Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Steve Baker Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I know that in this House we often say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, but in this case I really mean it. That was a thoughtful speech that got to the heart of the matter. It showed the impact that control orders and TPIMs have on the wider community, and the way in which they are seen by the communities that are subjected to them.
When we make legislation that does not allow the defendant to see any of the evidence that is presented against them, we are getting into difficult and dangerous territory. I agree with the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) that we have to tread carefully. There have been thoughtful speeches tonight and Members have made their points well, but I think that we are being a little too cavalier when it comes to the civil liberties of so many people in our nation. I know that these measures apply to only a few people, but the problem is how they are perceived. That is what we should consider before going any further down the line of introducing a new regime to replace control orders.
Control orders have failed more than any other measure. They have not worked. They have led to no convictions whatsoever. We must consider the fact that 15% of those who have been subject to a control order are now at liberty and we do not know where they are. Control orders have failed, they do not work, and they have a disastrous impact on communities and individuals throughout this country.
I say to the Minister that I have been quite impressed by the performance of the Conservative-led Government over the past few months. They have been as good as their word. They have helped to dismantle the rotten, anti-civil libertarian state bequeathed by the last Labour Government. I cheered them to the rafters when they introduced the Bill to get rid of the hated Labour ID cards scheme. I wish I could have been there at the bonfire of the equally detested national database, which Labour introduced. I welcome the progress that has been made on pre-charge detention. It is not perfect, but there has been massive progress, particularly when one considers that in the days of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), we were approaching 90 days’ pre-charge detention. Thank goodness those days are gone. I also applaud the Conservative-led Government on their progress on all the other surveillance apparatus so cherished by the last Labour Government.
Why stop at control orders? We could have got rid of those too. This is the last remaining rotten piece of legislation from Labour’s anti-civil libertarian state. Of course, we saw this coming. We all heard the rumours of disagreements in the Cabinet and between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We did not see the Bill for months, until a face-saving exercise was concocted to allow the Deputy Prime Minister a bit of dignity on the issue. However, it is a rotten compromise. It has done nothing. The only thing the Liberals have got out of it is a renaming of control orders. It is just not good enough. They could have got the whole thing, made progress and got shot of these odious practices, such as people being subject to curfews without any exposure to the evidence that is presented against them.
I am disappointed in the behaviour of this Government on control orders, and I expected better of the Home Secretary and her ministerial team. However, they are subject to pressures too. I can just imagine all the fine representatives of the security and intelligence industry wandering into No. 10 and telling them, “These measures are absolutely essential and have to be done. Civil liberties are all right, but this is about national security.” I can just imagine the files being presented and the Home Secretary being convinced that these measures are absolutely necessary.
I say to the Minister that when it comes to control orders, this Conservative Government are little better than Lord Reid and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). It was new Labour that introduced these measures, and we have to consider the journey that we have taken on this issue. They were introduced in an absolute panic with emergency legislation, which was supposed to be temporary. They were supposed to apply only to foreign nationals. There are now no foreign national controlees—they are all UK residents. All the reasons why we had these things in the first place have gone. Nobody who has been subject to a control order has been prosecuted. Control orders have failed in bringing people to justice, because nobody has been brought to justice and there has been no attempt to bring anybody to justice under control orders.
Now we have TPIMs. What is the difference? There is not really any difference. I accept what Liberty says, although I know the Liberals do not. I believe that in some respects, TPIMs are worse than control orders, because they are permanent and will not be subject to yearly reviews. That is the great anti-civil libertarian flaw at the heart of the TPIMs regime. In other respects, there is no difference. Control orders are instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, except in urgent cases. TPIMs will be instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, except in urgent cases. There are closed proceedings under control orders and special advocates examine secret evidence forming the basis of the order. Under TPIMs, there will be closed proceedings and special advocates will examine secret evidence forming the basis of the order. There is no difference whatsoever. If there is a breach, there is five years’ imprisonment under control orders. Under TPIMs—surprise, surprise—it is also five years. There is very little difference.
Under the Bill, individuals who are branded as terror suspects will still be left at large in the community, unable to challenge the suspicion against them or prove it to be wrong. They will be subject to electronic tagging and curfews. Actually, they are not curfews, but overnight residence requirements. Who on earth made up that term? It sounds like a sleepover that kids would be involved in, only it is a sleepover with police surveillance and an electronic tag. It is no different from a curfew and it is a massive restriction on people’s liberty. There will be restrictions on communication, movement and the ability to work or study. As before, individuals who are subject to TPIMs will be prevented from leading any kind of normal life.
The TPIMs regime will prove to be as ineffective as its predecessor in fighting terrorism. It will continue to tip off suspects and prevent evidence from being gathered, while leaving potentially dangerous people at large in the community for extended periods. I have mentioned the fact that 15% of controlees have disappeared. That demonstrates that administrative community punishments that are used in the place of criminal prosecutions are as dangerous to security as they are to liberty.
Control orders were rushed through Parliament. After 10 years, I thought that we would come to this House, consider the issue and see whether they were still required. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made tonight, and I have heard no evidence to suggest that these things are still required.
In many ways the new orders are worse, because there is permanence to them. The powers will no longer be reviewed every year, and the labelling of people as terrorists without any sight of the evidence against them will now be made permanent. There is more, because the Secretary of State could unleash all sorts of concessionary measures that could make the orders even more unpleasant. There could be further restrictions, curfews and bans on communications and associations—it is all very subjective. I am implacably opposed to control orders, and I have seen no evidence that they are required.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am very much inclined to agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but what would he say about the argument from those who promote these measures that the people who will be subject to them are terrorist suspects against whom prosecutions cannot be brought?
Pete Wishart
That is exactly what is said, and we have heard from a number of contributors this evening that these are people against whom there is not sufficient evidence or evidence of good enough quality for a successful prosecution. We heard the example of an individual who has had a control order against him for two years. His liberty has been compromised for two years because he has not been able to prove his innocence in a court and the state has not been able to prove his guilt. That is at the heart of the matter, which was why the hon. Member for Newark was spot on in his observations about how control orders are operating.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I should first apologise to the House for missing the Home Secretary’s introductory speech, but I have been present for the rest of the debate. I welcome this opportunity to discuss anti-terrorism law. I think I am the only Member currently in the Chamber who has been here long enough to have voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which was seen at the time as the low point in the attack on civil liberties. Oh that we were only discussing such an Act these days!
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who spoke of the effect of internment in Ireland and other places. When a state decides to take away the liberties of large numbers of people, the consequences are felt for a very long time. He talked about what happened in Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, but we can look back to the wholly irrational way in which British Jewish people were interned in 1940 at the start of the second world war. That was entirely counter-productive and an idiotic thing to do. There were also long-term effects on the attitudes of Japanese Americans to US society from the disgusting way in which they were put in concentration camps in California in 1942 because they were automatically assumed to be supporters of the Japanese in the war. If anyone had bothered to think about that, they might have asked why those people were living in the USA in the first place. The consequences of such actions go on for a very long time.
I am not suggesting that the Bill is equivalent to those measures, because it is not. It is much smaller and specifically targeted, but I have, nevertheless, some fundamental issues with it. Most states take unto themselves a power to override the judicial system in some way—most have some special security law or courts, or whatever. Without going into the whole history of this matter in Britain, the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was a response to the Birmingham pub bombings. The first person arrested under the Act was one of the Guildford Four, who spent 18 years proving his innocence and who was finally released as a result. That Act was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000, which preceded the dreadful events of 2001.
I remember spending all night in the Chamber at that time discussing what we would do to beef up our counter-terrorism measures. At every stage, the argument was to go further away from open criminal courts and further in the direction of special courts and special measures, with lower levels of evidence gathering. We have now ended up with the obnoxious silent court mentality. The barrister probably knows the nature of the case against the individual whom he is supposed to represent, and the judge and the prosecution certainly know, but the defendant is not allowed to know and his barrister is not allowed to tell him. That is a dangerous road to go down. Anyone who has met someone who has been the subject of a control order or some kind of restriction will know that they are for ever changed by the experience. In some cases, they are subsequently prosecuted. In others, they are not: the control order is lifted, they disappear, and that is that. The corrosive effect on them, their families, their lives and their community is very serious, and we should be extremely careful about introducing legislation that gives courts the power effectively to act in secret, and the security services the power to present evidence that is heard in secret and used to punish people, when the security services are never publicly accountable for what they do. I understand that there are all kinds of dangers involved in all sorts of things, but if we legislate to allow an arm of the state to operate covertly with no public accountability for what it does, therein lies enormous danger.
The very least we can do is examine the Bill in great detail in Committee and, above all, ensure that the legislation is subject to regular parliamentary review. It is our duty as elected Members of a free Parliament in a free society to hold the Government, and the agencies of the Government and the state, to account. It is not good enough to pass this legislation saying that we will return to it and debate the issue again as and when a future Government feel it appropriate to introduce another form of counter-terrorism legislation. As well as the obvious parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees, questions, Adjournment debates and all the other tools that are available to us to hold the Government to account, there ought to be a regular parliamentary debate and review of the whole arrangement on a six-monthly or yearly basis. The PTA was renewed on a six-monthly basis throughout its entire existence.
Steve Baker
I find myself agreeing with the vast majority of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Looking around the Chamber, I see that there is almost no one here. Does he agree that in the status quo, given the level of interest in this subject and the nature of the whipping system, regular parliamentary scrutiny of this matter would actually amount to very little?
Jeremy Corbyn
I have always had an interesting relationship with the whipping system in Parliament. We are here as MPs to represent the constituents who have been good enough to send us here, and we are here to answer for ourselves. We must be prepared to ask these questions and to take part in these debates. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am extremely disappointed that there are so few Members here tonight. I suspect that it is because word has gone round, by text message from the Whips on both sides, that there is not going to be a vote. Most of our colleagues are probably either enjoying themselves on the Terrace or have gone home, when they should be in here debating this Bill. We could say the same for almost any piece of legislation that goes through the House.
I mentioned in an intervention the fundamental question of international jurisdiction. If someone comes to this country from a jurisdiction in which they have been tortured, irrationally imprisoned or abused, or if it is likely that they would suffer such a fate if they went back, we have a clear duty of protection to them under international law. Under the procedures of anti-terror legislation, someone who is suspected of terrorist activity or of harbouring plans for such activity can be detained virtually indefinitely under immigration law. Under the memorandums of understanding that were made between the previous Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, and a number of Governments, such people can be returned to jurisdictions that have not signed the United Nations convention on torture.
I have a real problem with that. If we support the principles of international law and the international jurisdiction of conventions such as that one, we should carry them out to the fullest extent. We should not deport people to places where there is no protection of their rights under treaties that we have taken for ourselves. Just as when someone goes to prison, when an individual is accused of being a terrorist or of planning a terrorist activity, they do not stop being an individual and they do not lose all their rights. They do not stop being a citizen at that point.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
As I follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), I am reminded of something that I learned shortly after I arrived in the Chamber—that is, that some of the finest and most informative speeches are delivered after the glare of the media has departed from the Front Benches. I found his remarks very interesting, although I have not agreed with all of them.
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), I found myself disagreeing with him somewhat. I hope he will forgive me if I say that I think the threat that we face today is not the same as the threat that we faced during the cold war. We do not face total nuclear war or mutually assured destruction. During the cold war we did not capitulate our highest values. Instead, we sought to emphasise them. As my hon. Friend mentions the cold war, I hope the House will forgive me if I quote Reagan in 1964:
“You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy?”
I could go on, and I am sure some Members would enjoy it if I did. Just in the face of this enemy? No. Some values are higher than life itself.
I particularly associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). Like him, I have a large Muslim population in my constituency and I have come to be very fond of those fine people. I have found that we share a commitment to justice and to objective morality as the basis for our liberty. It is true that a very small number of my constituents have been convicted of terrorist atrocities, so I approach this subject with considerable care.
As a gallant Member of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recognise in me a sense of missing the clarity of serving in the armed forces. When I first considered the subject of the prevention of terrorism, I had just come out of university and the law of armed conflict in the UK and carrying firearms in the UK was being explained. It was made perfectly clear to us, fresh out of university, that the correct response to a terrorist caught in the act of committing a terrorist atrocity was a bullet—a single aimed shot at the centre of the chest. We were shocked and appalled when that instructor explained to us that he would be disappointed if any member of the armed forces did not take the opportunity offered by the rules of engagement to shoot a terrorist.
That is only the first category of ways we might deal with terror. The second is that which we are all perhaps more used to—investigation, arrest, charge, conviction, imprisonment. I think the mood of the House is that we would all prefer that standard criminal process to be followed. The final category seems to be the strange twilight which we have entered, the twilight of semi-guilt and shadow justice, where we cannot bring people to prosecution, yet we fear them. What has happened to us?
Some words are so powerful and represent concepts so important that people will lay down their very lives for them—words like “liberty” and “justice”, inseparable words, hooray words, which unfortunately, as I have discovered in my political journey, are subject to interpretation and political conflict. But our forebears laid down their lives for liberty and justice. I was asked once on my journey here if there was one thing I could change about the state that Britain finds itself in, what would it be? Before I was asked, I thought I would say we should leave the European Union, but on reflection and having read the brilliant book by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, “The Assault on Liberty”, I found myself thinking briefly and saying, “I would repeal control orders.”
Control orders disgust me. They represent the capitulation of our highest values in the face of cowardly enemies. We should not tolerate them, so like some of my hon. Friends, I welcome clause 1. Clause 1 is a glorious and joyful clause, perhaps the finest I have seen in the House.
We face, we are told, a serious and sustained threat. I find myself returning to Pitt. We have come a long way since 1783 when he said:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
I might go less far, but I would say that the response to fear and to threat is not the abandonment of our highest values; it is courage. It is to reach deep within ourselves and to find the courage to face down cowards. That is what I wish the Government would do.
I meet clauses 2 to 27 and the eight schedules with profound misgivings, but I can hardly vote against them as they represent a move in the right direction. The shadow Home Secretary, although offering us a confused analysis of the Bill, has said that they water down control orders, and I think that a good thing. Lord Macdonald said that this measure is
“an unmistakeable rebalancing of public policy in favour of liberty”.
I welcome that, and I will be supporting the Government tonight, but with a very, very heavy heart.
Finally, I should like to quote Benjamin Franklin:
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I wish that we did not face such choices, but we do. We should reach within ourselves for that courage to face these fears, these threats, and move forward, keeping our values.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Steve Baker Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
As the only Member of this House who is a member of a police authority, I congratulate Ministers on this Bill and welcome it. The Home Secretary made it clear on Monday that she wanted elected commissioners “in charge”. She said just now that commissioners will make sure that what local people want to happen in policing will happen. That is to be welcomed.
Unfortunately, Opposition Members are on the wrong side of this debate. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), said that
“ACPO is clearly telling the Minister that he needs to amend the Bill”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 404.]
Apparently, the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks that
“the Bill places too much emphasis on local considerations giving disproportionate power to the”
elected commissioner. But it is this House that decides, not ACPO. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has said that we have to rebalance the tripartite system and put greater emphasis on the local and democratic element because too much power has gone to the centre. He was too diplomatic to say it, but ACPO has taken that power as much as the Home Office, and it needs to be rebalanced.
We will attempt to reach agreement on this protocol, and Ministers are no doubt working hard on that. We believe, of course, that in individual investigations and arrests there has to be complete independence for the police, and that politicians should have no influence in that. However, in wider issues such as policing policy, the budget and the priorities, it is surely right that there should be democratic control and oversight.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks, and associate myself with them. I also welcome the way that he set out the law on operational independence yesterday. Does he agree that it is vital that senior police officers and Opposition Members accept the legitimacy of elected representatives ensuring that the public get the policing that they deserve?
Mark Reckless
Of course I accept that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
In the short time available, I want to make one point about an aspect of the Bill that I disagree with and how it is to be implemented, and that is the setting of the precept. There is a great focus on having more local democratic control, but there is perhaps some misunderstanding about how the panel will work in relation to the precept.
We have heard that Liberal Democrat Members want a strong panel, and that there is currently something called a veto in the Bill. However, the small print shows that the panel will have no veto on the precept. All that it will get to do is say, “We don’t like this.” The elected commissioner will have to take into account what it has said, but he can then impose what he wants. At the moment, it is the Secretary of State who is to have the power to intervene and hold a referendum, not the local panel. I hope that will be reconsidered and changed in the other place.
When the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice explained the relevant regulations on Report, he said it would be for the panel to put forward an alternative, and then the public would decide. In Committee, however, he said that it would be for the police and crime commissioner to give an alternative that was not excessive, and then the referendum would be to choose between the two. The local people should be in charge—that is the focus of the Bill, and I hope the matter will be considered in the other place. I commend the Bill.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Steve Baker Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
When I gave way to my hon. Friend, I almost said I had a deep suspicion that I knew what he was going to say, and I was absolutely right. Of course we will not be able to get rid of all powers of entry, nor would that be appropriate. It will be appropriate to keep some, and with others we will need to look at the implementation of a request or desire to gain entry in relation to what is at stake, what is the most appropriate use of power and how that power should be used. The process will take some time, but it is essential that the Government are committed to reducing the number of powers of entry, whereas the previous Government oversaw a significant increase in that number.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that at the end of this process the number of powers will be sufficiently small and simple that home owners will be able to determine for themselves whether someone who knocks on the door has a right to enter?
Mr Straw
I do not want to get drawn too far down this road, but the hon. Gentleman will know that until the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the recommendations of the royal commission that preceded it, there was no statutory regulation of the length of time for which, or the circumstances in which, the police could hold a suspect. It is extraordinary, if we think about it. There were judges’ rules, which were non-statutory, and the only effective check on an arbitrary use of power—apart from practice—was habeas corpus. If somebody was locked up for too long, his solicitor or friends would threaten a writ of habeas corpus. That was how it worked, and I would refer those who think that those were halcyon days for criminal justice to the 2010 Judicial Studies Board lecture in which the current Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, reflected on his time as a junior at the Bar and on how that non-statutory system of regulation led—as I saw when I was a young barrister in the 1970s—to fitting up, to words being put into criminals’ mouths and sometimes to very substantial and totally unacceptable physical pressure and violence against suspects. Of course, one consequence was that confession statements were often successfully challenged. Habeas corpus is one part of the law, but where there is more recent statute, the courts will go to that first.
Let me turn now to other matters in the Bill about which I have some serious reservations. As the Member of Parliament for Blackburn, I have had many representations about closed circuit television. I do not know whether my experience is any different from that of anyone else in the Chamber, but all the representations I have received about closed circuit television have been requests from constituents to introduce more of it. In the whole of my 32 years in this House, I have never had a single representation seeking the removal of CCTV monitors. Not one. The demand is there because it makes people feel safe, and I bet that this experience is shared across the Chamber. I cannot remember an occasion as Home Secretary when I received any representations suggesting that the existing system, which we should bear in mind is subject to control under data protection and other measures, was unsatisfactory.
Steve Baker
Just on a point of information—as the right hon. Gentleman invites it—during the election campaign I received at least one request to reduce the amount of CCTV.
Mr Straw
I am grateful for that intervention, which makes my point, because that one representation is balanced by the large number that we receive the other way. I just wonder whether the Government are setting up significant and costly bureaucracy to solve a problem that does not exist.
On criminal record certificates, let me say this. I have been a governor of Blackburn college—a further and higher education college—for the last 20 years. Following the post-Soham measures, each member of the governing body had to fill in a lengthy form and produce their passport, as part of the application process for an enhanced CRB certificate, a process that I regarded as frankly rather tedious. I am pleased to say that it confirmed what I had already told the clerk to the governors, which was that I had no convictions since, as far as I knew, nothing adverse had been recorded by the police. At first blush I thought, “This is going a bit over the top.” I certainly accept that there ought to be a lighter regime for the generality of volunteers, but I would just offer this salutary point to the House.
Just before we were asked to fill in those CRB checks, there was an apparently entirely respectable man on the governing body who, to shorten the story, was convicted of very serious sexual offences against someone who was vulnerable—albeit an adult, and not at the college—and he went to prison. I cannot be certain about this, because I do not have access to the information, but I know enough about that man to know that there was information that could not have led to an earlier arrest but which was on the police database and would almost certainly have been included in a CRB check. I happen to believe that although it was tedious for me and everybody else on the governing body to apply for a CRB check, the balance in terms of public safety—and particularly the safety of young people and children—favours having such checks.
I just think—I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the Front Bench believes this too—that this issue has to be examined with the greatest care. We forget too quickly the context in which the measures in question were put in place. The Soham murders were awful. Huntley, like many serious sexual offenders, was brilliant at deception. Indeed, there are no better deceivers—of themselves as well as everybody else—than serious sexually predatory men such as Huntley. If it means a bit more bureaucracy, but also that our children and grandchildren do not become the next victims, we should err on the side of safety.
Finally, let me come to DNA and the taking of other biometric data, including fingerprints. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, asked about the 1 million “innocent” people on the database. That prompts the question whether people who are “innocent” actually mind having their DNA on the database. Again, I do not believe that my constituents are significantly different in character or profile from those elsewhere, but plenty have had their DNA or fingerprints taken when either the case has not proceeded to charge or they have been acquitted, yet I cannot remember a single case of someone complaining to me about it. On two occasions in my life—this was before DNA was available—I have had my fingerprints taken. The first was at school when there was a burglary and it was necessary to eliminate a group of us as potential perpetrators, and I was happy enough to give my fingerprints.
As an adult, when I was a special adviser there was a criminal investigation into the leak of a limited circulation annexe to some Cabinet documents, and a Commander Habershon, with a sergeant who looked like Oddjob out of “Goldfinger”—I should tell the House this was before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—came to interview me. I was invited to give my fingerprints; and, looking at Oddjob, I decided that this was probably an invitation I should accept. I gave my fingerprints, not least in the belief—which turned out to be accurate—that doing so would be a means by which I would be eliminated from the police inquiries. They asked me, “What should we do if you are eliminated?”, and I said, “I really don’t mind if you hang on to these.”
As it happens, I have not given my DNA, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), but I would be perfectly happy to do so. Most people believe—I know that some Conservative Members also take this view—that that is sensible for two reasons. One is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said from the Front Bench, doing so helps to protect the innocent. Since the introduction of DNA, not only have more guilty people been convicted of serious crimes, but a number of serious miscarriages of justice have at long been last ended, resulting in justice for the innocent person who had ended up in prison.
I would also remind the House why I introduced the change that meant that once there had been an arrest or charge, the samples should be retained indefinitely. There were two cases in 2000—one was called Weir, the other was called R v. B—one of which involved a murder, the other involving a rape. In both cases DNA samples had been taken in respect of offences for which the defendants had been subsequently acquitted, but the courts held that that DNA evidence could not be used to convict them later. In the case of R v. B, there was a rape—an awful rape—in 1997 of an elderly person where DNA swabs were subsequently taken from the victim. In 1998, this man B was arrested and charged with an unrelated burglary and his DNA was taken. He was subsequently acquitted of the burglary; meanwhile, the forensic examination of the DNA taken from the rape victim was proceeding. After that acquittal, that DNA and B’s DNA were matched and he was charged with rape.
The case went to trial, and the trial judge took a submission from the defence that the critical evidence—in fact, the only evidence; but as the trial judge himself said, it was compelling evidence—of the defendant’s guilt, namely the DNA, could not be adduced in evidence because it should have been destroyed.
The matter went to the Court of Appeal, which said that, on a construction of the Act, that was correct. I do not criticise the senior judiciary for that decision, because they have a job to do, and it is to construe the law, not to invent it. We should not criticise them in any circumstances. It was quite inappropriate for the Prime Minister to criticise the judiciary recently. Any decision that they make, including those made by the Supreme Court, can be overturned by this House. It is different in respect of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, but I shall not tread that particular path just now.
As a result of the Weir case and the R v. B case, someone who was unquestionably guilty of murder and a guilty rapist were found not guilty because of the inadmissibility of the evidence. They were both allowed to go free and, my guess is, to commit further crimes. I then introduced changes in what became the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough then amended the legislation further.
I mention those cases to remind the Home Secretary that, in talking about freedoms, we must strike a balance between the important rights of defendants charged with crimes—which have been strengthened quite profoundly, not least by the Human Rights Act 1998—and the rights of victims and the public. The Law Lords said in their judgment, when they reluctantly had to endorse part of the Court of Appeal’s decision, that there had to be a triangulation—their word, not mine—to balance the three sets of rights.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford spoke of the risks that the Home Secretary is taking by introducing these measures. It is a truth about being Home Secretary that something will go wrong, and that when one thing goes wrong, something else normally does as well. Indeed, when I was Home Secretary, there was one week in which I had to come to the House to make an emergency statement each day. That was exceeded only by the late Lord Whitelaw, who had to make two statements on one day about things that had gone wrong—sometimes very badly wrong.
It is possible that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) will turn out to be the luckiest Home Secretary since 1782, when the post was created, and I wish her well. I do not think that she will be, however. She is the person proposing these dangerous measures that will put freedoms at risk for the vast majority of the British public, and she needs to have a care both for the British public and for her own future. In her speech, she denied that these changes would undermine the detection of crime or lead to fewer guilty criminals being convicted. She said that she would go on to explain how and why she was able to make that statement, but I noticed that the rest of her speech was completely silent on that point. I was not surprised. The changes are bound to lead to some people whom we all know to be guilty and dangerous being allowed to go free.
After the right to life, the next most important right and freedom is the right to security. We were the first Government since the war to preside over a year-by-year reduction in crimes of all kinds, as the Library paper makes clear. There was a 43% reduction, according to the British crime survey. That dramatic reduction made this country safer. I celebrate all the freedoms, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but I also celebrate the fact that, although we are a long way from perfection, this country is now safer for people living in their homes, for people out on the streets and for people driving their cars. Those are real freedoms, and some of the changes in the Bill will put them at grave risk.