Protection of Freedoms Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments (c), (d), (e), (f) and Government amendments (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) thereto.

Lords amendment 52, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 59 and 68

Lords amendment 133 and Government amendments (a) to (c) thereto.

[Stella Creasy]

The need for legislation to create a distinctive offence of stalking has been clear for some time. I therefore start the debate by welcoming the Government’s willingness to respond to these calls for such legislation. Our amendments reflect the need to ensure that this opportunity for progress is not missed and that the evolution of these proposals continues so that they can truly meet the needs of those we wish to protect.

To put this case, I want to set out why we consider that the legislation as currently proposed is limited in its ability to deliver this protection, and what we learn from that in scrutinising the Government’s proposals that are on the table. We all now know that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has been unable to offer the protection from stalking required for its victims. It is estimated that there are currently 120,000 cases of stalking every year, but fewer than 4,500 were convicted of harassment in 2009; of those, only 565 were jailed.

The current legislation is not able to cope with stalking because these behaviours cannot be meaningfully defined by specific forms of contact. Rather, this is an offence about the impact of conduct or patterns of behaviour by those individuals who fixate on others and seek to cause distress, fear or alarm. The current legislation offers only the same tools that we have at present to deal with disputes between neighbours—and it has struggled to cope as a result.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 created two criminal offences of harassment and putting people in fear of violence, as well as providing for restraining orders, which are more well known, where a breach, in theory, can lead to an arrestable offence. We now know, however, that victims of stalking talk repeatedly about the frustrations caused by the police being required to see patterns of behaviour, examples of a breach or evidence that someone has repeatedly damaged property or acted in a certain way or created a fear of violence. Others have talked about the importance of training the police, magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service to help them understand the range of acts that fall under stalking—including, especially, cyber-stalking. That is because it is a summary offence of harassment, and many felt that the police did not go far enough and did not allocate appropriate resources to investigating these cases, or frankly, that it was seen as simply not serious enough to warrant the effort. I shall return to the question of seriousness in a few moments.

It is little wonder that the recent inquiry into stalking found that 72% of victims were unhappy with the response they received from the criminal justice system, with the majority stating they had experienced stalking for over 18 months or more and through multiple forms of contact; yet only 47% said that their perpetrator was even charged. As Tracey Morgan, a key member of the inquiry panel into stalking has said:

“stalking is where domestic violence was 30 years ago. It’s seen as a joke; a celebrity problem. Victims are told they should be flattered by the attention”—

but we all know of the reality. We have heard the stories of people like Tracey whose lives were torn apart by a person who fixated upon them. We have heard of the ex-partners who torment men and women online and offline; we have heard of women such as Clare Bernal who was brutally murdered by her former boyfriend, despite warnings about his behaviour.

We know from other jurisdictions how having a specific offence of stalking can help to address these concerns. In the 10 years prior to the introduction of the offence of stalking in Scotland, Strathclyde police reported a total of 70 stalking-related prosecutions. In the first six months after legislation providing for a specific offence was enacted, there were 140 prosecutions in Strathclyde alone, and it is estimated that there will be between 500 and 600 in Scotland as a whole by the end of the year.

Metal Theft

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Six Members are trying to catch my eye. The winding-up speeches will begin at 9.38 pm, so brevity is the order of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call James Morris—to sit down at 9.38 pm.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

There have been many disturbing instances in my constituency relating to metal theft. Just before Christmas, tenants had to be evacuated from their flats after a gas leak was discovered on an estate in Halesowen. Lives are clearly being put at risk by criminals stealing this metal. We know that most metal dealers take all appropriate steps to check the provenance of the scrap metal they are buying. Soon after I was elected, I toured the Mason Metals recycling centre in Halesowen. Mason Metals was working with Dudley police on “Scrap Yard Watch”, an appointment-driven collection scheme to help householders to dispose of large white goods legally and responsibly. It has now launched a new membership card programme for its customers. That scheme is in addition to the statutory waste transfer note records and is run alongside other measures.

I very much welcome the Government’s announcement that cash transactions for scrap metal will be outlawed. I understand the concerns voiced by legitimate metal recyclers, but the growing problem of metal thefts cannot be tackled effectively without proper traceability. We also need tougher penalties for those who are caught and convicted so that punishments are more proportionate to the scale of the crime. A £1,000 fine is hardly a deterrent for the unscrupulous minority. The Home Secretary has said that sentences will be significantly increased, which is very good news. Scrap metal dealers who offer a market for stolen metal, whether knowingly or by failing to carry out adequate checks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am terribly sorry. I call Mr David Hanson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we come to the next business, may I say that this clearly was a popular debate and apologise to Members who put in to speak, but were constrained or did not get in at all?

Parliamentary Representation

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I should point out that it is a coincidence that I am in the Chair for this debate, but I guess it could not be more appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have exactly half an hour left for Back-Bench contributions, so, in the spirit of this consensual debate, will Members please remain conscious of the time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I slightly disagree with the last remark made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). If we are honest, we are all a bit weird, are we not? After all, by definition, we wanted to come here. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is pointing at me. That is not very kind. I could point back, because I do not think that she is any less weird than I am.

There are two fundamental principles. The first is that we should never judge people according to the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexuality, the school that they went to or the accent with which they speak. We should only ever judge people according to the strength of the convictions that they hold, the strength of their personal character, and whether they are able to see their convictions through in their lives. Surely the political system should embody that principle.

The second principle is that, broadly speaking, Parliament should look like the country that it is meant to represent. There are several reasons for that, some of which have already been given today. First, it makes Parliament more effective and efficient, and we end up with better legislation. People can spot some of the holes in an idea that is being advanced because they know from their own lives whether it works or not, and how it affects them. The advent of women in Parliament undoubtedly meant that a whole raft of legislation was improved, because, frankly, men simply did not know what they were talking about. I can see hon. Ladies thinking that perhaps that happens all the time generally.

Secondly, Parliament is more likely to embrace the people’s priorities. Rather that its being obsessed with a few things that might have interested a self-chosen elite, the views of the whole of society are expressed on its Order Paper and on the agenda for political action, and that must surely make it better.

Thirdly—this has not been mentioned yet—it is all very well in politics to legislate, to pull a lever, but if the legislation has no effect out in the country because it has no public support, it will have no real chance of effecting change. A Parliament that looks more like the society that it is meant to represent is able to carry that society with it more effectively, and that means that can effect change more convincingly.

We are, I think, nowhere near being able to meet either of those two principles. A number of Members have reminded us today that for many centuries no women were allowed to vote or to sit in here. Of the first two women who were allowed to sit in here, one was a countess and the other was a Lady—not that I have anything against Ladies, or against Dames, who seem to be multiplying on the Opposition Benches, or even against pantomime dames. Similarly, I believe that two of the first women to arrive in the House of Lords were the daughters of viceroys, and that one was married to a viceroy. The change needs to be far more substantial.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) for what he said about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Members. It is significant that we now have more out gay Members of Parliament than ever before. Indeed, sometimes when you go into the Strangers Bar you feel as though you are in Rupert street. It is virtually a gay bar now, and my husband sometimes worries about whether I should be allowed in there any more.

Even the numbers that we have, however, do not come near matching the numbers in the country in terms of the percentage of the population. It is a great sadness to me that there are still only two out lesbians in Parliament, because two prejudices have been, as it were, tied together to form one. I pay tribute to those who have come out. That is difficult however, as not every gay person wants to be out, and I do not think they should have to be. I disagree with what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South said about role models. I hope to God nobody will ever think of me as a role model in relation to anything whatsoever at any time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that I should not worry about that, because nobody does. That is very generous of him. I was once described in the Daily Mail as an ex-gay vicar; I just want to point out that I am an ex-vicar, but my gayness is extant.

Turning to disabilities, it is important to remember that not every disability is visible. There have been disabled MPs for many centuries, including Philip Snowden, Labour Chancellor in 1924, and the first Earl of Salisbury, who was profoundly disabled and a Secretary of State. The barriers for many people with disabilities are still great, however, such as in terms of this building itself and the way in which we do our business—the way we vote and so forth.

As the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, I would also like to point out that the biggest difficulties of all face working-class people who may want to enter the House. That is partly because of finances, as standing for Parliament is prohibitively expensive. Ironically, there is now also a problem at the other end of the scale, in that the pay and conditions in Parliament seem prohibitive to people in professional jobs who expect to earn £100,000, £120,000 or £150,000.

This issue is not just about being representative; it is also about representing, and we should do that with courage and determination.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Five Members still wish to speak, and we have just over 15 minutes left, so according to the maths if each of them speaks for about three minutes everybody will get in—a bit of moral blackmail there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am introducing a three-minute limit, just to focus people’s attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I recognise the merits of a diverse Parliament, both in the quality of what we do and in the perceived and actual relevance to the country of our work. However, I do not think that being middle aged, middle class, white or male are disqualifications for this job, any more than they are recommendations. I am not in favour of all-women shortlists or quotas. If I were, perhaps I would be asking today why we should just stop at measures focused on would-be candidates and why we should not just ask half the white male MPs to vacate their seats at the next election. I think that would strike most people as unfair, but it is no less unfair than a measure that seeks to remove prejudice on the basis of skin colour or gender by denying a generation of candidates their chance because of the particular colour of their skin or their particular gender. The only sort of under-representation about which we should be concerned is the under-representation of talent.

As we have heard, the three things that principally stand in the way of the talented minority candidate are money, prejudice and process. For example, a friend of mine who was a would-be candidate was lucky enough to get through to the latter rounds of several constituency selection panels, but unfortunately for her they were all on the same weekend. She had to spend in excess of £700 to transport herself and her husband around those meetings and on child care, so Members can imagine her despair when she received the ironic feedback that she had not been selected and that the only blemish on her impeccable score sheet was that her husband had not bought a raffle ticket. Even worse than such petty reasoning is open prejudice. The way to tackle any instinctive opposition to female, BME or other candidates is not to deny local associations their liberty to chose or to constrain them to pass over a generation of talented men in the name of all-women shortlists, but to bring the process out from the dusty backrooms and into the light of day. There should be much more training, advice and education for selection panels on how to score candidates against one another properly.

Parties must also recognise that candidates cannot fund themselves to the nth degree. Travel and other reasonable costs incurred by candidates seeking a seat should be paid from central party coffers. That would not only encourage the less well-off to come forward but focus the minds of those who decide who makes it on to the approved lists. In tackling that financial burden, the central parties should also assume responsibility for co-ordinating selection meetings. Local associations should be able to choose their agendas, but they should have to fit in with a national grid on which all associations should block their selection meetings. For example, a prospective candidate with a caring responsibility who was therefore tied to a particular geographical location might be unable to take up the handful of opportunities to be selected for such a seat because all the selection meetings had been scheduled on the same morning. A bit of basic organisation would substantially increase that person’s opportunities.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Simon Hughes, who has until 5.33 pm.

Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

What I am saying is that the bodies are already acting themselves, so the undesirable outcome of which my hon. Friend is fearful will not happen. I have talked about various organisations; let me mention specific companies. Centrica, BT and Barclays have all provided programmes or initiatives to assist in the recruitment, retention, development and advancement of women and persons from other protected groups in the workplace, and to broaden their career aspirations. That makes the point that I alluded to earlier: good and constructive use of positive action is not woolly-minded, or political correctness gone mad, or whatever the cliché du jour is; it has practical benefits for the organisations that voluntarily opt for it.

I refer my hon. Friend to a report published in 2008 by the CBI, the TUC and the Equality and Human Rights Commission entitled “Talent not Tokenism: the business benefits of workforce diversity”. It showed that diversity in an organisation promotes productivity and efficiency, and increases market opportunities. Several UK employers recognise the benefits of positive action; it fills skill gaps while generating a more diverse work force. That added diversity in turn gives employers a better understanding of customers’ needs, opening up new markets and attracting new business.

More businesses than ever, including FTSE companies at all levels—those in the FTSE 100, FTSE 250 and FTSE 350—are using voluntary positive action measures to improve the diversity of their top management and boards of executive and non-executive directors. Lord Davies’s report, to which my hon. Friend referred, acknowledged that corporate boards perform better when they comprise experienced people with a greater range of skills, perspectives and backgrounds. His report indicated that there is a business case for increasing the diversity of corporate boards, and especially for gender-diverse boards, so that businesses can draw on the full range of available talent and achieve effective governance and performance.

To address my hon. Friend’s point directly, Lord Davies’s report ruled out the setting of mandatory quotas to compel businesses to appoint female directors to their boards, so my hon. Friend is right not to believe everything that he reads in the media. The statistics are stark. The proportion of women on FTSE 100 company boards is 14.2%, and the figure is 8.9% for FTSE 250 companies. Previously, almost half the FTSE 250 companies had no women director on their board. A recently published report by the Cranfield School of Management on the progress made on some of the recommendations outlined in the Davies report shows that, for the first time, a minority of FTSE 250 companies have all-male boards. Moving down the size scale, FTSE 350 companies face an even greater challenge in increasing female representation on their boards.

My hon. Friend may have heard of the 30% Club, which comprises a group of UK company chairmen, if I am allowed to use that word, who are voluntarily committed to bringing more women on to UK corporate boards. The 30% Club supports a voluntary target to ensure that every UK corporate board has at least 30% female representation by 2015.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think that the Minister is going slightly wider than the Bill, so could he perhaps drag it back to public authorities?

[Damian Green]

I shall certainly drag it back to public authorities, and indeed specifically to the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to repeal the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, in which I know you have a particular interest, Mr Deputy Speaker. The effect of the Bill would not be what I think my hon. Friend intends, because the majority of that Act has already been repealed by the Equality Act 2010. I urge him to look at schedule 27 of that Act—the repeals and revocations schedule—which repeals most of the Act that he seeks to repeal. The 2002 Act has largely been repealed because the provisions relating to elections in England, Scotland and Wales are now contained in the Equality Act 2010. Repealing what remains extant of the 2002 Act would not achieve what I assume to be the aim of the Bill, as the provisions relating to the selection of election candidates would continue to be permissible for registered political parties in Scotland, England and Wales if they chose to use them.

What remain extant of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act are provisions that relate solely to Northern Ireland. The 2002 Act amends the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, permitting political parties to adopt single-sex shortlists when selecting candidates for elections to certain bodies. Repealing the 2002 Act would only create further confusion and disparity, as the provisions relating to electoral shortlists could continue to be used in England, Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland.

In any case, we consider that the provisions relating to the selection of election candidates remain a legitimate tool for parties that wish to use them. The provisions enable registered political parties to take action to address any disparity in their representation of men and women in elected office, including the use of women-only shortlists. We have had a great deal of discussion about the under-representation of women elected to the House—only 144 of 650 Members are women, equating to about 22% of MPs—and it is widely agreed across the House that although progress has been made, it is not yet complete and there is a need for political parties to make the House more representative of the diverse population in this country, because that will enable us to deliver better governance.

I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and to the House as a whole that the use of those provisions is time-limited, as they are due to expire in 2030 when, we hope, the representation of women in political or other elected office will have increased significantly. The provisions do, however, contain a power to allow a Minister to extend their use beyond 2030 if insufficient progress has been made in increasing female representation. Given the fact that we have given ourselves two decades to achieve that aim, I hope that we can do so without requiring that extension.

By attempting to prevent the use of positive action under what I hope I have persuaded hon. Members are entirely appropriate circumstances, the aims of the Bill contradict Government policy to promote fairness, equality and diversity and to tackle under-representation in targeted areas such as “women on company boards” and “elected office”. Many public authorities have long used forms of positive action in relation to matters connected to recruitment and promotion, and they strongly support the continued use of those provisions. Some registered political parties have successfully used these measures in recent years and, as far as I am aware, there is no opposition from any of the major political parties to using positive action to redress gender representation.

The key thing to remember is that the use of any form of positive action in our country is entirely voluntary, whether it is in providing services, in employment-related matters, in increasing participation in particular activities, or in politics. Organisations will use the provisions only if there is a real benefit for them in doing so. Without the use of positive action, it would not be possible to develop the initiatives outlined in the coalition programme for government to tackle the numerous barriers to social mobility and equal opportunities that exist in our society in relation to age, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. It is not possible to build a fairer society without being able to take the necessary measures to end discrimination in the workplace; to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies; to promote improved community relations and opportunities for people of black and minority ethnic backgrounds; to provide internships for under-represented groups; and to fund targeted mentoring schemes to help under-represented groups to start businesses. It is clear that my hon. Friend’s Bill would remove this voluntary but important opportunity for organisations and political parties to make strides in tackling the continued disadvantage and under-representation experienced by persons with protected characteristics in work forces and in civic, public and political life across the UK. To stop the use of positive action would cause a major setback in the progress already made in addressing disadvantage or under-representation in our society. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill.

[Philip Davies]

With the leave of the House, may I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, those who supported my Bill—I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for their typically robust comments on my behalf—and those who contributed to the debate even though they did not agree with me?

It is sad that in this age it is so difficult to persuade Members of the merits of the principle that people should be given jobs on merit, and merit alone. It is like pushing water uphill to try and make the case for that basic and, I should have thought, obvious proposition. On that note I shall conclude the debate and press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 3, Noes 39.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Are we not substituting the responsibility of parents for their children? When I was growing up as a wee lad, if I misbehaved on my estate—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We had better move on from internal security, which should not be discussed on the Floor of the House.

[Keith Vaz]

We will talk about this later. What the hon. Gentleman did as a wee lad sounds like a fascinating story.

Back to the point. Let us have a proper debate about this. Let us not let down our constituents, who want to see proper mechanisms for dealing with crime, but let us have in place a proper code that will be looked at carefully, and an organisation or individual to monitor what is going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lynne Featherstone]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23, 24, 64, 29, 30, 32 and 71.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 111, in clause 66, page 49, leave out from line 32 to line 5 on page 53 and insert—

‘(1) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act (inclusion subject to consideration of representations), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(c) give the person the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of a panel of at least two persons.”.

(2) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of that Schedule (behaviour) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.

(3) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule (risk of harm) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.

(4) After sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 8 of that Schedule (inclusion subject to consideration of representations) after (b) insert—

“(c) give the person the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of a panel of at least two persons.”.

(5) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 9 of that Schedule (behaviour) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.

(6) After sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of that Schedule (risk of harm) insert—

“(2A) The right to representation must include the right to present evidence and call witnesses at an oral hearing in front of at least two persons.”.’.

Amendment 117, in clause 78, page 64, line 33, at end insert—

‘(3) After section 113A(3) of the Police Act 1997 (criminal record certificates) insert—

(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that the registered person is informed when the criminal records certificate is issued.

(3B) The Secretary of State must make provision to send a copy of the criminal record certificate directly to the registered person when the individual consents.”.

(4) After section 113B(4) of that Act (enhanced criminal record certificates) insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure that the registered person is informed when the enhanced criminal records certificate is issued.

(4B) The Secretary of State must make provision to send a copy of the enhanced criminal record certificate directly to the registered person when the individual consents.”’.

[Diana Johnson]

Under new clause 18, the barred status of an individual would be revealed in a CRB check. The House will know that at present, an enhanced CRB check may reveal all convictions and cautions, regardless of whether they are relevant, and allegations made to the police that were not turned into convictions. One gets barred status information only if the person will be working in a regulated activity, and the Bill has produced a narrower definition of “regulated activity” than previously existed. For example, all employed positions in a school are involved in regulated activity and barred status information would be provided for those jobs.

A standard or enhanced CRB check does not reveal barred status. An enhanced CRB check would not reveal that a person had been investigated by experts at the Independent Safeguarding Authority. It would not show that allegations had been verified and references sought, and that the person had been able to make representations. It would not reveal that the Independent Safeguarding Authority had come to an informed decision that the person posed a significant danger to children or vulnerable adults.

What is more, many people on the barred list are not even known to the police. That came out in Committee. The reason could be that the parents do not want to put their child through the ordeal of making a formal complaint to the police, but the school notifies the Independent Safeguarding Authority of concerns about an individual teacher or member of staff. Another scenario is that a supply teacher moves from school to school and, although it is quite clear that there is a problem, the schools just decide not to have the supply teacher back and do not notify the police of their concerns. Eventually, the local education authority may take the view that the ISA should find out why there are so many schools where that supply teacher is not welcome. The ISA might then receive complaints and look at the employment history of the individual and see a pattern of allegations, and the teacher moving on quickly. Again, that might all happen without any formal complaint being made to the police.

With vulnerable adults it is often difficult to substantiate allegations—for example, of theft from dementia patients. A care home might decide not to notify the police, but just to dismiss the employee and notify the ISA. Even though the police do not always get involved in or know about complaints and allegations, such people are clearly a danger to vulnerable people and children, and that information should be made available to their future employers.

It would be a great help to employers, particularly charities and small voluntary sector organisations, if they were informed of concerns that the Independent Safeguarding Authority had looked into, on the basis of which an individual had been barred. The Committee received a number of submissions from sports clubs and organisations that wanted to know that any information about barring would be made available to them when working with, teaching or training young people.

I would like to give the Minister an example and ask her whether such a person will be covered by the proposals in the Bill. X is a former teacher who is barred from working with children following substantiated reports of inappropriate behaviour from three schools. None of the allegations was passed on to the police, as I have explained is common. X presents himself as a retired teacher and volunteers at a primary school. At the primary school, he hears children reading and works one-on-one with the same 10 children every week. Under the current law, the school must check his barred status and would find out about his history. The school would know that information quickly. I understand that schools can obtain barred status within 24 hours.

My understanding is that under the new law, it would be an offence for the school to check his barred status and it would not be given that information. Even if the school followed best practice and conducted an enhanced CRB check, that would reveal nothing, as no allegations had ever been made to the police. There would be no soft information and no criminal convictions on the CRB check. However, this person would clearly be a threat to children in the view of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and would be on the barred list. As I understand it, under the proposals he would not be prevented from working with children. It would be helpful if the Minister explained why she feels it appropriate that information from the many trained experts at the Independent Safeguarding Authority—specialists in this area who are able to analyse information and allegations—should not be made available to schools and other organisations that wish to rely on that expertise.

I am sure that the Minister will also want to respond to my point about the Bichard inquiry, which as hon. Members know came out after the dreadful Soham murders. The major thrust of the report and recommendations on how to avoid another case like the Soham murders was that information should be properly shared between all interested parties. The Independent Safeguarding Authority is the body that has the most information. All employers, charities, voluntary groups and sports organisations should be able to benefit from its expertise and insight.

Moreover, when a CRB form is processed electronically, barred status comes up immediately. If an employer needs to recruit someone urgently and needs the information speedily, as often happens in the adult care sector because people become ill or move on quickly, they may be tempted to put people into sensitive positions even though they are waiting for a CRB check. I wonder whether the Minister could refer to that issue. This matter is so important that I would like to test the opinion of the House on new clause 18.

Amendment 111, which would amend clause 66, relates to people who commit serious offences. Such people are currently put on the barred list automatically. Since 1933, people who have been convicted of serious offences against children have been banned from working with children. In the Bill, the Government propose that a person convicted of a serious offence should not automatically be barred from working with children. For example, under the new proposals a man working as a lorry driver who had been convicted of raping a child would not automatically be put on the barred list. The test that the Bill sets out is that he would be put on the list only if he was, had been or might in future be engaged in regulated activity relating to children.

Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The debate may continue for 45 minutes. I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Mr Edward Leigh.

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 1 March 2011 (Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows—

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Temporary power: supplementary provision.

Amendment 1, page 22, line 31, in Schedule 1, at end add—

‘Additional measures

12A (1) The Secretary of State may impose measures additional to those contained in Schedule 1 if—

(a) there is a serious terrorist threat; and

(b) they are necessary for the protection of the public.

(2) Any measure under paragraph 13(1) can only be imposed if the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is involved in terrorism-related activity.’.

Amendment 2, page 22, line 31, at end add—

‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State

12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.

(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only if a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 3, page 22, line 31, at end add—

‘Emergency additional measures introduced by Secretary of State

12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.

(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.

Amendment 4, page 22, line 31, at end add—

‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State during dissolution of Parliament

12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part during a dissolution of Parliament.

(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House in the new Parliament.

(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.

[James Brokenshire]

This group of amendments relates to the enhanced TPIM provisions and the circumstances in which measures additional to those contained in the Bill might need to be imposed. The Government and Opposition are taking different approaches.

The Government have made it clear that we believe that in future there might be exceptional circumstances in which it is necessary to introduce additional and more restrictive measures to those contained in the Bill. I emphasise that we hope never to need them, but, in the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to act to protect the public appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

First, I was going to comment that I have perhaps had experience of more Home Secretaries whom I did not trust on these issues than those I did. Perhaps that will change over the years and there will be more Home Secretaries who are more trustworthy on civil liberties. I hope that that is the case.

There is a point about judicial oversight, but there is also a point about Parliament having the chance to comment on what powers it thinks are acceptable. There is a range of things that the Home Secretary could argue are necessary but that Parliament would find simply unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that under—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The interventions in this debate are rather long. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to let the hon. Gentleman in for a second bite.

[Paul Goggins]

I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion now, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I have worked with a number of Home Secretaries and I have seen this Home Secretary in operation. They—even those colleagues in my party—have represented a range of different political views, but I have trusted every single one of them with the difficult decisions that they have had to make about terrorist suspects and others. That is bar none, including the current holder of the post. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. We have to trust our senior politicians sometimes. That has to be within limits, of course, such as the judicial scrutiny and the powers in the Bill.

Frankly, I think that this Government are in the worst of all places. They have acknowledged that the measures in schedule 1 may not be sufficient in certain circumstances, yet they are tying the Secretary of State’s hands behind her back and will not give her the powers that she needs against the risk posed by a small number of individuals. The Government are in a terrible place and they need to think intelligently to get themselves out of it.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Lady might think that the speed with which the Home Office has responded is okay, but I think it demonstrates a worrying level of complacency that might cause problems in future. The reason for making that important point about the delays we have seen is that such delays cause risks for victims and the judicial process. At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the Home Office is prepared to take responsibility for justice in this way, or whether it will just sit back and leave it to the police and ACPO.

The Policing Minister has told us that the Home Office waited for ACPO to conclude that emergency legislation was needed. When he responds, will he state at what point Ministers asked for draft legislation to be prepared, even if only on a contingency basis, because that is important? Ministers should have commissioned emergency legislation on a draft basis as soon as they were informed of the problem and saw the clear advice from Professor Zander that emergency legislation might be needed. Instead, they appear to have waited for ACPO to commission legal advice twice, but it is not just a matter for ACPO. Inevitably, ACPO will always try to make existing legislation work—they are the police and that is their job—but the job of the Home Secretary’s officials was to contingency plan and get emergency legislation on stand-by, yet there is no sign that they did that. Also, they appear to have made no effort to start discussions with the Opposition through the usual channels on how we could get the legislation in as fast as possible. After the Home Secretary was made aware of the situation, it took her a week to raise it with the Opposition and ask whether we would support emergency legislation if needed. The usual channels could have started making contingency plans a week before and we could have had this debate earlier. In the end, the reason for making this point is that in these cases every day matters, because the risks to people who rely on bail protection are considerable and persistent. Therefore, every day matters in how fast we can get this legislation in place.

We support this legislation, will give it a fair wind through the House today and hope that it gets through the House of Lords as rapidly as possible, but I must say to the Home Secretary that it is important when things go wrong and she has to respond that lessons are learnt so that the same mistakes are not made again. There have been a catalogue of delays at every stage of the process, things could have been done faster and we could have moved to resolve this earlier. Unless the Government recognise those delays, I worry that we will see further problems and risks. The Home Secretary cannot always pretend that everything in her Department is perfect; it will not be, and we all know that. A little more recognition when failings take place and learning from them would help us to have a more effective Home Office and a better criminal justice system for the future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Take two: Lorraine Fullbrook.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Seven Members wish to speak and I will call the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice at 10 minutes to 3, because the debate is time-limited. Members should therefore be considerate of other Members who wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members will be aware, News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB is now a matter of great public importance and interest. Rumours are circulating, and briefings are coming from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the Secretary of State intends to delay his decision for a minimum of three months. On an issue of such importance, and on the day when we hear that the phones of the families of brave men and women who died fighting for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan were hacked, the least the Secretary of State should do is come to the House as a matter of urgency this afternoon and make a statement.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As you know, Mr Lewis, it is not up to the Chair to demand that Ministers come to the House to make statements. It is very much up to Ministers to make that decision for themselves. Mr Speaker allowed an emergency debate yesterday on the phone hacking issue. I agree that it is a fast-moving and significant issue, but I have not been notified that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement today. If that changes however, the House will be told immediately in the usual way.

Women (Government Policies)

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt]

Perhaps it is a matter of priorities. Economic inequalities still abound in this country. Despite the good old Equal Opportunities Act now reaching its fifth decade, women working full time still earn, on average, 15.5% less than men. That is not good enough. Raising the tax threshold has helped women, who made up 60% of the 900,000 people lifted out of tax altogether. In the spending review we ensured that the lowest paid public sector workers, 65.5% of whom were women, were protected from the public sector pay freeze, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned.

The world of work is therefore one area of public policy that we can use to try and level the playing field between men and women, but let us also consider self-employment and women-owned companies. We know that a third more women-owned start-ups fail in the UK than in the US; we know that 20 years ago the US took affirmative action on procurement; and we know that today there are proportionately twice as many women-owned businesses in the US as in the UK. One area where the Government have taken action is in the field of procurement, with reference to small businesses. We aspire to achieve 25% of goods and services procurement for Government Departments from small businesses.

But women-owned businesses are not even on the Government’s radar. If we are spending taxpayers’ money, should we not know who we are procuring from? If we are measuring how many small businesses we are procuring from, how much more difficult would it be to measure how many women-owned businesses we are procuring from? It makes good business sense to procure from companies run by people who look like those being supplied to. It makes good business sense for boards of directors to have a critical mass of people who think with the left side of their brains, as well as those who think with the right side—I caricature.

We have had the Davies report on women on boards, and I wait with bated breath to see whether companies will respond. The Home Secretary said that the early indicators are positive, but companies had better shape up, otherwise I will be pressing the Government to get tough with boards that think that certain people have a monopoly on innovation, creativity and plain old common sense.

I have already mentioned flexible working. I want to commend the Government for their work on flexible parental leave, for facilitating better solutions for parents and companies in how that leave is taken and for modifications to the working time directive affecting the interaction of annual leave, sick leave and family-friendly leave. It is good news that the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 100,000 more women started work, compared with 18,000 men, so it is not all doom and gloom.

There is probably no single aspect of Government policy that does not affect women in some way. We are short of time so I will refer to only one more point: the suggestion in the media today that we are to rethink the proposal to reduce sentences by half for those who plead guilty to rape charges. I worry about that policy. Of course it is good to have a confession that avoids the added trauma for rape victims of having to testify and be cross-examined, but halving a rapist’s sentence just for confessing sticks in my craw. We must consider why only 6% of rape reports result in a conviction. There is no glory for any Government in this respect. We must do better and there has to be some kind of cultural change.

We all want the same thing: a more even playing field for women. The Government are striving to maintain and increase fairness in the most difficult and trying circumstances. I certainly do not think that we have everything right, but with a little good will on all sides we can work together to do this. I will be lobbying my hon. Friends to do the right thing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at five minutes to 4 and four Members wish to speak, so they each have a shade under five minutes in which to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Some newspapers have an item where they talk about the word of the day or word of the week. For the Government Whips Office, the word is presumably “bandwagon”, because expressing opposition is suddenly seen to be jumping on one. I do not think that the Government have necessarily gone about a deliberate policy of targeting women, because I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but some of their policies, when added together, are having precisely that effect. Perhaps people have not realised or noticed.

I want to take a slightly different tack. I will be very brief in the hope that I get other opportunities to amplify these issues, because they are important. What happens to women, in particular, when they separate from a partner in coming out of a relationship? There is a lot of research that says that women in that situation end up worse off anyway, but some things that are happening will exacerbate it. For example, legal aid is going to be taken away from family cases. In my experience as a family lawyer, it is not going to court and getting embroiled in some dramatic procedure, but good, solid legal advice that will get people the kind of financial settlement that enables them to get back on their feet more quickly. If that is not available, they will be financially worse off.

In addition, there are changes to child support that will require people to go through an obstacle race to get it. I urge the Government to remember why the child support system was introduced in the first place—precisely because people were not getting that form of support.

As well as not getting a good financial settlement and not getting easy access to child support, what else is going to go wrong? The big thing that people need when they are separating is housing, because two into one will not go, so what is happening on the housing front? People in the private rented sector who need housing benefit will get less of it. We are not even sure how mortgage costs will be covered under universal credit. The homelessness rules are changing so that more people will end up in the private rented sector. That costs more money, so it is not actually a cost-saving measure. It will also not give people the long-term security that they want. Women who separate from their partners will therefore find themselves in a more difficult position in terms of housing.

Finally, I turn to benefits. Women will have to re-enter the work force at a younger age because the age at which the youngest child will affect their benefit is being reduced to five. There are also changes to tax credits and to the amount of money to cover child care.

If one thinks about the journey that a woman makes from separating from her partner to re-establishing herself in her new life, I contend that the effect of those Government policies will make her much worse off. I am sorry that I do not have time to amplify those points, because I certainly could. I look forward to having another opportunity to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Mary Macleod, to sit down at five minutes to 4.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) on his excellent maiden speech. I commend him for choosing this debate in which to make it. By doing so, he will have kept half his constituents happy. That is a positive thing for any Member.

I will make a few brief points because there is not much time. First, I want to say how disappointed I was at the speech of the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities. All we heard was a rant of negativity about what was not being done, instead of a recognition of the positive things that the Government are doing for women. Labour Members kick-started the work that has been done for women, and I congratulate them on that. I thank the Minister for Women and Equalities, who is in her place, for her positive, inspiring and visionary speech about what the Government are doing to make things better for women, no matter who they are or where they come from.

The shadow Minister for Women and Equalities said that the Prime Minister had a blind spot when it came to women. That is a scandalous comment given that it was the Prime Minister who put his name on the line before the last election to get more women on to the Conservative Benches. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who helped to campaign in my seat, and other people all helped to increase the number of women on the Conservative Benches from 18 to 49, and I thank them for that.

I believe that the Government are working hard to support women and families, and to promote equality. We are focusing on giving what we can to the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Of course, the majority of those people are women. We have heard much today about financial support. The key area for me is that the Government are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers, the majority of whom are women, out of income tax. I look forward to the time when we increase that even further, because these are the people who most need our help.

We have discussed the welfare reforms and the way in which we are trying to incentivise and encourage people to get back into work. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) discussed that matter eloquently. The coalition agreement states that we will look at ways to encourage shared parenting such as flexible parental leave. That is real equality. I have worked for 20 years in business, and for people such as me, these policies are about bringing real equality into the workplace.

Having women in business is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) spoke about Lord Davies’ important report. I was pleased to hear from the Minister for Women and Equalities that progress has been made on that. I will be one of the people who follows this matter closely to ensure that more is done. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) spoke about the new flat pension rate, which will come into effect in 2016. That will take account of the fact that women take career breaks and will ensure that doing so does not affect their pensions, which is very good. We also have to consider women in small businesses, of whom we want more. If we were setting up small businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 150,000 more businesses, so there is much more to be done.

There is a lot of great work on domestic violence, about which we have heard today.

In summary, I believe that the Government have demonstrated their full commitment to women through financial support for families, by helping women in business and by protecting vulnerable women. We have amazing women and fabulous female role models across the country, and the Government will build on what they are doing to create a much stronger, safer, fairer and more equal society for all of us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the last four speakers, who ensured that everybody on the list got in.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move amendment 22,  page 87, line 26, leave out ‘authorisations’ and insert

‘premises licences and club premises certificates’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23 to 30.

[James Brokenshire]

These are minor amendments to the late-night levy clauses in part 2 that clarify the effect of the provisions. To avoid possible misinterpretation, the Bill should use consistent terminology. Amendments 22 and 30 intend to achieve that end. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 133 merely by making it clear that if licensing authorities amend the categories of premises in their area that benefit from an exemption or reduction in their levy liability for a subsequent year there may already be none as well as one or more premises in those categories for the existing year.

Amendments 28 and 29 remove a drafting error in clause 133 and clarify the basis on which licensing authorities must ensure that any exemption or reduction categories that apply in their areas in a subsequent year accord with the categories prescribed in regulations. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 ensure that local authorities do not suffer a burden in introducing the late-night levy. They do not change the intention underlying the levy, nor do they change the burden on business.

The Bill as it stands allows licensing authorities to deduct the costs that they incur in the “collection, administration or enforcement” of the levy from the levy revenue. However, it has become clear that that phraseology, including the reference to administration, does not include the specific costs of introducing the levy. A licensing authority will need to carry out a number of administrative procedures before collecting the levy. First, it will hold a consultation on the way in which it wishes to operate the levy. That is an important process, and it ensures that the community’s opinions are heard. Following a decision to adopt the levy, the licensing authority will announce its intentions. Some businesses will decide that they do not open long enough in the levy period to make it worth while to pay it. To avoid the levy, those businesses will be able to make a free change to their licence. However, that means that licensing authorities must process the licence variations without recovering costs. Amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that licensing authorities can deduct the costs of those introductory processes from the levy revenue.

I do not want the levy to become a burden on licensing authorities. It has always been my intention that it should be self-funding while raising a significant amount of money for the police and other organs of local government. The amendments ensure that that is the case. Let me reiterate that the amendments will have no further impact on business. We have published indicative levy charges, which will remain the same. To make some simple clarifications and to ensure licensing authorities bear no burden as a result of the late-night levy, I urge the House to accept the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 162, page 94, line 27, leave out subsection (2).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 163, page 94, line 32, leave out clause 141.

Amendment 164, page 95, line 7, leave out clause 142.

Amendment 171, page 95, line 7, leave out clause 142 and insert—

‘142 Injunctions to prevent a prohibited activity in controlled area of Parliament Square

(1) The High Court may grant an injunction against a person under this section if—

(a) it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent has engaged in, or is about to engage in, a prohibited activity; and

(b) the injunction is necessary to stop the person doing a prohibited activity or from starting a prohibited activity.

(2) For the purposes of this part, a “prohibited activity”; is an activity—

(a) which may result in serious public disorder or serious damage to property; or

(b) where the purpose of the activity is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.

(3) A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a prohibition in an injunction order under section 143(1) is in breach of the injunction.’.

Amendment 176, in clause 142, page 95, line 8, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 185, page 95, line 8, leave out ‘or authorised officer’.

Amendment 177, page 95, line 12, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection (1) a “senior police officer” means the most senior in the rank of police officers present at the scene.’.

Amendment 195, page 96, line 12, leave out ‘5’ and insert ‘3’.

Amendment 165, page 96, line 13, leave out clause 143.

Amendment 172, page 96, line 13, leave out clause 143 and insert—

‘143 Injunctions under section 142: content and duration

(1) A condition included in an injunction ordered by the High Court under section 142(1) may prohibit the person from—

(a) being in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of undertaking a prohibited activity; or

(b) entering the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purpose of undertaking a prohibited activity.

(2) An injunction prohibiting a person from being in or entering the controlled area of Parliament Square continues in force until—

(a) the end of such period on which the injunction is made as may be specified by the court making the injunction; or

(b) if no period is specified, the end of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the injunction is made.

(3) A period specified under subsection (2)(a) may not be longer than seven days.’.

Amendment 178,  in clause 143, page 96, line 20, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 193, page 96, line 22, leave out ‘90 days’ and insert ‘seven days’.

Amendment 194, page 96, line 24, leave out ‘90 days’ and insert ‘seven days’.

Amendment 186, page 96, line 20, leave out ‘or authorised officer’.

Amendment 179, page 96, line 26, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 187, page 96, line 26, leave out ‘or authorised officer’.

Amendment 166, page 96, line 40, leave out clause 144.

Amendment 173, page 96, line 40, leave out clause 144 and insert—

‘144 Applications for injunctions under section 142

(1) An application for an injunction under section 142 may be made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to the High Court.

(2) Notice of any application under subsection (1) must be served on the respondent in accordance with the rules of the court.

(3) The court must give the respondent an opportunity to make representations in proceedings before it about the making of an injunction.’.

Amendment 180,  in clause 144, page 96, line 41, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 188, page 96, line 41, leave out ‘or authorised officer’.

Amendment 181, page 96, line 43, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 189, page 96, line 43, leave out ‘or officer’.

Amendment 182, page 97, line 1, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Government amendment 57.

Amendment 183, page 97, line 6, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 190, page 97, line 6, leave out ‘or authorised officer’.

Government amendment 58.

Amendment 184, page 97, line 7, leave out ‘constable’ and insert ‘senior police officer’.

Amendment 167, page 97, line 28, leave out clause 145.

Amendment 174, page 97, line 28, leave out clause 145 and insert—

‘145 Breach of injunction

(1) The court may impose a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale where—

(a) an injunction under section 142 is granted against a person, and

(b) on an application made by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person is in breach of the injunction without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (1) grants the only powers available to the court where it finds that an injunction under section 142 has been breached.’.

Amendment 196, page 97, line 28, leave out clause 145 and insert—

‘145 Power of court on conviction

(1) The court may, following the conviction of a person under section 141, make an order requiring the person not to enter the controlled area of Parliament Square for such period as may be specified in the order which may not exceed seven days.

(2) Power of the court to make an order under this section is in addition to the court’s power to impose a fine under section 142(8).’.

Amendment 168, page 98, line 1, leave out clause 146.

Amendment 175, page 98, line 1, leave out clause 146 and insert—

‘146 Discharge of injunction

(1) The court may discharge an injunction if an application to discharge the injunction is made.

(2) An application to discharge the injunction may be made by

(a) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis who applied for the injunction; or

(b) the respondent.

(3) Before applying for the discharge of an injunction, the applicant mentioned in subsection (2) must notify the other.’.

Amendment 191, in clause 147, page 98, line 34, leave out ‘authorised officer and’.

Amendment 169, page 98, line 34, leave out clause 147.

Amendment 170, page 99, line 4, leave out clause 148.

[John McDonnell]

I almost feel like apologising to the House for burdening it with so many amendments, but let me just explain the grouping of the amendments, which come in three blocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The practice of the Prime Minister reading out the names of those who have fallen in Iraq or Afghanistan started in June 2003 with Tony Blair. It never happened before. Does my hon. Friend think that we should have read out those names in the Kosovo conflict, the first Iraq war or the Falklands conflict?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are going wide of the amendment.

[Paul Flynn]

In the first world war there were pages in newspapers listing the fallen and those missing in action, so it would not have been practical then, but it is practical in this conflict. Sadly, we are still losing soldiers—about one soldier a week dies in Afghanistan—so it is absolutely right to continue reading out their names and making such announcements. The Government should not stop doing that. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend agrees that MPs should be forbidden from reading out the names of the fallen, but I do not think that was a reasonable decision. I have challenged it and been stopped and I am sure that you would stop me now, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to read out the names of the fallen.

We really must pay tribute to Brian Haw. On nights when we have finished here and gone out, even in the middle of winter and sometimes in the early hours of the morning, he has been there, night after night, with his simple, anti-war message. Whether we agree with him or not he deserves our admiration and we do not need any attempt to sweep him and his companions out of sight to have a cosmetic effect on the square for an event that will be forgotten in a few years’ time.

I agree entirely with those who have said that the right to protest is honourable. It is a matter of pride when visitors come to London from countries in which any sign of protest would be swept away from their well-manicured streets and tourist attractions. The majority of the world’s countries would not allow such protest to take place in such a situation, but we are better and more advanced than them, and we should be proud that we have the right to protest. It is not available in the House, as it might be, but it is in Parliament square.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

My point is that we have now instituted such draconian security systems as a result of the invasion of this House—I do not think the hon. Gentleman was here at the time—and the attack from the Gallery that things have become all but impossible, and the police famously do not have the flexibility to allow certain people to come through ahead of ordinary—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in full flow, but he will see that we have before us amendment 162 and a lot of other amendments. There is a lot of meat here, and he is on another meal. I ask him to restrict himself to the amendments.

[Mr MacShane]

Having enjoyed many happy meals with you in Strasbourg, Mr Deputy Speaker, I always thought we were sharing the same plate.

I will not enter into the question of reading out the names of those who have fallen in war, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) animadverted at great length, and the curious proposition that if one person falls his name should be mentioned, but if 20 or 100 fall there are too many names to read out.

We return, then, to a very important point—the centrality of Parliament and all democratic institutions to which all people should have easy and free access. In several democracies, there is, for good reason, the notion of the parliamentary mile, which means that for approximately 1 mile—a given space—around a Parliament, there should be no protests or demonstrations, and lawmakers should be able to go into their Parliament without being shouted at, as we were here for a number of years by the Iraq war protester with the very loud loudspeaker. We should certainly be able to confront citizens who are protesting or on their way to attend their protests in Trafalgar square, Speakers’ Corner in Hyde park, or wherever. One only has to walk up Whitehall to see a demonstration outside the Prime Minister’s house every day, but a Parliament is not a pressure cooker; it is a place for deliberation.

I recall being outside the White House a few years ago when there was a protest about President Clinton’s policy on Haitian refugees, and Arthur Ashe, the tennis player, was arrested and taken away. Those protestors were very brave. They went there, they knew they were going to be arrested, and they were making a profound point. However, American law says that when the President is in the White House—or when Congress is sitting—people cannot organise demonstrations directly under his nose.

That is a very important principle that dates back to the 19th century—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Field]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept the fear that many of us in this Chamber feel, that once we go down the path of saying that Parliament—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Being an apprentice Deputy Speaker, I should have reminded the right hon. Gentleman the first time he failed to do so that he must respond to the intervention that he has taken.

[Mr MacShane]

I am so sorry. I was just trying to put the interventions together to save time—your time, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall try to explain my point to the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is a concept common in many countries, and Britain can exclude itself from it, that the legislators of the democracy should be able to come to the area around the legislature—not around the Executive, not outside Downing street, not in the great centres where people gather such as Trafalgar square or Hyde park, and not anywhere else, such as outside embassies or town halls, but outside Parliament—without being told directly how or on what to vote at that moment. Anybody can come to my surgery on a Saturday or write to me to tell me how to vote. We have colluded in saying that Parliament needs to be protected from the people, which is why we have the absurd security systems that are now in place. If we do not re-establish the principle of parliamentarianism being something that requires reflection, debate and deliberation, with all of us voting in the Aye or the No Lobby to pass a law, and if we say that Parliament is simply an adjunct to a process of protest, it will weaken Parliament.

I will take the next intervention, but I will then sit down because other colleagues may want to speak.