Home Affairs and Justice
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
The important point for the NCA is to be able to work with police forces at various levels to ensure that where it is necessary for it to be involved in investigations, that can be done. The Bill will provide for the NCA to have the ability to task police forces around the country. I expect it to work on the basis of co-operation and collaboration. That is the basis on which SOCA and CEOP have operated, and it has worked very well so far. I expect it to be possible to achieve what we want in respect of the effective joining up and collaboration of forces with the NCA and its commands. Any action will be based on the identification through intelligence of the greatest harms, which will allow us to identify the greatest priorities where action needs to be taken.
For justice to be effective, it must also be swift and efficient, and it must be seen to be done by a criminal justice system that properly reflects our society. The Crime and Courts Bill will further set out our reforms of the courts and tribunals system to make it faster, more transparent, more representative of the communities it serves and more efficient in its use of resources.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
On the subject of efficiency and speed, the Home Secretary said in this morning’s written statement on Abu Qatada that she now has two options for the deportation of this man. One is to go through the Special Immigration Appeals Commission court and the other is to certify his further appeal as clearly unfounded. Can she say anything about whether she feels that certifying any further appeal as clearly unfounded would be effective?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many would have wished to see a conclusion to the Abu Qatada case rather more swiftly than has been possible so far. I am confident, however, that we are closer to the deportation of Abu Qatada today than we were two days ago. We need to go through the proper processes in the UK courts. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the written ministerial statement and the two available processes.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is right, and we opposed that proposal, as did our Liberal Democrat colleagues. We are not in the business of creating what my right hon. Friend described as a warehouse; this proposal is not about creating some giant new Government database, with every single piece of telephone information and e-mail. It is important to bust that myth.
What the legislation will do is provide an updated framework for the collection, retention and acquisition of communications data. It will place new obligations on internet and communication service providers to retain certain data securely for up to 12 months. After 12 months, the data will be destroyed. Just as now, the communications industry will be reimbursed by Government for providing this service. The costs incurred are a fraction of those we would face for any alternative method; indeed, there is no like-for-like alternative. As now, data would be available only to designated officers on a case-by-case basis, authorised under legislation approved by Parliament, and overseen by the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner, who is a former Court of Appeal judge.
There will be no extension of the number of people who can access that data. Indeed, we have already legislated, through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to limit local authority access to communications data. Each acquisition of data must be authorised by a senior officer at a rank stipulated by Parliament. Access will be granted only if it is necessary and proportionate for a criminal or terrorist investigation, or to protect the public. Fishing expeditions would neither be necessary nor proportionate, and so would not be allowed.
The role of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—a panel of senior judicial figures—will be extended to ensure that individuals have a proper avenue of complaint and independent investigation if they think the powers have been used unlawfully.
Michael Ellis
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this measure. Does she agree that, far from being a snoopers’ charter, these provisions will modernise and bring into line procedures that are already in place in respect of more traditional forms of communication, and allow the Crown Prosecution Service to continue, and to improve, its evidence-gathering techniques in prosecuting people involved in organised crime and other serious criminality?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are losing some of our most experienced officers. I have spoken to officers from other places around the country who wanted to carry on working, and who had great skills and experience to contribute to the police force, but are being forced into early retirement. The evidence and research from the House of Commons Library shows that that will actually cost the taxpayer more. This approach is absolutely crazy. It is bad for communities and bad for the taxpayer.
We know now what the Prime Minister’s response to this situation is. He does not think it is a problem; cutting 999 response teams is not about emergencies or about visibility—it is not even austerity. He said that it is just “efficiency”. He calls it “efficiency” but communities across the country call it, “Out of touch, irresponsible and unfair”, because they know it is communities that are paying the price.
Michael Ellis
How can the right hon. Lady reconcile her current rhetoric on numbers with the fact that under the Labour Government only 11% of the police were available to the general public at any one time? Was that not because mismanagement and bureaucracy ran riot under Labour?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman knows that that figure does not actually reflect what happens in police forces across the country. Barely an hour ago, I spoke to police officers who told me that they are now having to deal with more bureaucracy, not less. They have to do all their own recording of crime and all their own collecting of statements, which used to be done by civilian support staff. Those police officers told me categorically that they are now spending less time out on the beat and having to deal with more bureaucracy than they were before. The police are becoming less visible, not more visible, as a result of this Government’s decisions.
What then does the Queen’s Speech have to offer to cut crime or to improve public safety? The answer is: not much. The previous Queen’s Speech was bad enough: 17,000 suspected rapists were taken off the DNA database; 20% cuts were made in policing at the same time as £100 million could be found for elected police commissioners; counter-terrorism powers were watered down; and getting CCTV was made tougher. So what do the Government have to offer this time to make good the damage? The answer is: cameras in courts. I guess they had to put them somewhere, now that they are taking them away from the town centres and the housing estates.
The Home Secretary did promise stronger oversight of the intelligence and security agencies. We will support that, and I hope that she goes far enough. She also said that she wants more closed material procedures—the devil will be in the detail on that. There is a problem with foreign intelligence, and I agree with her that there is a problem with the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. The proposals that she set out in the Green Paper were not justified and went too far. I recognise from her remarks today that she has made some changes to those positions, but we will need to see the detail, reflect and give the matter consideration. She also talked about extending communication surveillance. Again, we will await the detail. Everyone wants the police to be able to keep up with new technology in the fight against terrorism, but no one wants the police or security agencies browsing personal e-mails or Facebook pages at will. I hope that we can have cross-party discussions on this. The Home Secretary will know that the practice of previous Home Secretaries has been to provide extensive briefing for the Opposition and for Select Committees, so we will wait to see what detail she is able to provide.
Abu Qatada
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs May
I thought that, in response to various answers, I had explained what I think is the right approach for the Government to take, which is for us to reform the European Court of Human Rights to deal with the concerns that have been raised about the way the European Court operates, and that is exactly the work the Government are undertaking.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that we have been seeing raw and naked opportunism from the Labour Benches today? Is it not the case that the operative words of article 43 are that the reasons for the judgment being appealed must
“reach the Registry within three months”
of the date, which was 17 January, so Monday 16 April was within three months, whereas Tuesday 17 April would have been three months, not within three months? Therefore, the Home Secretary is right, and Opposition Members who have suggested otherwise have been siding with Abu Qatada’s lawyers and supporting their arguments.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend helpfully clarifies again the definition of the deadline; it was, indeed, Monday 16 April. This is a very simple matter: this Government want to deport Abu Qatada. We have taken action to do that, and we will resume it when it is once again possible, but I was clear that it may take many months to do that, and there are various legal avenues available to Abu Qatada.
Abu Qatada
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
As I have said in answers to a number of other Members, the Government have, of course, at all times looked as widely as possible at what action could be taken in relation to Abu Qatada, as I assume the previous Government also did. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of intercept as evidence. As he will know, we have a Privy Council group that is still looking into that issue, and the only comment I would make is that very often it is assumed that that is the one answer that will solve all our problems when all the evidence is that it is not.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
May I, as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, congratulate the Home Secretary on the personal role she has played in securing Jordanian co-operation in this matter? Although the shadow Home Secretary kept referring to this as going back to square one, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is, in fact, a resumption of proceedings that were already ongoing, having herself now obtained assurances from the Jordanians; and that this process will be faster than going through to the Grand Chamber of the European Court?
Forensic Science Service
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). To continue the forensic analogies, it is an unquantifiable pleasure.
I want to start by recognising the excellent work that forensic scientists do, no matter where in the country they work. It is often painstaking work and it is often undertaken in unpleasant situations. Much of the work that they do is unsung and they remain largely anonymised within the system. I therefore praise the work of the forensic experts and scientists who do so much to support the criminal justice system in this country.
The Forensic Science Service has been making a significant loss for a considerable period. This is not a new situation that has materialised suddenly in the 18 months since this Government came into being. The Forensic Science Service has had 20 years of fiscal decline and difficulties. It has lost about £2 million a month. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is signalling that it is more like £1 million a month. Even if that were true, and it is not accepted that it is, £1 million a month is a great deal of money to lose, particularly in these straitened times of austerity. One cannot lightly brush aside such significant monthly losses.
Mr Slaughter
The overwhelming client of the Forensic Science Service is the police in England and Wales, although there are some other clients. The money is therefore being paid by the police service. If the contracts are adjusted, as they may well be by commercial providers, all that will happen is that the police service will pay more money. These notional losses are a consequence of the way in which the system is set up. What parts of the criminal justice system does the hon. Gentleman think should make a profit?
Michael Ellis
The Government have supplied £20 million to maintain operational continuity and some £8.7 million to cover staffing costs in recent months. There is no point in Opposition Members taking the anti-privatisation and anti-capitalist approach and saying that the best approach is for the Government to run everything from the centre. That is not the best approach. We know from numerous examples over the past 20 or 30 years how the commercial sector has driven better results and circumstances for the Government and for the individual.
Andrew Miller
The hon. Gentleman will find that neither I nor any other member of the Select Committee from either side of the House has ever criticised the principle of having private sector providers. LGC and other providers are first-rate scientific laboratories. However, that does not make the economic case.
Michael Ellis
It was Sir Robert Peel who set up the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in 1842 to analyse alcohol and tobacco products. It remained in situ until 1996, when it was privatised. There has, in effect, been a managed decline of the Forensic Science Service for years, including under the previous Labour Government.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituents who work as forensic scientists for LGC that since 1991, when the market was opened up, there has been more innovation and investment, quality has been driven up, and prices and turnaround times have been driven down?
Michael Ellis
I do agree with that.
In Germany and the United States, both of which are first-world countries and in the group of the 20 leading industrialised nations, it can take up to six weeks for routine forensic results to come through, whereas in this country, as the LGC managing director has confirmed, similar results can be obtained in two to three days. That has been the case for years. Opposition Members express concern about the private sector and ask, “What price justice?” I say to them that the private sector has been used in forensic services for years.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
To support my hon. Friend’s point, I cite Cellmark Forensic Services, which is based in Abingdon in my constituency. It was established in 1987 as the world’s first commercial DNA fingerprinting service. It was involved in presenting the first DNA evidence at the Old Bailey. It highlights the fact that private companies can establish a reputation for quality and for technical evidence. It has had the ISO quality accreditation since 1990 and is fully accredited to submit crime scene profiles and profiles taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the DNA national database. I am concerned that some of the contributions to this debate will undermine public confidence in forensic evidence that comes to the criminal justice system from private companies. I hope that Members wish to avoid that.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) spoke about criminals getting off free. Such scaremongering is not acceptable. One has to juxtapose such suggestions with the fact that the private sector has been involved in forensic science for years and is currently responsible for up to 50% of the work.
Dr Huppert
There is no dissent across the Chamber on the fact that the private sector has a role and performs it well in some instances. If we are going to talk about management structures, I understand that 20% of LGC is owned by its management and staff, and that all its staff have phantom shares. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great argument for employee share ownership, because it drives companies to care about their staff and staff to care about what they are trying to achieve?
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman referred to what I said earlier, and I should like to clarify two points. First, the private sector does an extremely good job on many occasions. It has sped up DNA analysis, and it has improved things where there is a regular scientific progress to go through.
Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman reads the evidence, he will see that there is likely to be a problem with the interrogation of the database. That service of the FSS is likely to disappear for ever. That was why some of the evidence given to the Committee indicated very strongly that cold cases would not be solved and that in current cases guilty people would go free.
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that at all, but I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to give his view.
Private companies already provide 35% of forensic services to the criminal justice system. To counter points that Opposition Members have made about a potential conflict of interest in the police analysing forensic evidence, I point out that there are already numerous examples of constabularies up and down the country being responsible for analysing forensic evidence such as footprints, fingerprints and the like. They farm out some areas of forensic science, but there is no suggestion that there have not been numerous examples of the police analysing evidence themselves. I see no reason why we should fear impropriety.
The archives will be retained, which is right. It is also right that staff are being moved prior to the controlled shutdown of the FSS and that work is being safely transferred. I note with some interest that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Keir Starmer, who I believe was appointed by the Labour Government, remains satisfied that the closure is orderly and that things can be properly managed. The financial service regulator has also—
Andrew Miller
Not the financial service regulator, the Forensic Science Regulator.
Michael Ellis
Forgive me. The Forensic Science Regulator has said that laboratories, prosecuting authorities, professional bodies, the judiciary and the Association of Chief Police Officers all feel that they can support the Government’s measures. The concerns being expressed by one or two Opposition Members are not duplicated by those authoritative organisations.
Twelve new service providers have already been contracted, and some already have vast experience of dealing with particularly significant cases of public fame and notoriety. They already have the type of experience that the FSS has under its belt.
Getting forensics right is important to the defence as well as the prosecution. One tends to hear the argument that it is important to secure prosecutions, but forensic results can also exonerate people who are suspected of criminal offences. They therefore serve the wider public interests of justice. The defence should be factored into what is done, and there is no reason to think otherwise.
As I alluded to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the managing director of LGC Forensics, one of the larger companies doing private work in the field, has pointed out that privatisation has provided and will provide capacity where the Forensic Science Service cannot necessarily cope. As in many other fields of privatisation, that greater capacity will provide faster turnaround times, which will be in the wider interests of justice. That gentleman gave the example that it takes six weeks in Germany or the United States to get some results that we in England and Wales can obtain in two to three days.
The private sector can invest in the future and in innovation in a way that Governments tend not to be able to do, or to be as efficient at doing, because of the sheer size of government. Commercial entities must innovate or die, and the private sector companies involved in the field of forensic science will be looking to innovate in certain areas. That will have a beneficial effect on the wider interests of justice.
I give as examples two inventions in the forensic science field that have been credited to LGC. Automated fibre analysis and the analysis of minuscule amounts of DNA are new fields of forensic analysis that were invented by that private company, and apparently both were used to aid the prosecution of the killers of Stephen Lawrence. I do not wish to focus only on that company, but it is right to point out that it has some 650 forensic scientists or experts in its employment and turns over £170 million annually. Such companies can expand, advance and examine what advances are being made internationally. That is another signal reason why privatisation can be in the wider interests of justice.
It has been my experience in the courts of England that juries are not particularly interested in what company a scientist comes from. If anything, they are more focused on their qualifications or experience. They are particularly impressed by how long a scientist has been working in a particular field and what his or her qualifications are. In my view, they are not likely to focus on whether the scientist comes from company A, company B or the Forensic Science Service. That will not influence juries.
Andrew Miller
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but does he agree with me, and with Andrew Rennison, the regulator, that a jury is much more likely to be persuaded by somebody from an accredited laboratory?
Michael Ellis
No, I do not think I do agree with that. Of course I accept that a laboratory must be accredited, but it is most unlikely that a judge, never mind the prosecutor or the defence, would accept without question evidence from unqualified scientists. The scientists will be highly qualified to give persuasive evidence to a court, but it is of course necessary to ensure that scientific laboratories are properly accredited and qualified.
Andrew Miller
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s last point—that is critical in the interests of justice. The Science and Technology Committee has said that whether laboratories are in the private or the public sector, work should be done in accredited laboratories; otherwise, justice could be at risk.
Michael Ellis
There is a very big difference there. Hon. Members will do well to recall that under the McFarland review the previous Labour Government effectively accepted a move towards privatisation but botched the job. There is no point in trying to get away from the fact that the FSS is urgently in need of change, and the Government’s move is the right one for the wider interests of forensics.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree—perhaps this has not been understood—that before a so-called expert can give written or oral evidence to a court the judge has to be satisfied that they are indeed an expert in the field in which they say they are an expert? It matters not where they have come from. What matters to the judge is that they have qualifications, experience and so on, so that it can be determined that they are an expert in the field in which they are giving evidence.
Michael Ellis
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend—I have made that point already. The reality is that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service would not seek to put a case before a judge and jury that relied on someone who was not actually an expert. Therefore, pursuing that argument is clutching at straws.
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again—he is being incredibly generous—but may I take him back to the point that he was edging towards making? By proposing a £50 million subsidy in March 2009 for the transition arrangements, did the previous Government send a message that they were not interested in the private sector? Does he agree that that did more damage than anything else to their scope for investment at that time?
Michael Ellis
I agree. When the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was Home Secretary, he accepted the recommendations of the McFarland review into the future of forensic science services. The then Government said that the review
“makes a number of helpful observations and recommendations aimed at improving FSS performance, but the most fundamental is that it should be transformed from a trading fund into a government-owned company as a precursor to development into a private sector classified public/private partnership…I am confident that the proposed change will stimulate and broaden the market”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. WA167-168.]
The proposals are an extension of that position. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said at that time:
“The status quo is not an option, and it is clear that we need to act to ensure that the FSS remains a leading-edge forensic organisation.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2011; Vol. 412, c. 280WH.]
That is what will happen now. The Forensic Science Service needs to provide an excellent service, but it need not be in Government hands to do so. Farming it out to the private sector is simply an extension of the current position, to the tune of between 35% and 50%, depending on whom we listen to.
The Committee report states its
“disappointment at the historical inadequacies in government decision-making that brought the FSS to its current dire financial situation.”
I recognise that, but the Committee wished to place
“on record that we consider much of the responsibility for the current problems facing the FSS to lie with previous administrations.”
I am happy to accept that point. I happen to agree with it, but I would go further and say that the FSS is in its current position almost solely because of how it was run down under the previous Labour Administration.
I note that the Committee agreed with the Government that allowing the FSS to go into administration would have been undesirable. I presume that Labour Members agree with that, because allowing the FSS to go into administration would not have been good for the criminal justice system or for FSS staff.
It is clear that the wider interests of the criminal justice system in this country are best met by the actions that the Government are taking. They are taking the bull by the horns, which has to be done to provide the continuation of the excellent service from forensic scientists and experts, who have given such excellent support to the wider criminal justice system in this country for many years.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) not only for his Committee’s review, but for his explanation of its position. The Committee, of course, is impartial—there is a majority of coalition Members on the Committee, so it is clearly not biased in any way.
I come to this debate with no scientific expertise, but with some knowledge as a criminal lawyer. I can see on the Government Benches very eminent members of the Bar, for whom I have a fair amount of respect. I understand that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) sits as a recorder in the Crown Court, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—she is clearly not in the same party, but we get on particularly well—is a barrister.
I had suspected, although I did not know this until he spoke, that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) was probably a member of the Bar too. I was confused about parts of his speech. He seemed to suggest that Opposition Members had said there was no room for the private sector in the FSS. With respect, I suspect that he was reading a speech that he had written in anticipation of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston might have said, rather than speaking in response to what he actually said.
I am concerned. The loss of the FSS is short-sighted and could lead to an increase in miscarriages of justice. My hon. Friend’s first criticism in the review was of the lack of consideration to the future of the FSS and of the Government’s failure to consult scientific experts. The Committee also expressed concerns about the loss of expertise—top scientists exiting the profession—and research and development work. That must be a concern for all Members on both sides of the House.
I echo those concerns, but I shall concentrate on the possible implications for the criminal justice system. Provision could be fragmented, which cannot be positive. Formerly, the FSS would independently deal with evidence from a crime scene, oversee tests and co-ordinate different pieces of evidence. I am concerned that the introduction of a number of different private providers—I do not instinctively dislike private providers—will fragment that process.
Having different providers dealing with different pieces of the jigsaw is fraught with dangers for justice and might lead to miscarriages of justice. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Northampton North, who seemed to say that the proposals are all about money, which is fine. Of course, at times of austerity, we need to be careful about how money is spent, but hon. Members will not think I am a raving lunatic if I suggest that £24 million a year is not an awful lot of money for justice, which is my chief concern.
We need joined-up, experienced teams to deal with those pieces of evidence from a crime to ensure that scientists have the complete picture. My concern is that fragmentation will mean that that will not happen as it does now.
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman does not think that £24 million is a lot to spend, but it is a £24 million loss when areas of the private sector can function without making such a loss. Does he not think it would be better if the cost to the Government were not a £24 million loss?
Karl Turner
Of course I do—it would be marvellous if money was not lost—but there are two sides to the argument, and I understand that the FSS says that some of that cost can be put down to the restructuring of the service.
I am also concerned about the potential for police bias. I am worried that moving forensic work in-house could undermine public trust in our judicial system and create a significant risk of police bias. There will be a clear conflict of interest if the police have to decide what evidence to test while under pressure to secure a conviction. We can see examples of that. The public must have complete trust in our judicial system, but that trust might be compromised by convictions based on forensic science that is no longer perceived to be truly independent.
John Howell
I fear that this is turning into a debate about who has got what television show—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
Let me first place on the record my thanks to the Science and Technology Committee for its report and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) for the excellent leadership he has shown and the way in which he introduced the debate.
I hesitated to speak in this debate for two reasons, both linked. I had responsibility for the Forensic Science Service in the very last months of the previous Government. Therefore, there is inevitably a hesitation when one rises in such debates, not only to say something positive about what we did, but to talk about one’s successor, because the second point is this. I do not think it is fair when Ministers have left office if they jump up at every opportunity to criticise or comment on what their successors have done. The Minister deserves my support, in exactly the same way that he gave me support when I was honoured to hold the position that he now holds. However, I want to make some brief observations, not from the perspective of a criminal lawyer by any means, but from the perspective of what I think is good or bad public policy.
Whatever else has been said, the reality is that the fortunes of the Forensic Science Service have proved difficult for every Government, and would have done for any Government—both for this Government and the previous Government. They have been difficult for all sorts of reasons, not least because of the changing nature of forensics in recent times, particularly with the proliferation of DNA testing, but also because of a market—if one wants to call it that—that has been complex and in which both the Forensic Science Service and a number of private providers have played a part. When I say that in my experience some of those providers proved to be fickle, that is in no way a criticism of those who do an excellent job and are an integral part of the market; indeed, nothing that we did was about undermining what they were trying to do. However, it is true that some companies put their toes in the water and tended to look for the cheap things they could do to make a quick profit before moving on. This particular aspect of the criminal justice system deserves better.
Where I would disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) is that we should not take an either/or approach to the forensics sector. There is no reason to believe that it would be better just in private hands or just in the hands of Government-run bodies. That was the approach that we took, and that is why the transformation programme was necessary. It was not a subsidy, as he suggested; rather, as the name suggests, it was meant to transform the Forensic Science Service from being a loss maker—which we all acknowledge it was—to being a player that could continue in the forensics market. I believe that the FSS brought, and still brings, something of great value to the forensics market. It helps to be a guarantor of the highest standards, which are not simply necessary for criminal justice in our country, but well regarded and well respected elsewhere.
The transformation programme was radical in what it intended to do. It aimed to close four laboratories around the country—not three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said. Crucially, however, in the seven that remained, work was to be done differently, because it was entirely unacceptable that an organisation such as the FSS could continue to make a loss. That was the whole point of the transformation programme as we saw it.
The Government’s defence, in their response to the Select Committee’s report, is that the FSS was continuing to lose £2 million a month. I dispute that figure, not least because the numbers were coming down. Also, in answer to a point that was raised earlier, the intention was not to have a Forensic Science Service that was continually indebted to the Government and the taxpayer; it was to have one that could stand foursquare on its own two feet. In that sense, therefore, I do not think the transformation programme has been characterised properly. The Government’s response to the report warns:
“Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011.”
I have news for the Minister, although he already knows this: all the discussions that we had throughout the transformation programme took that for granted—not that the FSS would be in administration, but that it would always be on the edge of difficulty. Again, that was the whole point of the transformation programme: to ensure that if we wanted a Forensic Science Service, things would have to change, and they did.
Let me ask the Minister a question that I hope he will address. One of the issues that was in danger of tipping the FSS into difficulties was the black hole in the pension fund. Forgive me, but if the FSS is closed, I would imagine that there necessarily remains a commitment to the pension fund. Somebody will have to fill that hole at some point along the way, so how much of the money that the Government are using to close down the FSS will go into the pension fund?
The previous Government, of whom I am proud to have been a member, introduced a reform programme. However, contrary to what we have heard this evening, we started from an assumption that at one point in the future the FSS would be—could be—privatised. My only concern was that it would have to be demonstrated that it was better to put the FSS into private hands than for the Government to continue to have an interest in it. In my view, that needed to be demonstrable, and the evidence was simply not there. However, as far as I remember, closure was not an option that was seriously considered—or, indeed, seriously sought. I wonder where it came from, because it is quite a major step from where we were. Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office scientific adviser played a key role, not in responding to the decision, but in formulating it? What was the role of the forensic science regulator? The report talks about Andrew Rennison in excellent terms—he is indeed a fine man—and about how he has been reappointed, but was he consulted before the decision was made? Or again, has he simply been asked to make the best of a bad job? What did the police say? We can only really know that once the Government have published ACPO’s response—I refer not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston did, to how the police will cope, now that the Government have already made the decision, but to whether they said it was a good idea or not.
We were criticised for how we introduced the transformation programme. I still have the scars on my back, not least those inflicted by a Deputy Speaker who was, and remains, a doughty fighter for his constituents in Chorley, over one of the labs that was to close. Let me say this. On looking at the decision, how it was announced and the consultation, it makes me think, although Mr Deputy Speaker will not agree, that what we did was a model way of doing it. I am afraid this Government’s response is not acceptable.
I want to pay tribute to the excellent men and women of the Forensic Science Service. They have given, in some cases, decades of commitment, building up decades of experience not just for the service, but for our country. The reality is, as we have heard, that when the FSS goes, some of those people will leave forensics and some will stay in it but go to other countries, which will benefit from the experience that we built up over a long period. I simply ask whether this is the right decision.
Michael Ellis
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that those excellent scientists will have more places in the private sector to go to and may well end up with a wider choice and earn more money? That is the free market at work.
Mr Campbell
They may do. It is entirely their choice if they want to do that, but let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question. When the Gulf states, which are running out of oil and are making investments for a modern state, wanted the very best forensic service for their country—indeed, the best in the world—who did they go to? They did not go to America or to Germany; and when they came to this country, they did not go to the private companies either. I will tell him who they came to and still have a contract with, as far as I understand it: they came to the Forensic Science Service. What is it that the Gulf states appreciate about this service that we apparently no longer do?
I have enormous respect for the police, for the science and, indeed, for the courts, but there is an issue about what will happen if forensics lies mainly or wholly in the hands of those working in police labs. They are doing their best, and we know that they will not cut corners or come up with the wrong decisions for whatever reasons people might suspect. The criminal justice system, however, is about more than that. It is about respect for people in that situation. I want some reassurance from the Minister, who has nodded his head when this matter has been raised, that when the FSS has gone, along with the expertise, status and respect that goes with it, we will not see miscarriages of justice or court situations where cases are thrown out because the police have not only caught the criminal and aided in the prosecution, but have provided the forensic evidence as well.
This debate is about whether we want a forensic science service in the future and what it will look like. We would have known what it looked like if the transformation programme had been given a chance. We asked some hard questions, so I ask the Minister whether those same questions were asked when he looked at the world beyond the FSS. For example, can he guarantee that in a major incident a forensic officer will be in there within four hours? It seems obvious that one will be, but is that the case? We asked that very hard question of the FSS, which sometimes struggled to give us an answer.
What will happen, God forbid, if there is a 7/7 or a 9/11? Is the Minister convinced that we will have the capacity in forensics to deal with that situation? At the time of the report, Durham, Cleveland and South Yorkshire constabularies not only did not have the necessary facilities, but did not have the contracts with external providers either. Yet we are told that the FSS is going to disappear this year. I wonder whether we are taking risks.
My final point is that this is a risky decision. I do not envy the Minister the decisions he has to take; I envy him his job, but not his difficult decisions. This is one decision, but what about all the other things happening across Government? What about the cuts in police numbers? What about the Justice Secretary’s acceptance that crime will inevitably rise in a recession? What about the changes to the rules on DNA that the Government are making in the Protection of Freedoms Bill? Add them together, and I am worried. Whatever the Minister’s motives, this is the wrong decision. I do not doubt that the Minister has gone to the nth degree to look at the issues, but I worry. This is my final question: why is it that instead of spending taxpayers’ money to get an FSS that is fit for purpose, we are spending the same amount of taxpayers’ money to end up with no FSS at the end of it all? It just does not make sense.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I welcome the opportunity to wind up this debate and I welcome the introduction to it by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller).
This has been a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues. Clearly, there is not agreement across the House on some aspects, but one note that we can agree on is that forensic science is an indispensible tool in fighting crime. It is the means by which physical evidence finds a voice. In some cases, forensic science is the only source of information on which a court can rely to ascertain guilt or innocence.
At the outset, and in the context of a number of points that were made, I should say that the Government are absolutely committed to safeguarding that central pillar of our criminal justice system. I underline that clearly, and I want to put on the record, in response to a point that was made, that we fully recognise the importance of a healthy forensics situation for the criminal justice system, which is not limited to the police.
Michael Ellis
Does my hon. Friend agree that forensic science is important because it can exonerate the innocent as well as prove the guilt of the accused?
James Brokenshire
Learned Members of the House have made various contributions on the relevance and significance of forensic evidence. Each has underlined that forensic science is an important and effective tool in seeking to prosecute and convict, but that it is equally important in analysing evidence to ensure that those who are not guilty of crimes are exonerated. That is an important part of the Government’s approach in ensuring that there are clear safeguards and quality thresholds, which I will come to in a moment.
I was struck by a number of hon. Members’ contributions because they almost implied that there had been no competitive market in forensics prior to this Government’s decision. To be clear, there has been a competitive market in forensic science for a number of years. In some ways, the creation of the forensic science market has been a success. Turnaround times have been faster, prices have been lower and quality standards have increased, I believe because of the competitive tensions that have been created, which some hon. Members sought to highlight.
I hope I can say with confidence that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is an important role in forensics for private sector providers, although there has been a debate on the role and function of such providers. However, it is fair to say that the creation of a market created problems for the FSS. The Committee recognised in its comments that the problems for the FSS did not suddenly appear on the horizon on the arrival of this Government.
In recognising why the Government had to act as they did, it is important to understand the context. Several hon. Members referred to the McFarland review, which recommended that the FSS should become a Government-owned, contractor-operated company, as a staging point to becoming a public-private partnership. The previous Government accepted the McFarland review and sought to establish the FSS as a Government-owned company as part of a transition towards a more fully commercialised situation. Even the previous Government, in accepting the review, did not see the GovCo arrangement as an end in itself.
The plan was to take the FSS down the path to being a GovCo with the intent to take it to a more commercialised basis. In many ways, the decision in November 2005 not to proceed and, in essence, to say, “So far but no further,” led to the fundamental problems and challenges that the FSS has faced. It was left in a halfway house, having been taken down a path to market but then stopped in its tracks and left in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I respect the contribution from the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). He and I have debated this issue before, and I remember the Westminster Hall debate to which he referred and from which he still, I think, nurses a few scars on his back. However, the investment made was never going to fulfil the FSS’s full potential because it was stuck in this stasis.
When the FSS was transformed into a Government company in 2005, it was left with higher costs than its competitors as a legacy of its previous status as a Government agency. Clearly, as a result, the company’s ability to compete was hampered. It is important to note that the FSS’s share of the market reduced with every tender held to provide forensic science services to the police. The previous Government were tendering out these services as part of a continuing process, but the FSS was, in essence, left at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of its structure.
Michael Ellis
Is it the Minister’s understanding that anywhere between 35% and 50% of forensics is now outside the control of the FSS?
James Brokenshire
I will update the House on the situation relating to transition, but when the decision was made in December 2010 about one third of the forensics market was in the private sector, and about 60%—[Interruption.] The Select Committee Chairman, I think, is querying those figures, but my clear recollection is that, when we were considering the matter, the figure was about 30% to 35%—unless he would like to correct me.
UK Border Agency
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) to calm himself. Perhaps he should take up yoga. It is only Monday, and I know that he will want to hang on every word of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I do not know what he is chuntering about with such good nature from a sedentary position, but it cannot be as interesting as what the Home Secretary has to say.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Having heard the bluster from the shadow Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary confirm to the House one thing: that the Vine report entirely vindicates what she and the Immigration Minister said last November, and that all the suspended checks that she told the House about in November occurred without ministerial authorisation?
Mrs May
The report makes it clear that the suspension of checks outside the limited pilot that had been approved took place without ministerial authorisation. The shadow Home Secretary raised an issue in her opening remarks about my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister. He and I have made it clear that his comments on the proposed pilot early last year were provisional; that, crucially, no new operating instructions were issued to staff as a result; that there was no change to policy as a result; that secure ID checks were suspended before January last year until May; and that, sadly, despite my explicit instruction that the checks should not be suspended after May, they continued to be suspended.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lynne Featherstone
I can assure my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case. The recent teenage abuse campaign was aimed at both young men and women, because both can be subject to abuse from their contemporaries.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
5. What recent progress she has made on the introduction of police and crime commissioners.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The first PCC elections will take place on 15 November 2012. I recently tabled a protocol setting out how the new policing governance arrangements will work and issued the shadow strategic policing requirement, which sets out the national threats that the police must address. Subject to parliamentary approval, London will move to the new PCC model in January.
Michael Ellis
I congratulate the Home Secretary on her achievement in this flagship legislation and on the fact that in a year’s time PCCs will be rolled out across the country. What steps can the Government take to ensure that prospective candidates for this important position will come from a wide diversity of backgrounds?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I add to his congratulations the name of my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who played a significant role in ensuring that the legislation was steered through Parliament for it to be in place in September. I am keen to ensure that we have a diversity of candidates. We are now looking into a number of ways in which we can promote an understanding of the role of the police and crime commissioners. My right hon. Friend marked the one year to go to PCCs on 21 November with a speech on a new era in policing. We will be publishing a consultation, setting out proposals that PCCs act as commissioners for victim support services.
UK Extradition Arrangements
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is no longer in his place, on his representation of his constituent, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on his eloquent representation of his constituent. I also congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on putting in place the mechanisms by which this debate can take place, by introducing the Backbench Business Committee.
My comments will be on the United Kingdom-United States extradition arrangements. I accept that there is a problem with the European arrest warrant, particularly as regards proportionality, and I would submit that it has other serious defects in other respects, too. Not only is it inappropriate for there to be extradition in cases where there is considerable doubt about the seriousness of the alleged offence, but there are clearly differences between the judicial and incarceration systems in many of our European neighbour countries.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems posed by the use of the warrant is that it is sometimes used to aid investigation rather than prosecution, as in the example just given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax)?
Michael Ellis
I agree. As I said, I acknowledge that there are some serious defects with the European arrest warrant, but the motion conflates the European arrest warrant with the UK-US arrangements and I want to inject an important observation about those arrangements into the debate.
The law enforcement relationship between our two countries is predicated on trust, mutual respect, protecting our peoples and removing safe havens as options for those people who seek to evade justice. It is also important to remember that the United States is, as the Baker report illuminated for those who might not otherwise agree, a rights-based democracy in which accused persons have fundamental protections provided by the constitution to ensure that they are able to participate effectively in a criminal trial process that is conducted fairly. It is important to emphasise that our Anglo-American relations are predicated on those facts and on our acceptance that the United States system of jurisprudence provides a very advanced state of rights-based democracy for accused persons.
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but let me ask him a question. If I were facing a Texas jury having been extradited from my homeland here in the United Kingdom under the extradition treaty to face trial, would I have recourse to legal aid or something analogous to it under the wonderful rights-based system in the United States?
Michael Ellis
The systems provided by the United States are accepted by the international community as being perfectly amenable to the interests of democracy and the rights of the individual within the state of Texas and other states of the American union.
Approximately a year ago, Her Majesty’s Government commissioned a report—the Baker report—to which several colleagues have referred and which I am holding. It is 500 pages long, it took one year to complete and it was conducted by three eminent jurists: Sir Scott Baker, who was called to the Bar some 50 years ago, and two eminent lawyers, both of whom have acted for Governments and for requested persons and have therefore dealt with this issue on many occasions and from both sides of the fence. They came to the conclusion that there was no significant difference or imbalance between the extradition arrangements in the United States and the United Kingdom. That is the crux of this matter. Many of the previous speakers seemed to assume that there were imbalances, which they criticised, but they did not address those alleged imbalances.
I have heard no evidence, and the Baker report came up with no evidence, pinpointing where there is imbalance. There is different terminology, with “reasonable suspicion” being used often in the UK arrangements in relation to the evidential burden that is required, whereas “probable cause” is used by the United States. Those two terms may be slightly different in phraseology but they mean very much the same thing, and those who have analysed the position in some detail, either in the Baker report or elsewhere, have come to that clear conclusion.
Mr David Davis
My hon. Friend has asked for an example. How does he see the circumstances of someone facing trial in Texas who is thousands of miles from their nearest and dearest, isolated from their community and has no financial support? Does not the plea-bargaining system in America become a predatory process that threatens them with long-term loss of liberty or the prospect of giving in and admitting guilt?
Michael Ellis
There have been extradition arrangements between our two peoples since the later part of the 18th century. As for plea-bargain arrangements, there are also pressures on defendants in the British system. We do not refer to them as plea-bargaining, but defendants know that if they plead guilty, they are likely to receive a lesser sentence, so although we have no plea-bargaining arrangement, it is not correct to assume that the two systems are completely different.
The conclusion reached by the Baker report is that there is no significant difference between the tests that either country applies. In all extradition requests that have been submitted to the United Kingdom since 1 January 2004, the United States and many other states have not had to provide prima facie evidence, instead having to provide only the information sufficient to satisfy the extradition legislation. There are many countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, from which we do not require prima facie evidence before extraditing to them. We should not therefore require the United States to jump over that hurdle when the other allied nations whose legal systems are based on ours do not have to do so. I understand that countries that have signed the European convention on extradition orders do not have to jump through that hoop. Those countries include Turkey and Russia. Those who call for a prima facie standard, as I understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights has done, must explain why Russia should be required to have a lesser standard than America, if America were put under the pressure of proving to a prima facie standard.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Should we not require that standard of everyone? Is that not the way forward?
Michael Ellis
Well, that is one way of looking at it. Certainly, if we were to decide to require everyone to hold to the prima facie standard, that might be fairer, although it would be extremely expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming. For the accused person and for witnesses, the interests of justice are not served by delaying matters, so that would be the problem there. However, before the 2003 Act, I believe there was a requirement to find a prima facie standard. If not, there was certainly an imbalance between the United States and the United Kingdom in that respect. The United States had to apply greater burdens to extradite people from the United Kingdom than the United Kingdom had to supply vice versa.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend has made the point about the paper test, but the key point made by Alun Jones QC is that the quality of evidence is assessed in extraditions both ways by the US courts—that is a requirement of the US constitution—but in neither case by the UK courts. There is the imbalance. Does my hon. Friend accept that?
Michael Ellis
No, I do not accept that. I agree with the Scott Baker report that there is no fundamental imbalance. It is important to point out that the United States has not denied a single extradition request from the United Kingdom under the treaty. Although the United States makes more requests to the United Kingdom than it receives, the difference is largely because the population of the United States is five times greater than that of the United Kingdom. There is no imbalance. The Scott Baker report confirms that, and I cannot support the motion.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a real privilege to follow my learned hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and to speak in this debate, called by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who is so right to be defending the ancient rights of the British people. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) got it absolutely right when he said that we spend a lot of time talking about the human rights of people in this country until, suddenly, extradition comes up and then—bingo!—they have gone, and they are sacrificed to transportation to a foreign land.
The point that we should focus on is the first principle of why we have such protections for the innocent in the criminal law. We have, as we know, a powerful state. The state provides the police and the prosecuting authority, and the state pays the judges and reimburses the juries, and, because of that great power, the state then feels it is right to put in place protections for the individual who is charged: the right to trial by jury; the right to habeas corpus; and the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. These are the foundation rights of our criminal justice system and have a history stretching back 1,000 years.
But, when it comes to extradition, people can go to countries that do not have or follow that tradition. We have heard about how it works in Hungary, and the criminal justice system there, so one is a protected British subject if charged here, with all sorts of possible ways of defending oneself, but suddenly, if one comes under the European arrest warrant, one can languish in a dank Hungarian jail, with all those protections removed.
The United States is our greatest and closest ally, and a country with which we want to have the friendliest of relations, but we have already heard about the extraordinary approach it takes to plea bargaining: one may be threatened with 400 years without the option of parole, or if one pleads guilty one gets a week in a resort near Canada, as happened to the man who was prosecuted at the same point as Lord Black of Crossharbour—his noble lordship. One of them was offered an enormously long sentence, and the other was offered a Canadian golf club.
Michael Ellis
We do not have a system of plea bargaining in this country, but does my hon. Friend not accept that people who plead guilty in the United Kingdom’s courts will almost invariably receive a lower sentence than if they are found guilty after trial? There are good public policy reasons why.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
There are, indeed, but that is of a completely different order of magnitude: one gets a little off one’s sentence if one pleads guilty early—rather than being threatened with hundreds of years against a week in a golf club. That does not happen under the British system, but we know that it happened to the man who turned the equivalent of Queen’s evidence against Conrad Black. We know that it happens in the United States system, but we are willing to risk British subjects going over there.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
But it is such a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman, and the tone of the House is raised by his gracious presence, so I will respond. Yes, of course we should have a hierarchy of countries to which we feel comfortable extraditing people, and of course New Zealand, Australia and Canada would be very high up on those lists—and the United States would be pretty high up too.
However, I do not think that the ambassador to the Court of St James—the extraordinary plenipotentiary of the United States—behaves in a diplomatic way when he starts telling this House how we ought to consider our business. I like to think what the noise would be in Washington if our ambassador there decided to suggest to the Senate or to the House of Representatives how they ought to conduct their business. Sitting as he does in his grand fortress in Grosvenor square like some Persian satrap, he should not be telling the House of Commons how to conduct her business. Of course we should have friendly extradition arrangements with the United States, but crucially ones that protect the ancient rights of the British subject whereby they should be innocent until proved guilty and should remain within the jurisdiction of this country until evidence is produced against them.
If we are worried about the United States, how much more worried should we be about some European countries, which can, in effect, arrest people and have them removed from this country without so much as a by-your-leave? We are risking people’s freedom and liberty. This House exists to protect the freedoms and the liberties of the British subject. Yes, I know that some of them will be guilty and will deserve severe punishment for the crimes they have committed, but have we not set up our justice system on the basic principle that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man or, indeed, woman, although women commit fewer crimes—[Interruption] It is true; they do—to be imprisoned when innocent? If that is the starting point of our justice system, then surely we ought to apply it when it comes to extradition, and therefore the Government ought to review the arrangements that they have with the United States.
Michael Ellis
Does my hon. Friend give no credence to the fact that in the 500-page Scott Baker report, commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government, eminent jurists came to the conclusion that the imbalance that he is assuming between British and American relations regarding extradition does not exist?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Had my hon. Friend paid closer attention to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, he would understand that there are differing views on that. It is well known that, with Government reports, the people are appointed who will provide the report that is wanted. That has been practised over many centuries.
UK Border Force
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
As I indicated in my statement, the pilot was for a limited period of time. It was exactly what it said: a pilot to test whether the operation was going to ensure that we could target higher-risk individuals, rather than routinely checking everybody in certain categories. The evaluation of the pilot would have led to a decision as to whether or not it was appropriate to continue that in any further way. This was for a limited period and the full evaluation was to take place at the end.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that it is perfectly in order to give very well-paid, high-level senior officials some common-sense discretion, but if they go further than their discretion—further than is authorised by Ministers—and weaken our borders, it is appropriate to look at criminal sanctions for any misconduct?
Metropolitan Police Service
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan police’s current investigation has made it clear, as I understand it, that it is going through the names on lists. I caution him on his assumption that everybody whose name appears on a list has necessarily “had their phone hacked into”, in his terms, but that is being looked into by the current investigation. It is clear that it is alerting people when it finds evidence.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
In May 2006, five-plus years ago, the Information Commissioner issued a report stating that the trade in confidential personal information was “pervasive and widespread”. In view of the rather self-righteous tone taken by the Opposition, is the Home Secretary surprised that the then Government did not order an inquiry into the matter?
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
Michael Ellis Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
That would have been one way to do it. When the issue came to light last week, we suggested that one option might be to introduce emergency legislation with a sunset clause before considering the subject more widely. The most important thing, given the time we have available, is that the Government have proposed a way to restore the system, and the whole House should support it. I hope that the Government will have further discussions with ACPO about whether any other developments are needed.
As several hon. Members have said, we should never legislate lightly when it takes retrospective effect. Changing the law retrospectively is, in general, undesirable and creates great uncertainty. It threatens natural justice if people end up breaking a law when they did not know of its existence, when it did not exist at the time the act was committed and when they could not have been expected to know that it would exist.
I have thought very carefully about the question and I know that members of the Government have, too. I am clear that a retrospective clause is justified in this case. Indeed, I urged the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to include a retrospective clause when I discussed the issues with him last Thursday. In this case, we are simply restoring the law to what we in Parliament thought it was, to what we intended it to be and to that which the police, the CPS and others have been following in good faith for many years. We have made clear our intention and so in this period of uncertainty the police, suspects and others should know what Parliament intends. If we had not made our intentions clear, we would have opened the police and victims up to considerable uncertainty about the prospects for individual cases, especially those under investigation at the moment. It would be deeply wrong for a victim to be denied justice and for the offender to escape on a technicality simply because the crime was committed in the limbo period between 19 May and Royal Assent and the police interviews did not comply with the temporary legal position owing to any confusion.
An even more troubling possibility is that historic cases, in which the standard practice was followed in good faith by the police and CPS, could end up being overturned or dragged back through the courts because of the Hookway judgment. In such circumstances, we should legislate retrospectively but we should be clear that we are doing so because we have considered the seriousness of the issue and that we have made the judgment after serious consideration rather than lightly.
I have some concerns about the process and about why we are doing this now, in such a way. I am concerned about the initial judgment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) mentioned the judgment of the judge in Salford, which was confirmed by the High Court judge. Judges, not Parliament, interpret the law and it was the role of the High Court judge to come to a view on what the legislation meant. The fact that the judge came to a new view on the interpretation of the law or a different view from experts, such as Professor Zander QC, is still part of the judicial process. It is possible for us to disagree with the judge’s decision while respecting his constitutional role in making such decisions.
My greatest concern is about the final paragraph of the High Court judge’s judgment, which the Home Secretary quoted. He does not simply interpret the law but makes a practical assessment of the impact of his judgment:
“It seems to me however...the consequences are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases. This is simply because in the usual case a suspect returning on bail will either be released because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a charge or he will be re-arrested under statutory powers because new evidence has come to light.”
I strongly disagree with that practical assessment and the evidence of cases that the police have to handle at the moment disproves it.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
That does not tally well with the right hon. Lady’s earlier suggestion that the Home Secretary and others have acted in a dilatory fashion, because the judge himself said in his oral judgment that he did not think that the judgment would have those consequences. Was it not right, therefore, to wait for the written judgment and find out what the consequences would be?
Yvette Cooper
No, I disagree. I think that the judge was wrong in that aspect of his judgment. There are serious questions about the fact that there is no sign that he considered any extensive evidence on the practical application of his judgment and about why he did not consider making clear that the judgment should be stayed pending appeal and consideration of the wider evidence. However, that does not go to the heart of the role of the Home Office and the Home Secretary. The Home Office could have done considerable things between the oral statement and the written judgment, rather than simply hoping for the best, which is what it appears officials have done.
Let me turn to the Government’s response. The oral judgment was given on 19 May and Home Office officials were informed soon after that—certainly before the end of May. The Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) have claimed that they had to wait for the written judgment, and of course the written judgment brings the decision into effect and can provide further clarity, but that does not mean that everybody had to suspend action and judgment until the written judgment was available. Given what Home Office officials should have known from the oral judgment, they should immediately have notified the CPS and the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary did not explain when she discussed the decision with the Attorney-General or at what point the Attorney-General was made aware of the seriousness of the case.
Michael Ellis
Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that, at the time of the oral judgment, it could have related only to the instant case before the judge in question? It was only clear later that it would have a wider-reaching effect.
Yvette Cooper
The point is that the Home Office should have prepared. Immediately after the oral judgment was issued, it was possible that there would be concerns and Professor Zander knew enough about the judgment to write a considered view in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 17 June. He was clearly extremely worried and on that basis he was already offering advice. Home Office officials should have sought information and should have been concerned even on the basis of the oral judgment.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I, too, will support the emergency legislation, but two questions seem to have been raised: first, what happened; and secondly, what are the implications of the legislation itself? On the question of what happened, there seem to be two different versions of events. The Government version suggests that they acted within one hour and two minutes, and we have heard a lot of support for that view, with Members telling us about the speed of events. Another version suggests that the clock started ticking on this issue on 5 April, when the judgment was made in the Salford court, and that it has been going on for three months. There has been a crucial judgment, albeit after a 25-year gap, about the interpretation of a piece of parliamentary legislation that identifies a drafting error that no one appears to have spotted in 25 years, which I find slightly strange.
Steve McCabe
I will in just a second.
I understand that the Government need to deal with the immediate situation, but I find it slightly strange that we are going to do so by simply sweeping the matter under the carpet, because it is worth holding a debate in the future about how the situation could have occurred.
Steve McCabe
They are queuing up for me, but I will go first to the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).
Michael Ellis
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the alleged drafting error in the 25-year-old Bail Act has been referred to before in learned texts, and that other judges have used common sense in applying the law as they thought Parliament intended? That is where there has been a departure by the judge in the instant case.