21st century? In my opinion—I stress again that it is my opinion and that others are driven to a different view by their consciences—it is. We have merely to look at some of the events that we have witnessed during the past decade, such as the bombings of 7 July 2005 in London, to know what may happen when the balance is poorly or inappropriately struck. Of course I do not for a moment suggest that the mere existence of the measures in the Bill—of TPIMs—or even of the existing regime of control orders can ensure that such events will never happen. However, if one wonders, as I do, whether future atrocities might be prevented by proportionate derogations from generally accepted minimum standards regarding the rights of the subject—derogations that can and must be kept to a minimum, as I think all Members accept—it is my belief that they might. It follows that the existence of a regime that is necessary to protect the public, such as that contained in the Bill, cannot be avoided given the world in which we live.

The matter can be viewed in this way: many Members on both sides of the House will quite properly oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, or will at least have indicated that they will not give it a Third Reading in its current form. However, let me posit an eventuality that I hope will not occur—circumstances in which someone who might have been subject to a TPIM is instrumental in a future atrocity that results in our fellow citizens being maimed or killed. Would it, in those circumstances, be right that the Bill fell today or in future? I suggest not, for that would be to strike the wrong balance between the rule of law and the first duty of the Government, which I have already outlined.

I accept that none of this is easy. My view, I am perfectly prepared to accept, may be wrong. It may even, as the courts will be able to inquire given that there will now be no possibility of derogation from the law relating to the rights of the subject, be unlawful, although I think not as the Bill has been carefully drawn. However, it is the view to which I am driven by a consideration of the issues I have outlined and by the horrendous possibility of being wrong and, in being wrong, of failing to prevent a potential terrorist outrage.

The second argument that drives me to support the Government’s proposals and therefore to lend my support to the Bill’s Second Reading is the very fact that there are certain rights that I and the vast majority of people consider to be inalienable, the most important of which is the right to life. That this right is inalienable seems to me naturally to entail the proposition that it should, by the nature of the law as it should be framed, be protected—if necessary at the expense of other lesser rights, which are not necessarily inalienable. Schedule 1 identifies a series of measures that the Secretary of State may take, should the Bill become law, which would undoubtedly interfere with the second of those groups of rights. It enables the state to obstruct the liberty of the citizen, to oblige him or her to comply with the directions of those who exercise its authority and to disturb the free enjoyment of property rights. However, not one of those rights is, or at least should be, regarded as absolute and inalienable. The right to life and to security, in the sense of freedom from hurt or injury, is in a different category altogether. As the Bill makes clear throughout, particularly from the safeguards with which it is hedged, it is that right that is being protected and the other, lesser rights that are being obstructed. That cannot but indicate, as many Members on both sides have noted, that a balance is being struck. Whether it is the right balance will be a question that future historians will no doubt assess.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful argument about the balancing of rights. Does he feel that this consideration should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the balance remains correct in future?

[Stephen Phillips]

I can see that there is a powerful case for amending the Bill in Committee to introduce some annual review by Parliament, but there are countervailing arguments, some of which have been alluded to during the debate. The first of those arguments, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), is that with the whipping system being what it is, such an annual review may prove pointless. The second is that if the House forms a view in relation to TPIMs, which are not control orders, it will have reached a settled view, and that will not fade from parliamentary memory. I think that everyone on both sides of the House accepts that once the reasons why TPIMs or control orders need to exist have disappeared, this legislation should also disappear. In those circumstances, while I can see the case for an annual review, it is not something on which I have a conclusive view, and I look forward to debating it again in due course.

Returning to whether it is right in principle for the Bill to strike the balance that it seeks to strike, what finally has driven me to the view that the Bill must continue its passage through the House is the fact that the arguments against the balance being struck at all either misinterpret or only interpret semantically and without regard to its content what the rule of law actually means. We have created for ourselves, as have most other nations, a system of justice that involves the open trial of individuals for those things that we characterise as wrongs that deserve punishment. That system, however, is a fabrication of the society in which we live—no more, no less. It is not the only system that man could devise, but it has been found over the years to be the best system, even though we must occasionally alter or change it so that it meets the needs of the times in which we live. This is such a time, so the Bill seeks to fashion a different system from the ordinary criminal justice system, and it does so because, in my judgment, it must, for reasons that I have given.

Is the system contrary to the rule of law because it is different? No. It is contrary to the rule of law, if in any sense, because we say it is, yet the rule of law as created must be protected, as it answers so well to the circumstances of existence that we must not seek to undermine it any more than is necessary. Again, there is a balance to be struck—what is necessary is what is proportionate to the circumstances, and in my view that is the regime that the Bill seeks to create. The same cannot be said universally of the regime that will be repealed if and when clause 1 comes into force. While the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 sought to strike a necessary balance, in my judgment it struck the wrong balance, which is tacitly accepted by the Opposition Front-Bench team, given their acceptance that the control order regime was not necessarily the best way of dealing with the threat that the legislation that they introduced sought to deal.

I know, as I have said before in the House, new as I am, that it is the Opposition’s duty to oppose, but for those of us who have sat through this debate in its entirety it has been odd to note the opposition from their Front-Bench team, but the consensus among Back Benchers on both sides of the House that the Bill should at least complete its Second Reading.

The previous regime of control orders permitted the Government to derogate from the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill does not do so, which is progress. While I am no fan of the Human Rights Act, I accept that it includes welcome protections that have existed in our law for generations, even if consistently misinterpreted or over-interpreted by the Court in Strasbourg. The previous regime of control orders likewise provided a non-exhaustive list of the way in which the rights of the subject could be hindered. The Bill, by contrast, tells the Home Secretary precisely what she may do, circumscribed by Parliament. I know which I prefer and which meets the need to tackle the mischief at which the Bill is directed.

The previous regime of control orders likewise allowed the Home Secretary powers overly and unnecessarily in effect to extinguish individual rights, the best example being the 16-hour curfew. The Bill, by contrast, limits the Home Secretary’s powers—again, always subject to review—to something which, to my mind, is more capable of justification, even though overnight detention orders require more definition. Most importantly, unlike the present regime, mere suspicion on the part of the state will no longer be enough to trigger the powers in the Bill—and rightly so. The Bill makes it clear that there must be reasonable belief that individuals can no longer be deprived of their rights merely on the basis of suspicion. Lawyers other than I have suggested this afternoon that there is little difference, but I disagree. Even if I am wrong, I am more content with a regime that requires some form of objective proof and justification than one that can be triggered merely on the basis of vague, subjective assertion on the part of the state.

For these reasons, and many others which there is now insufficient time to develop further but which will undoubtedly be explored in Committee if the Bill goes forward tonight, it is my belief that this is the right Bill to address the dilemma that I posed at the outset and which the Government face in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the obligation to protect all the citizens of this country. If the House divides tonight, the Government will therefore receive my support to give the Bill a Second Reading, as I believe they should receive the support of the remainder of the House.

Criminal Records (Public Access) Bill

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have not recently had any constituency cases relating to the Criminal Records Bureau, but there is a real problem with the time it takes to get information out of it, particularly if one wants to check records for potential volunteers or members of staff.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

A moment ago, my hon. Friend suggested that the electronic record the Bill seeks to create would be capable of being investigated by the public on the internet. Can he direct the House to the clause that mandates that to be the case?

[Mr Chope]

Clause 1(1) of the Bill states

“and must make them accessible to the public”.

As they are going to be in electronic form, I had assumed that that would be the means by which they would be made accessible to the public. If my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting that he does not think that that is spelt out clearly enough, I would obviously be happy to consider those representations. The idea behind the Bill is that such information would be accessible without someone having physically to go along to the criminal records office. Ultimately, it would be for the criminal records office to decide under the terms of the Bill in what way it would make the records accessible to the public.

The point is quite short and simple. It comes down to the basic principle that if somebody is convicted in a court, that knowledge should be publicly available and easily accessed by the public. At the moment, much to the surprise of many of us, unless one is actually in the court and hears what is happening or reads about it in the newspapers, it might go undetected and might be hard to detect in the future.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), a number of employers might in due course want to see whether somebody who is applying for a job has a conviction from the local magistrates court. The Bill would facilitate their being able to do that without their having to engineer a situation in which they could get a CRB check on that individual.

The significance of the Bill will become greater as we find that fewer and fewer proceedings in the magistrates courts are covered by local newspapers. I am fortunate to have the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times, which take delight in printing at length reports from the magistrates courts. That is relatively unusual in local newspapers these days, so if people cannot find out what is happening through their local newspapers there must be an alternative way of enabling them to get that knowledge. That is what the Bill is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). It is always a pleasure to follow him in debate. His principal objection seemed to be the possibility that the register might be inaccurate. It seems to me that the first thing that any hon. Member or member of the public would do is to check the accuracy of their record, and anyone should be able to do so. In the vast majority of cases, the information would be accurate. It is difficult to understand how a mistake could be made, although they are always possible.

[Stephen Phillips]

As someone who sits routinely in the Crown court as a recorder, I can assure my hon. Friend that there are often mistakes in the antecedents sheets that are forthcoming from magistrates courts, that that causes an enormous problem for those who sit in the Crown court, and that that is perhaps one of the flaws of the Bill. Given that potential inaccuracy and the potential for blackening people’s names, does he not therefore think that the Bill needs looking at again before receiving its Second Reading?

[Mr Nuttall]

I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I am not convinced that he gives a reason for looking again at the Bill. It might be a good reason to look again at how magistrates courts record and deal with information that they give out. The problem seems to lie with magistrates courts, not with the Bill. We ought to ensure that magistrates courts accurately record their convictions. It is not rocket science. Good grief, all they have to do is write down what sentence has been given against someone’s name. It is difficult to understand how so many mistakes can occur.

I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says from his personal experience: mistakes have occurred, which is highly regrettable, but the problem does not lie in the Bill. In fact, the Bill is a major step forward in providing openness and transparency in the field of justice. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) referred in his opening remarks to a case where someone was not in court when the judgment was read out. I dare say that often nowadays, especially since the reduction in the number of local newspaper court reporters, a judgment is read out but no one else is in court. Whoever gets to hear about it?

I am pleased to be named as a sponsor of the Bill, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Witham (Priti Patel), because it has many benefits that will enable members of the public easily to ascertain whether another person has been convicted of a criminal offence. There are many reasons why someone might wish to do so.

Of course, in some professions, CRB checks are required by law. In many cases, enhanced CRB checks are required. A lot of employers, particularly small ones, might want to check whether prospective employees who say that they have no criminal convictions are telling the truth. The Bill is a simple, straightforward way to enable that to take place. It is necessary to check the criminal background not just of those who work with children, teachers, social workers and those who deal with vulnerable adults, but of those who deal with money in the financial—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Having heard the debate on Second Reading, I intend to make only some brief remarks.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the Bill’s supporters. The Bill seeks to deal with an anomaly: that there is no mechanism by which a member of the public can secure access to information on the previous convictions of individuals in the magistrates court, which, as other hon. Members have said, is in the public domain. I will not lend the Bill my support on Second Reading for a number of reasons, which I shall briefly identify.

The first reason, already adverted to by the Minister in her intervention on my hon. Friend, is that the Bill, as drafted, is inconsistent with legislation on the rehabilitation of offenders and with the way in which this House and the other place have dealt with the rehabilitation of offenders. I am sure all Members agree that the rehabilitation of offenders is greatly to be desired so that the criminal justice system does not again have to deal with those who, particularly in their youth, have felt its tentacles reach out to them.

Young men, and no doubt some young women, can make mistakes early in life and find themselves in the magistrates courts, quite properly, for criminal offences they have committed. For those who subsequently amend their ways, as the vast majority do, and participate fully in society, it would be a great shame if their early misdemeanours were to follow them for ever. We have legislation on the rehabilitation of offenders to ensure that early offences do not follow them around. One of the great problems with the Bill, notwithstanding the mischief that I accept exists, with which it seeks to deal, is that is does not grapple with that dichotomy.

[Mr Chope]

I accept my hon. and learned Friend’s point about the rehabilitation of offenders, but does not the Criminal Records Bureau keep a record of spent convictions, so that a conviction does not disappear once it is spent?

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend is right, but access to a spent conviction can be gained only where Parliament believes that there should continue to be access to spent convictions to prevent harm that might arise were the convictions not to be apparent to those making criminal records checks. The Bill would go much further and make generally available to the public the entire criminal record of those who might well have mended their ways many years before. That is the first problem with the Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, with existing technology, it would be easy, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, to tag an entry on the register with a conviction’s expiry date?

[Stephen Phillips]

The hon. Gentleman might be right, but his difficulty is that the Bill does not propound the technological solution that, he advises the House, might be applied. He is therefore saying that the Bill, which he supports, is defective and should not receive a Second Reading.

The Bill’s second problem, to which I have already adverted, is the scope for inaccuracy in antecedent conviction records from magistrates courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was kind enough to say that this is a matter on which I know something, and I flatter myself that that is indeed the case. The simple position is that not all magistrates court records are of the quality that one would wish, either because they lack information or because they refer to the wrong individual.

The keeping of magistrates court records is an undoubted problem. The Minister might need to look at properly funding courts to ensure that records are accurate, but until the problem is properly grappled with, the Bill will continue to suffer from the defect that records that were inaccurate in part or in whole could follow individuals around for their entire life. Nothing would be worse than a member of the public, unbeknown to them, having associated with them a criminal conviction for an offence they had not committed.

The third major problem with the Bill is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in moving its Second Reading, it is intended to be only prospective; if enacted, it would apply only to offences committed in the future. His principal aim is to ensure that the burden on magistrates courts does not become too great, but the difficulty is that if the Bill was enacted those already convicted of offences in magistrates courts would form one class of person whose criminal records were not following them around—notwithstanding the mischief that my hon. Friend seeks to address, because the information or data were at one stage in the public domain —whereas the criminal convictions of those who committed offences in future could follow them around.

For all those reasons, although my hon. Friend and the sponsors of the Bill have a very fair point and have quite properly alluded to an anomaly—the public’s inability to secure access to the records—it seems that the Bill is defective in any number of respects.

[Mr Chope]

What solution does my hon. and learned Friend propose to this acknowledged problem?

[Stephen Phillips]

My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. The short answer—I will be completely honest with him—is that I do not know, because I have not thought about it. I am seeking to point out the Bill’s defects and why it will therefore not secure my support on Second Reading. The solution can no doubt be taken up by Ministers in due course. I none the less consider the points I have made to be valid, so I urge the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

I think that there is differential access; information can be obtained by someone who is present on the day of proceedings or if they read about it in the newspapers. The anomaly, as I see it, is about how much information is available to whom, when and in what fashion. What monitor is available to protect those on whom information is held from people who are not acting in the public interest? That is the test at the moment. Anyone can seek information from a court: the test is whether it is in the public interest. That is a matter for a further debate.

What is being suggested would add to the functions of the CRB by requiring it to keep a central database of all court outcomes, or results as they are known in the trade. We have never had such a database. Under the current system, people can visit their local court or any other court and read the results of court hearings in the local and national press. Newspapers and other media outlets can obtain free of charge copies of court registers containing the outcomes of criminal cases and the details of upcoming cases. As I have said, we do have an open system of justice.

If we went down the road proposed in the Bill, where would it lead? First, there is the question of cost. I need hardly explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that the Government are reducing the deficit. All Departments are working hard to reduce their costs, and introducing a new system such as this would incur substantial costs.

Further, what real mischief is the Bill designed to remedy? What benefit would be achieved from setting up such a system? How would it benefit our communities? It appears to us that the aim is to make the justice process more transparent, by allowing anyone, anywhere in England and Wales, to find out about convictions in any court, but why would we need to do that when we already have an open justice system? The Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 state, in paragraph (15) of rule 5.4, that every court register

“shall be open to inspection during reasonable hours by any justice of the peace, or any person authorised in that behalf by a justice of the peace or the Lord Chancellor.”

As court registers contain personal information that would not be made available in court or elsewhere, the change that my hon. Friend suggests would not simply be a matter of transferring the information to the Criminal Records Bureau. Magistrates courts registers are held not by the CRB but by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Recordable offences—not all offences—are passed electronically from HMCTS to the police national computer, from which the CRB accesses them. Making magistrates courts’ registers available to the CRB would therefore require a process to transfer and store them, with the associated costs.

There is considerable information kept on magistrates courts registers that is not in the public domain. It includes, among many other things, details of individuals’ driving licence numbers, personal details of the recipients of compensation and details of vulnerable victims and witnesses, including those in sexual and domestic violence cases. Court registers also contain much information on people found not guilty or acquitted. Does my hon. Friend think that should be in the public domain, too? If not, as I assume, we would need to find a way of removing that information—again, at considerable cost and contrary to the provisions of the Bill.

Magistrates courts registers also include cases on which there are reporting restrictions in place to stop the naming of individuals—offenders, witnesses, victims or others. Those cases would need to be identified—another costly process, as they are recorded only at first hearing so a linking process would have be identified—and removed from the public register. The Bill does not allow for that, either.

Magistrates courts also hear some civil and family cases, details of which are recorded in the register. Those cases would need to be filtered out before publication, but the Bill does not allow for that. Proceedings on more serious crimes are concluded in the Crown court, and from reading the Bill it seems that they, too, are to be included in its provisions. Clause 1(1) refers to

“any other registers produced by a court listing convictions”,

not just those from magistrates courts. Crown court registers are not currently held electronically. The official record is on paper, and making it available would require extra investment.

It is difficult to see what access to court records would provide for the public unless there were some search facility. My hon. Friend said that there would be, but that is not specified in the Bill. Such a facility would be very costly to develop, as literally millions of records a year would need to be sorted through. Someone could find the result they were looking for only if they knew the exact person, court or hearing involved. Effectively, the public would have access to endless data but get very little useful information—a costly exercise for very little public value.

We are also concerned that the Bill could work against rehabilitating those convicted by the courts. Let me explain why I say that. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 sets out various times after which a conviction becomes spent—when it does not have to be disclosed. My hon. Friend said that it would be done in real time, or within relatively real time, and that an electronic system could be devised incorporating a natural lapse of spent convictions. The aim of current legislation is to allow individuals to move on with their lives, particularly those whose offence was at the lower end of the scale. In order to safeguard the more vulnerable elements of our society, such as children and the old or infirm, certain professions are exempted from the Act, and all convictions, whether spent or not, have to be disclosed.

That is where the Criminal Records Bureau comes in. That is why we have an expert body doing the criminal records work. It does the necessary checks, and passes the information on to a prospective employer when relevant. I think that most people would consider that to be perfectly reasonable. It strikes a balance between open access to the criminal records system and the rights of those who have transgressed to move on with their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made a point about people who change their names in order to get away from a criminal record. The Bill does not address that point. However, the CRB has in place a thorough system of identity checking. The registered body, which must countersign any application to the CRB, is under a statutory duty to carry out thorough identity checks. The proposed online system would not put in place anything to cover that loophole.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that we are changing how the system operates through the provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill that is before the House, as I mentioned briefly before. Furthermore, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was itself the subject of a recent Green Paper, and the results of that consultation process are still under review by the Ministry of Justice. We would not want to take any action that could prejudge or impact in any way upon that review. However, if we put in place the system proposed in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, there would be considerable potential for anyone to circumvent the provisions of the 1974 Act and find out about matters that have become spent.

To avoid that we would need to put in place a series of checks to weed out such spent offences, which would add to the cost overall. However, if court registers were made available online or in some other electronic form by the CRB, there would be no guarantee that removing the spent conviction from the records would achieve much.

[Stephen Phillips]

It is not simply that there would have to be an expensive exercise of removing records on just one occasion; they would have to be removed on a rolling basis over time. That is another defect in the Bill.

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that helpful intervention. He raises an important point.

As we have seen, all sorts of information travels around freely on the internet, irrespective of whether it was intended that the information should get out. I was talking about the suggestion that the information be available online or in some other electronic form. In that case, it could not be guaranteed that if a spent conviction was removed, it would stay removed. The information would have been extracted into other forms of database long before then. It could also allow unscrupulous individuals to go on what are politely called “fishing trips” to see what they could find out about an individual. [Interruption.] I hear “neighbours” from a sedentary position. That is just one possible unintended use of the information available.

People could also use the information to get round the CRB system, however. They could deny individuals education or employment. They could even obtain information leading to more unpleasant actions such as revenge attacks, including in the context that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) mentioned about neighbours checking who is in the vicinity. People could obtain information to see where and how revenge might be visited upon those whose records came to light so easily.

With any system, there must be a balance between the needs of all those who are affected. In our view, what we currently have succeeds, more or less, in achieving that. Those who could be a threat to children or vulnerable people are kept out of certain roles by the protection offered by CRB checks. In the case of offenders, they can put their past behind them, as allowed for by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and I hope become productive and useful members of society again. In the Government's view that process could be significantly undermined if the Bill were to proceed.

The Bill also contains a reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and says:

“Information held by a criminal records office…shall not be ‘personal information’ for the purposes of the…Act”.

The Freedom of Information Act does not define personal information. Instead it provides that certain types of personal data as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 are exempt from disclosure. Personal data are defined in the 1998 Act as data that relate to a living individual who can be identified from those data, or from those data and other information that is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, which is, in the case we are discussing, the CRB. It includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of that individual.

It is important to note that “data” are also defined in the 1998 Act as information that is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose; is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment; is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system; does not fall within the categories above but forms part of an accessible record as defined elsewhere in the Act, and refers to, among other things, health and education records; or is recorded information held in any form by a public authority and does not fall within any of the categories I have listed. We can be fairly confident that, in whatever form it is provided, the information we are discussing today would be considered "personal data" for the purposes of the 1998 Act, given the definitions I have just set out.

In addition, section 2 of the 1998 Act makes it clear that sensitive personal data include information about an individual's racial or ethnic origin, his political opinions, his religious beliefs, his sexual life and information of any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings. Sensitive personal data are given special protection under the 1998 Act. In order for the processing of that data to be lawful, it must comply with the eight data protection principles that are set out in schedule 1. Those principles are as follows: that the data are processed lawfully and fairly, meeting conditions in both schedules and, in the case of sensitive personal data, the conditions in schedule 3 as well; that data are obtained for specified and lawful purposes and will not be processed in any manner incompatible with those purposes; that data are adequate, relevant and not excessive; that data shall be accurate and up to date; that data shall not be kept for longer than is necessary; that data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of the data subject; that technical and organisational measures shall be taken to prevent unauthorised or unlawful processing; and that data being transferred outside the EEA must be sent only to countries that ensure an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to processing data.

For sensitive personal data to be processed lawfully, one condition in both schedules 2 and 3 must be met. The conditions in schedule 2 are as follows: that the data subject consents to the processing; that the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract; that the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation; that the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject; that the processing is necessary for the administration of justice or for the exercise of a function of a public nature exercised in the public interest; and that the processing is necessary for legitimate interested purposes by the data controller or third parties, except where this is unwarranted due to the prejudice to the rights and freedoms of the data subject.

The conditions in schedule 3 are as follows: that the data subject explicitly consents to the processing; that the processing is necessary because of an employment obligation; that the processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject in respect of other people where consent cannot be obtained; that the processing is carried out in relation to trade union, political, philosophical or religious purposes with appropriate safeguards, and as long as this does not result in the disclosure of data to a third party without the consent of the data subject; that the information has been made public by the data subject; that the processing is necessary for the purposes of legal proceedings; that the processing is necessary in the interests of justice; that the processing is necessary for medical purposes; that the processing is necessary for identifying equal opportunities, and other specified reasons, including the police exercising their common law powers.

The objective of the part of the Bill relating to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would appear to be to prevent details of convictions from being released.

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption from disclosure for some personal data. Where the applicant is seeking information on himself, the information is completely exempt under section 40(1) and the applicant should instead make a request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act. That is known as a subject access request.

Where the applicant seeks information that includes the personal data of a third party, it may be released only to the requesting member of the public if to do so would not contravene any of the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act. Those principles ensure that an individual’s personal data are, among other things, only processed—in this context released—when it is fair and lawful to do so. It cannot be right that the protection of an individual’s personal data against unfair processing should automatically be overridden in the way envisioned in the Bill. Not only is it not right but there would be real concerns about whether this part of the Bill would be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. I will say a little more about that shortly.

The issues are not only freedom of information, but the Data Protection Act. Court registers contain considerable personal information—names, addresses, dates of birth, driving licences—on individuals, and not just offenders but victims and the not guilty. Such records are all subject to the Data Protection Act, and we would need to consider how publishing them, especially in the sort of volume that we are talking about, would impact on people’s personal rights.

Clause 1(3) requires that the criminal records office must ensure that

“the registers it holds are no more than one month out of date at any time”.

Courts already have a target to result all cases within six working days. So this would be eminently achievable, although there would be issues about the filtering that would need to take place to remove records not in the public domain, which may slow the process up a little. However, records are not updated after they have been published, so if someone successfully appeals against a conviction, the original conviction would remain in the magistrates court register. Someone searching the register would have no idea whether the individual had appealed, nor what the outcome was. If Crown court registers were not published, people would never be able to find out about an appeal hearing. Creating links between systems and updating information in real time would be extremely complex, not to mention costly. At the moment, the Criminal Records Bureau does this work by examining all the records and giving out the information on only the most current position.

I have already alluded to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Clearly, as we have heard, a balancing exercise needs to be carried out, and although there may well be a public interest in having an open justice system—which we do have—that still needs to be weighed against the rights of the individual.

As was said in the Supreme Court case of R (on the application of L) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, which concerned the disclosure on an enhanced CRB certificate of information that had not resulted in a conviction in relation to an individual seeking to work with children, the correct approach when looking at two competing convention rights, or when looking at whether interference with article 8 is proportionate, is that neither right takes precedence over the other.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am afraid that at this point in the Minister’s argument we may be parting company. The mischief with which the Bill seeks to deal is the fact that this information is already in the public domain. Is she suggesting that our courts should close their doors because article 8 means that there is some interference with people’s human rights as a result of their being subject to open criminal proceedings?

[Lynne Featherstone]

That is not what I was suggesting. We do have an open justice system, but I am saying that the balance is between having an open justice system and the rights of an individual.

Before I conclude, I wish briefly to deal with one issue that I have not yet mentioned, which is the mistakes made by magistrates courts. It is sad to hear of such poor record keeping and I hope that magistrates courts will seek to address it. I am sure that those in the Ministry of Justice will read the report of this debate and may wish to take the matter further.

We need to take all the considerations I have mentioned into account. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had the laudable intention of opening up criminal records and making them more accessible, but I have set out the great difficulties and challenges in doing that, and the mischiefs to which it may lead. It is the Government’s view that, at this time, there is no need to add give the CRB the additional work load that this Bill would impose, nor is there a sufficient public need for this sort of system to be set up. I must therefore inform the House that the Government do not support the implementation of this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that these decisions are made by chief constables in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. This is a procedure that the previous Government chose not to change. The fact is that the total number of officers retiring with more than 30 years’ service who might be eligible for this procedure is about 3,000 of a total 140,000 officers. The question that the Labour party simply cannot answer is how it would have achieved the savings of more than £1 billion a year, which are the cuts it says it would have imposed on the British police.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

16. What progress her Department has made in reducing the number of bogus asylum seekers.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

A system that makes timely decisions and removes people who have no right to stay in the UK is the biggest deterrent to false claims. The Government are committed to increasing the speed and quality of the processing of asylum claims, and the UK Border Agency is making faster decisions and removing people more quickly.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Bogus asylum claims result in a huge cost to the taxpayer through asylum support. What will the Government be doing to reduce the amount of money spent on asylum support?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell my hon. and learned Friend that we have reduced the cost of asylum support by more than £100 million from the 2009-10 total, delivering substantial savings to the taxpayer. That is the result of action that has been taken to ensure that we clear up the legacy of old asylum cases, speed up the processing of asylum claims and remove more quickly those not entitled to protection. Our asylum improvement project aims to go further.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

Ad absurdum, the hon. Gentleman’s argument is right. However, that is also precisely the distinction that we have to face: the distinction between a one-off arrangement for the one, exciting night before a major public event, and having a permanent encampment around Parliament square. It is to the latter that most sensible people—not those only in this House, but many millions of our constituents—would turn their minds. It is not acceptable that a UNESCO world heritage site—Parliament square, the parliamentary buildings and Westminster abbey—is blighted by having a large permanent encampment. That is an issue, in part, of aesthetics. However, millions of tourists come to Parliament and they must be dismayed by what they see, week after week, month after month. It cannot make much sense for us to allow it to continue.

To an extent, I had sympathy with elements of what the erstwhile Government were trying to do, such as their idea of having a licensed system covering demonstrations when major debates were taking place. In my view, it would have been entirely legitimate, for example, on the day we had our debate on Libya, for those who felt strongly about the issue, on either side, to have held a large, peaceful demonstration. But the notion that encampments can exist day after day, week after week, is another matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Tamil encampment that was in Parliament square in the autumn of 2009, which reached a ludicrous stage. There was a lot of noise and disturbance. There were old-fashioned local authority health and safety issues, as well as the whole question of toilet provision, and the area became something of a health hazard as the Tamil group camped there for six weeks before finally leaving.

Many of our constituents are bemused by our sheer powerlessness, and by the fact that we have not been able to get our act together to get the necessary workable legislation in place to ensure that we can achieve our goal.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

One of the reasons that the previous Administration were on such a sticky wicket in regard to the legislation was that it simply did not work. This provision seeks to create a legal regime within which legitimate demonstrations can take place and be adequately controlled in accordance with the UNESCO status of Parliament square.

[John McDonnell]

That’s what the last lot said.

Immigration

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

This is an important debate. The House will be aware that for much of the last century, and certainly under Governments who have approached the issue of immigration responsibly, the United Kingdom has taken a twin-track approach to the issue, limiting the number of those entering the country to appropriate levels while ensuring that new arrivals are properly integrated into British society. That approach worked very well until, perhaps, 1997, when—as Members in all parts of the House will know—net migration began to rise sharply, remaining high throughout the duration of both the Blair and Brown Governments. It is principally that rise that has led to the significant public concern to which the motion refers.

As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) observed at the beginning of the debate, this is all about numbers. The fact remains, for those of us who are concerned about immigration into this country, that the figures are very stark. As the House has already heard today, provisional figures for net migration during 2009 indicate an influx of approximately 196,000. That is a great number of people, enough to fill the Emirates stadium—which I visit on many Saturdays—three times over with some to spare. It is a figure that many, including me—and, as we heard earlier, the Minister and the Government—regard as unsustainable. It is unsustainable both in terms of the integration into this country of those who are coming here and in terms of the pressure that this level of net immigration has placed on our public services at a time of considerable economic uncertainty.

As a number of Members have observed in the debate, this is not only an important point, but it is, perhaps, the crux of the issue. All of us have recently gone through a general election, and all of us have therefore heard on the doorsteps in our constituencies quite how important the issue of immigration is to our constituents. Indeed, it was not just an important issue at the general election; it is an important issue today, as the contents of all of our postbags testify.

I therefore congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who unfortunately is unable to be here today—on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on the work it has done in ensuring that this important issue is discussed—for, as I now understand, the first time within the living memory of any Member of this Parliament. That might not be quite as bad a situation as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested in his remarks, but it is none the less very bad. Perhaps for the first time in a generation, we are having a proper debate in this country, without labels like “racist” and “racism” being bandied around, about what sort of immigration we want, what sort of country we wish to live in, and how we are to deal with what will be an increasingly important issue during the course of the 21st century as the world becomes ever flatter.

The important question is not, perhaps, merely one of numbers. It is, rather, how we as a society can maximise the benefits that immigration brings while minimising the strain on our public services, which have been stretched to breaking point by the uncontrolled immigration presided over by the last Labour Government, and which the previous Prime Minister and his predecessor permitted to occur.

The current Government are, in my judgment, entirely right to say we cannot, and should not, entirely halt immigration into this country. However, we have to bring down net immigration to a level that is reasonable, sustainable and capable of being supported by our constituents. We need to take this approach not just because, as a number of Members have said, we have always been a tolerant and reasonable society, but more because it is in our own interests to continue to attract the best and brightest to study and work in the United Kingdom, while ensuring that we do not place an unacceptable strain on our resources or overburden our peculiarly welcoming nature as a society.

These issues are particularly acute in my constituency of Sleaford and North Hykeham. To those of us who live in rural Britain, their significance is obvious. For communities like mine, an influx of migrants can increase the population in ways that existing public services find it difficult to cope with, and that serve to foment resentment and lead to the rise of extremist politics—a rise which all Members of this House would deplore. The last Labour Government, with their focus on urban, rather than rural, Britain, wholly failed to understand or grapple with that aspect when they came to consider the question of immigration.

Going forward, we must ensure that those entering this country to work provide skills that we do not have in our own work force. We have heard something of that in the debate, and we need to ensure that it is the case, particularly at a time when we are trying to get our own people into work as the size of the public sector reduces and unemployment rears its head again. The whole House will appreciate, and as is evident from this debate does appreciate, the benefits of workers from other countries filling the skills gaps in our economy. As other hon. Members have said, those gaps were too often created by the previous Government’s poor policies on higher education.

However, what we need to do throughout is to look closely at why those rushing to this country are willing to fill vacancies for which they say they have the skills, while those within this country who might already have those skills are not willing to fill those vacancies. In general terms it would be difficult to disagree with the proposition that the best way to boost our economy must be to incentivise the people already in the country—the people who are already British—to learn new skills, rather than to bring skills in from overseas and possibly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) hinted, to depress the wages of United Kingdom workers artificially as a result.

For all those reasons, what we have heard from the Minister today has been very welcome. I support the introduction of a limit on non-European economic area immigration, as I believe do most in the House. Reducing the number of immigrants from hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands about which the Government are talking seems vital to ensure that we have a proper balance between the economic benefits of immigration and the sustainable use of our public services.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I wish to raise, once again, the point of immigration from the European Union and whether it is realistic just to focus on immigration from outside the EEA or whether we have to look at our treaty obligations to the EU. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and pays close attention to these matters.

[Stephen Phillips]

Of course I must tell the House that my hon. Friend knows that because he serves on the same Committee, and this is indeed an issue about which he and I are concerned. He knows the current position, as indeed does the whole House, which results from our treaty obligations arising out of our membership of the European Union. There is very little we can do—it might be nothing—about migration from existing EU countries. As he is aware, this has become a difficulty in our country as a result of the limits that other EU members imposed on migration from new EU countries. The previous Government decided not to impose those limits here and, as a result, there was considerable resentment in our constituencies as migrants who might have headed for France or Germany made for the United Kingdom when the states of which they were citizens joined the European Union. This is perhaps not the focus of today’s debate, but there is no doubt that as and when further states join the EU, the Government of the day will have to grapple with this issue properly. They will have to show a courage that was not displayed by the previous Government to ensure that limits are placed on those who can come from new member states of the EU to this country. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I believe that he and I agree on this matter, as I suspect many Members of this House now do.

The points-based system has, to some extent, if not largely, failed to provide sufficient control over immigration to bring numbers down, as demonstrated by not only the figures to which I have alluded, but the position that prevailed under the previous Government for the majority of their time in power. In terms of social cohesion, we simply cannot afford not to have effective immigration controls in place in an increasingly globalised world. All in this House—I believe this is common ground on both sides—have a responsibility to restore the public’s faith in the immigration system by ensuring that those conditions are in place.

The lack of faith that we have witnessed among the public and our constituents has made it all too easy for people to blame new arrivals for social problems in their communities. Effective controls will allow us to face down those from the right and the out-and-out racists and to defeat the all-too-often expressed views that immigrants are a danger to our society—a view that is wholly inconsistent with the past, with the tolerant nature of our society, with the needs of a 21st century Britain and with our need to trade in a globalised economy and an ever-flatter world.

I believe that it is crucial that we should achieve in this Parliament a sustainable level of immigration. We had under the previous Government what often appeared to be—even if it was not—an open-door policy. I was heartened to hear the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) say that nobody on either side of the House any longer believes that to be appropriate. For my part, I have nothing but praise for how the Government have begun to address the entire issue—for the first time, I believe, in more than a decade—in an open and responsible way that shows that we are listening to the concerns of our constituents and of the British people and that ensures that we are dealing with the porous borders and the open-door immigration policy of the last Labour Government. For that reason, and for all those that I have given in my speech, I intend to support the motion.

Anti-Slavery Day

Stephen Phillips Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). We sit together on the European Scrutiny Committee and also share a common interest in the subject of this debate.

This is an historic and significant debate, and it is pleasing to see that so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute. I welcome the advent of anti-slavery day, even though I was not in the House when the Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010 went through, not least because it is an important tool in bringing these issues into the limelight and giving them the prominence that they deserve. The one thing that is absolutely clear from the debate is that slavery is alive and well in our society and throughout the world. It is therefore right that the House discusses it. I should like to echo other hon. Members in paying tribute to Mr Anthony Steen, who is a great loss to the House. It is a great shame that he cannot be here to make his own speech today.

The simple fact is that it remains unacceptable 200 years after Wilberforce fought so long, so admirably and so hard against slavery that we live in a society in which slavery endures. It is perhaps not the same as in his time, but it is no less deplorable. In the 18th century, slavery was part of a distasteful and distorted economy, and was witnessed in the full light of day. Now, as the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, it is to a large extent invisible, hidden and underground. It is a hidden abuse of people who more often than not simply cannot speak up for themselves.

Of course, slavery surfaces from time to time. Sex trafficking is the crime that most often captures the media headlines, but earlier this week, Romanian children who were forced into working on the streets of the capital like Fagin’s gang were rescued by Operation Golf. I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police for their work on that. I hope the Crown can in due course mount successful prosecutions of those responsible.

It is worth remembering, however, that that is not an easy task. The women and children involved are often a long way from home. They do not speak the language and are away from such family as they have, and the authorities can seem remote and unhelpful. Getting valuable witness statements from those individuals—most often, it is women and children—is very difficult, particular given what they have suffered. The prosecution rate for such offences is woefully low. Will the Minister say what the Government intend to do about that? We have the laws, as has been said, but we do not seem to enforce them to their fullest extent. That might be a problem of mechanics, but I should like to know what the Government will do.

I also want to mention briefly, if I may, an issue alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), namely the plight of domestic staff working in conditions that amount to slavery right here in London for embassy staff protected by diplomatic privilege. Unlike those on ordinary domestic visas, those on diplomatic domestic visas are not permitted to change jobs. They are stuck in their employment and with their employer, and essentially have no legal status. They do not and cannot go to the police if they suffer abuse. It is about time the Government dealt with that. The House is entitled to ask why we cannot get rid of those visas and issue normal domestic visas to those workers, which would enable them to have the same access to help as anybody else who needs it. What is the Government’s position on that?

I end simply by reminding the House what Wilberforce himself said in the House of Commons in May 1789—of course, that was not in this building. He said that

“the nature and all the circumstances of this trade are now laid open to us; we can no longer plead ignorance, we cannot evade it; it is now an object placed before us, we can not pass it; we may spurn it, we may kick it out of our way, but we cannot turn aside so as to avoid seeing it; for it is brought now so directly before our eyes that this House must decide, and must justify to all the world, and to their own consciences, the rectitude of the grounds and principles of their decision.”—[Parliamentary History, 12 May 1789; Vol. XXVIII, c. 63.]

We are simply debating anti-slavery day today, but the decision for the future is whether we are prepared to continue to accept situations of slavery which pertain to our society some 200 years after Wilberforce and his colleagues successfully fought the battle to end slavery in this country.