Asylum Seekers: Middlesbrough

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I appear before his Committee frequently to update it and, by extension, the House on matters relating to the immigration system. I believe I might be appearing before it in the near term, which might provide an opportunity for me to update him and his Committee and, by extension, other right hon. and hon. Members, about the work being done. I can certainly give him that assurance.

The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the question of whether it was accepted or known that doors were painted a particular colour. As I have already told the House, there is a practice among some social housing providers to paint in a particular colour for maintenance purposes, but it is precisely those factors that I will want to understand as part of the audit of not simply the practice in the north-east but the inspection regimes and processes we have in place to identify whether issues, standards and complaints are dealt with appropriately.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It is a good job that we have journalists such as Andrew Norfolk, who also helped, of course, to expose the Rotherham abuse scandal. Is it not a matter of concern that whenever some abuse is known about and comes into the public arena, the Minister makes a statement and somehow or other G4S seems to be involved? I would have thought that that would be a source of some concern to the Home Secretary and her Ministers. I do not question for a moment the Minister’s objections, just like those of the rest of us, to any form of discrimination, but should not those responsible for what occurred—the painting of doors in red where asylum seekers are concerned—be told in the clearest possible language that certain aspects of 1936 Berlin are not to be repeated in Britain in 2016?

[James Brokenshire]

We need to look at this issue very closely and carefully, which is precisely what we have committed to do. As to G4S and the properties it provides in the north-east, we examined about 84 properties where inspections were successfully completed. Where defects were identified, action was taken. According to our assessment, there were no key performance indicator failures in respect of Middlesbrough. That is precisely what the audit will examine further, taking into account the state and condition of the properties. This House has telegraphed its message very clearly today, in standing against hate crime and discrimination and ensuring that those who are here and who have sought lawfully to claim asylum are given a fair and appropriate welcome by this country, as we would all expect.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend does well in speaking for his constituents who work at GCHQ, and indeed for all who work at GCHQ. Obviously, I have met and dealt with a number of them, and with our other security agencies such as the Secret Intelligence Service and MI5. I can confirm what my hon. Friend says—these people act with extreme professionalism in the work they do, and take extreme care with the powers they exercise. They are very conscious of the powers they hold and they are very careful in the exercise of them. As my hon. Friend says, the Bill provides the important strong oversight arrangements that will enable the people at GCHQ and our other agencies to get on with the job they do so well, day in and day out.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

However much we all agree that action is necessary to combat terrorism and other forms of criminality, I remain concerned, even if I am one of only a few who is, about the excessive powers that will be given to the security authorities in addition to what they already have, although judicial involvement is better than no judicial involvement. I hope the Home Secretary will bear in mind the fact that there is a good deal of concern outside this House. I certainly believe that if this measure were to be passed without substantial amendment, it would be unfortunate and a bitter blow for civil liberties.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman says that he thinks there are substantial new powers in the Bill, but I have to tell him that there are not. What the Bill primarily does is to bring together the powers that are spread across a number of pieces of legislation—mainly RIPA, but others too—into one single piece of legislation in a much clearer and more comprehensible form than has previously been the case. There is a new power in respect of the retention of the internet connection—with limited access to internet connection records—but the other powers in the Bill already exist. What it will do is strengthen safeguards and strengthen authorisation systems.

Wilson Doctrine

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, I am going to use the word “change”. The legislative framework in which these matters are dealt with has changed over the years—more than once, I suspect, but most recently in 2000, with the introduction of RIPA, which contained a number of safeguards in relation to these matters. As I have indicated, and as the IPT repeated, the draft code, which was published in February 2015, makes very clear that particular care has to be taken if it is proposed that certain communications of certain categories of people should be intercepted.

These matters touch on the wider debate about the balance between privacy and national security, and the first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens. I have repeatedly stated my determination to ensure that the police and security agencies have the powers, support and capabilities they need to keep us safe.

In recent years, however, we have seen many wild and inaccurate allegations about the extent of surveillance carried out by the agencies, the legality of the intelligence agencies’ actions and the effectiveness of the oversight of their actions. Recently, three independent reviews have considered the investigatory powers used by the police and security agencies.

In March, the Intelligence and Security Committee published its “Privacy and Security” report, which set out a comprehensive review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy frameworks that govern their use. In June, David Anderson published his report on the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers, with specific reference to the interception of communications and the separate issue of communications data. This summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), reported on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes and assessed how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

What the Home Secretary quoted from Harold Wilson’s response to a question from Tom Driberg was, of course, correct, but he also said, in the same answer:

“I am aware of all the considerations which I had to take into account and I felt that it was right to lay down the policy of no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament.”—[Official Report, 17 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 639.]

Surely the point is that neither he nor successive Prime Ministers—nor, indeed, Ministers in any other Department—have made a statement changing what was said by Lord Wilson.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman refers to Lord Wilson’s statement, from which I correctly quoted with regard to changes.

The three reviews represent a substantial independent review of the frameworks and oversight governing the use of investigatory powers. As the three reports make clear, the use of investigatory powers by the police and the security and intelligence agencies is absolutely vital for national security, in the fight against crime, and if we are to protect the people of this country from harm.

In addition to those reports, I today welcome the fact that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found no suggestion of improper activity by our security and intelligence agencies. I am pleased to say, once again, that an independent tribunal has declared their activity lawful, and I am grateful for this opportunity to put on record our gratitude to the men and women who, necessarily out of the limelight, do so much to keep the people of this country safe.

The Wilson doctrine recognises the special nature of parliamentary communications and affords parliamentarians important protections. However, as I have said, it can never be the case that MPs can consider themselves above the law. That is a position I hope the whole House can well understand. It is right and proper that we are discussing these issues today, and I look forward to hearing the remaining contributions to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

At the heart of this debate is the concern that the confidentiality between Members and our constituents should not be undermined. That is the nub of this debate and why this issue is so crucial.

In the past 10 years, there have been two instances that, strictly, did not come within the Wilson doctrine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) found that a conversation he had with a prisoner in prison had been recorded secretly by the authorities. That was totally unacceptable. Understandably, concern was expressed not only by my right hon. Friend, but by many other Members of this House. The other occasion, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) mentioned, was when the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) had his Commons and constituency office searched by the police. I want to make it clear that that was not seen at the time as any sort of party issue. The right hon. Member for Ashford is not a member of my party, but I was among those who said that what had occurred was totally unacceptable. The police had no warrant and should not have been allowed to search his Commons and constituency office: just imagine if that were to happen all over again. This is indeed a very important issue.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important for Northern Ireland MPs to be able to ensure the protection of all our constituents whenever they give us certain information that requires representation or investigation? That is particularly important in a divided society.

[Mr Winnick]

I agree entirely.

What was announced by the then Prime Minister in 1966 has of course been confirmed by successive Prime Ministers, including to me when I put a question to Mr Blair shortly after the Labour Government were elected in 1997. To argue, as some have done—the Home Secretary has more or less in some ways given the impression that this is her opinion—that we, as Members of Parliament, want to put ourselves above the law, is in effect to say that the protection we have had for centuries in this House to be able to speak without the threat of legal challenge is wrong. The occupant of the Chair always warns us that we should be careful what we say, especially if we make comments we would not make outside the House. That is an absolute protection for this House: just imagine if it did not exist and we could not say, without legal challenge, what is most important and what could not be said outside. The same applies to what we are debating today: confidentiality between Members and their constituents and others—journalists, whistle- blowers and so on—and their ability to speak to their Member of Parliament on the telephone, or via other forms of communication, safe in the knowledge that their conversation is not being intercepted by the authorities.

The nub of the issue is not special protection or privileges for ourselves. Of course we cannot be above the law. Of course we cannot say to our constituents, “We are special people and we want rights that you do not have.” What we are emphasising—it cannot be emphasised too much—is the right of those who want to contact their Member of Parliament or another Member of Parliament and speak along the lines I have already indicated. That is what this debate is really all about.

I congratulate all those who took a case to the tribunal: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and even Mr Galloway—I say that with some reluctance, but I give credit to even such extreme cases. Had the case not gone to the tribunal, we would still not know whether the Wilson doctrine was being applied. It is not appropriate for the tribunal, or any other tribunal for that matter, to take over responsibility for what is essentially a political matter.

I am pleased this emergency debate has taken place. I hope the proposed legislation mentioned by those on both Front Benches will be introduced. In essence, the Wilson doctrine remains. It is quite true, of course, that since 1966 there has been a total revolution in communications. It is a different world, but that does not alter the basic position between Members of Parliament and those who wish to contact them over various matters.

It may be said that the great danger now is terrorism. No one disputes that—the country does face an acute terrorist danger—but in 1966, in a very different political climate, it was the height of the cold war. There was concern on many occasions about spies, and even the possibility of Members of Parliament being engaged with foreign intelligence agencies. What I am saying, since I was there at the time, is that the suspicion was of a different enemy, but suspicion remains. Indeed, it would be difficult to think of a time when there were not enemies who wanted to cause harm to this country, but that does not alter the fact that what Harold Wilson said, under pressure arising from the events in 1966 and the seamen’s strike, was right.

For all the reasons stated, the doctrine should be kept and it would be an extreme disservice to Parliament if the Wilson doctrine was undermined. It is an essential protection, not—I repeat—for MPs, but for those who wish to contact us, constituents or otherwise. That safeguard and security, which I hope they continue to have, is crucial if they are to contact us without fear of having their conversations monitored by the security authorities or anyone else.

Refugee Situation in the Mediterranean

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

I commend my hon. Friend for calling for a debate on this subject at last week’s business questions. I am glad we are able to have the debate today. Yes, we must take special care of the children who are put at risk because of what is happening in the Mediterranean. She is absolutely right.

Operation Triton is the Frontex rescue mission that replaced Mare Nostrum. It has failed to live up to expectations. Operating at a third of the budget of Mare Nostrum, which saved 150,000 people in 2014, Triton was clearly overstretched, as the number of migrants making the journey to Italy increased by 30%. Sadly, and predictably, the number of deaths rose ninefold under Triton in the period leading up to May. That was tragically demonstrated between 16 and 20 April, when five ships containing around 2,000 migrants sank—1,200 people, including children, died. Triton’s resources were simply unable to cope with such a tragedy.

The subsequent emergency summit on 23 April tripled Triton’s budget to €120 million and expanded its patrol area. Better late than never. Federico Fossi of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees believes that that increase in resources has demonstrated results, and 6,000 people were rescued between 6 and 7 June. Before the emergency summit, aid organisations feared that the death toll would otherwise reach the tens of thousands.

I want to join the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and others in commending the British Government for dispatching HMS Bulwark to the area, and our servicemen and women for performing heroic tasks. Can the Minister today confirm that when Bulwark’s tour of duty ends on 5 July it will be adequately replaced by an equivalent mission? We must ensure that the rescue mission maintains these improved resources and learn our lesson that we simply cannot manage this problem with a small and poorly financed operation.

One proposed solution to the problem is quotas, which the Home Secretary discussed today with her EU counterparts in Luxembourg. However, as envisaged, quotas would be beset with complications, as any formal announcement may give the green light to the traffickers to send more ships. Particularly while those gangs are operating, mandatory resettlement will not completely solve the problem—a position held by France and Spain. But it is clear to me that burden sharing between Schengen countries is on the agenda.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend has said. Does he recall the urgent question in the closing days of the previous Parliament, when the Government were warned that any change in the sea rescue mission would endanger lives? Is it not absolutely vital that every effort is always made to rescue people, whatever the result of their application for refugee status might be? The rescue of human beings must be the first priority of any civilised society.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should try to make arrangements to stop the boats leaving in the first place, but once they are out in the Mediterranean we have a duty to try to save lives.

Anderson Report

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are extremely sensitive and often complicated matters of which the House is treating with great care. I point out that we have another statement to follow. I want to accommodate colleagues, but somewhat greater succinctness is required.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The overwhelming majority of the population at the time would no doubt have supported 90 days pre-charge detention. It is the job of the House of Commons to determine what is right—to get the right balance between the acute danger of terrorism and civil liberties, not to talk about what the large majority of the public may or may not want. We are elected to make the decision that we consider to be correct. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary intends to bring in a measure—rightly, in my view, described as the snoopers charter—which the previous Government could not introduce in the last Parliament because their coalition partner would not agree? As far as I am concerned—obviously, there will be a good deal of controversy about this—the snoopers charter is a greater affront to civil liberties than any measure that has been introduced or proposed in recent years.

[Mrs May]

The response I give on that misnomer of a piece of legislation is the same as I gave the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry): it is no such thing as it has been described. It is about ensuring merely that, as matters increasingly move into the digital age, the agencies are able to have access to the same sort of data as they have had access to in the past, which is used in the vast majority of serious crime cases—not just in investigation, but in bringing prosecutions of serious criminals—and in counter-terrorism investigations.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the 90 days of pre-charge detention. I point out to him that the Conservative party opposed that measure, and I remind him that it was his Labour Government who introduced 28 days of pre-charge detention, and the coalition Government who reduced it to 14 days.

Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments)

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I shall be brief. It seems clear that the House will approve the orders moved by the Minister today. He began by putting the situation and the reasons behind the orders in context. He knows, as Security Minister, that the country faces a severe threat.

Last week, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in one of our last sessions of this Parliament, heard the evidence of the relatives of Shamima, Amira and Khadiza, three young ladies aged 16, 15 and 15 who left Tower Hamlets and went to Syria. Only this morning, I met the families of two of the young men who have just returned from Istanbul. The families are wonderful people, hard working and dedicated to this country, and were as shocked as any of us would have been that their children had left the country and, in the case of the girls from Tower Hamlets, reached Syria and, in the case of the three young men, been brought back yesterday. I commend the police for their work, and the Turkish authorities in the latter case.

The Turkish ambassador gave us very good evidence last week, with a timeline. The situation was much better second time around, with phone calls being made instead of e-mails being sent. We need to commend people when things go right and this is a good news story in the fight against terrorism. We do not have many of them, but everyone worked together and we commend them for what they are doing.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am sure that we would all endorse what my right hon. Friend says and what the Minister said about the Turkish police and ensuring that the young people involved were returned to this country immediately. I cannot go further than that, as the Minister has stated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to probe further, even though the numbers are very small, and ask why it is that young people like those he mentioned, whose relatives we saw in the Home Affairs Committee last week, should wish to join a group motivated by mass murder, savage beatings, beheadings and sex slavery? More needs to be done to find the reasons why such youngsters, born and educated in this country, should wish to travel in the way they intended.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Committee has taken evidence from all the stakeholders involved, but it is the people who have gone abroad who really matter as we need to find out why they went in the first place. We need to get into their minds in some way, as he has said and as his questions in the Committee’s evidence sessions have tried to do, to find out why they make that decision, what turns them and what the tipping point is. They are brought up in this country, and by parents who obviously love and support them, but then suddenly they decide to go abroad. If I have one regret from all my years of chairing the Committee, it is that we have never been able to take evidence directly from those who have gone abroad. Some have come back, of course, but they are reluctant to talk to us, either formally or informally. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think that why people decide to go is something that successor Committees and the next Parliament will have to consider.

On the orders before the House, I fully support the instrument that brings into force the code of practice to enhance safeguards and ensure clear guidance on best practice with regard to the acquisition and retention of communications data. When the Committee took evidence from journalists on the matter—this is in the public domain, of course—we said that we believed there ought to be exceptions. The Government accept that the authorities need to be very careful when they stray into areas relating to freedom of the press. I think that the code does provide for that, so the Government are right to bring it before the House now rather than at some later date.

However, the Committee, in looking at the regulations before the House, strongly suggested that RIPA’s days had come and gone. Although it was acceptable at the time to pass that legislation, we felt that, frankly, it was being misused. Anecdotally, we have head about some local authorities using the powers in RIPA to spy on families deciding where to send their children to school. We felt that such misuse was probably going on in other areas, but we did not know because there was no proper and effective monitoring.

Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course, we are reintroducing exit checks. A certain amount of advance passenger information is available from airlines. We are looking at other ports of departure and the information that can be available. As I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, exit checks will be in place in April of this year.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am not aware that the media have made a hero of the individual who has been mentioned today, but is it not important to make it absolutely clear from this Parliament, not just from the Government, that the person who is responsible for the beheading of kidnapped British citizens should be brought to justice in whatever form is necessary and however long it takes?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we wish to bring to justice the individual who is responsible for the beheading of British hostages. There is an ongoing police investigation into that case and that is why I am not commenting any further on it. However, he is absolutely right that that individual should be brought to justice.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him and a number of other MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is not in the Chamber—[Interruption.] He is in a different place from normal. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) have all been particularly active in dealing with this issue, and I commend them for their work.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is absolutely right. My intention, hope and expectation is that the inquiry will now be able to get up and running, and to undertake the work it needs to do to bring truth and justice to the people who, sadly, have suffered from these terrible crimes. As I said in my statement, what I am announcing today will not be supported 100% by everybody. I hope, however, that everybody accepts that we need to get the inquiry under way, and that we need to support those involved—Justice Goddard and the panel members, when they are selected—to ensure that they can do the job we all want them to do.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the chair, since I will be at the pre-appointment hearing next Tuesday. May I say to the Home Secretary that although the inquiry—I hope it will get under way very shortly—should obviously be as thorough as possible, it should not go on endlessly for years and become another Chilcot? The people who have suffered so much, about whom the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary spoke very eloquently, deserve a conclusion. That is why it is so essential for the inquiry to come to a conclusion well within, say, 12 months.

[Mrs May]

I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the inquiry coming to a conclusion well within 12 months. I think that it will take longer than 12 months, but, as he said, it is important that it does not go on endlessly, seemingly being pushed ever and ever further into the future, with no report. This will of course be for the chairman of the inquiry to determine, but my own view is that it would be helpful to set a date by which a report will be made, even if at that point the inquiry says that it needs to do further work in certain areas. People need to see that there will be a report. Indeed, the inquiry will need to consider how to keep people updated on an ongoing basis during its work so that they do not feel that it is just going on behind closed doors.

Female Genital Mutilation

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as shadow Solicitor-General. If the British people vote in a Labour Government and he is fortunate enough to become Solicitor-General, his Department—the Attorney-General’s Office—will have responsibility for that, so it will be for him and the new Government to say, “We will change the law.”

The Committee made specific recommendations on mandatory reporting and the criminalisation of failing to do so. The professions, however, are not so keen on that and would prefer to deal with this on a professional basis. We need to keep the law under constant review, but there is already legislation in place that has not been used. If my hon. Friend becomes Solicitor-General, we will expect whoever is his DPP to be a little more active than their predecessors of the past 29 years in ensuring that things happen.

The World Health Organisation defines FGM as

“all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”

That will include, in our view, designer work on genitals that is done with the woman’s consent.

FGM is usually carried out on girls between infancy and the age of 15, with the majority of cases occurring between the ages of five and eight. It is commonly performed by a traditional practitioner who has no formal medical training, without any kind of drugs to assist with the pain that the young girls are suffering, and using knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass or even razor blades. We heard harrowing testimony during our inquiry of how girls are often forcibly restrained, in some cases by close members of their families, including their mother and aunts. While the performance of FGM might be done by a stranger with the instruments that I described, the act usually involves the connivance and support of members of the family including, in some cases, mothers.

During our inquiry, we heard some excellent evidence from those involved in dealing with FGM and campaigning on the issue. On Tuesday, we took evidence from two campaigners called Leyla Hussein and Alimatu Dimonekene. We also took evidence from Keith Niven, who is head of the rape and child abuse command in the Metropolitan police, Professor Nigel Mathers from the Royal College of General Practitioners and Janet Fyle from the Royal College of Midwives, all three of whom also gave evidence during the original inquiry. In addition, during the original inquiry, Leyla Hussein appeared before us, and we also took evidence from Professor Janice Rymer, Obi Amadi, a community practitioner, Dr Kerry Robinson, Dr Comfort Momoh, Linda Weil-Curiel, a lawyer from Paris, and Dr Emmanuelle Piet, a female gynaecologist who is county medical officer in a district in France.

The Committee’s conclusions were quite clear. We lamented the lack of prosecutions, so we were glad when Alison Saunders came before us to announce that prosecutions were taking place. Rather bizarrely, I found out about the first prosecutions on the Friday before that evidence session in a supermarket in Battersea, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is another great campaigner on FGM. We were there to talk about diabetes when the call came through to her that the first individuals had been arrested and would be charged. I pay tribute to all her work in the House on the issue both before and after she became a Minister, and she still has an interest as a Health Minister.

There is no doubt that prosecutions can send out the powerful message that the Government are serious about an issue, so the lack of prosecutions relating to FGM—only two in 29 years—is lamentable. The Committee said that we need many more prosecutions. It is not possible to match up the hundreds of thousands of girls affected worldwide, and the thousands affected or at risk in our country, with the fact that there have been only two prosecutions. We are not saying that we should prosecute for the sake of it; we are asking why there have not been sufficient prosecutions, and that is when we must look to the various agencies and their reactions.

Hon. Members will know that whenever the Select Committee conducts an inquiry, we come away with one standard recommendation: agencies concerned with a policy area have to work together. That is absolutely clear as far as FGM is concerned. There are some individual practitioners—Dr Comfort Momoh, for example, whom we visited at St Thomas’s hospital to look at her clinic and to talk to some of the women who were waiting to see her—who have tried to bring agencies together, but the process has taken far too long, and the agencies involved have become institutionalised.

We were especially critical about the lack of action by the police. We were not very impressed with the evidence given by the Association of Chief Police Officers lead. We did not feel that the answer to FGM was more seminars, discussions and conferences. We believe that the action required as a result of our report should be on the front line, engaging with community organisations to ensure that action is taken. We were not pleased with what the police had done.

On Tuesday, Detective Chief Superintendent Niven reminded us of evidence that had been given to us previously: the police cannot take any action if there are not sufficient referrals. At that time, the police were saying that it was not their responsibility, as they would act and investigate as soon as somebody came to them, and bemoaned the fact that not enough people were reporting the issue. We therefore must go to the next stage in the chain: social workers and doctors. The Committee believes that when doctors examine a young girl and find that FGM has been committed against her, they are under a duty to report it. We were of a view that there should be mandatory reporting, with a sanction for those who fail to report. Colleagues from the Committee—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) here, as he took part in the inquiry sessions—put this question to all our witnesses: what should the sanction be? A number of them talked about the need for criminal sanctions, depending on the seriousness of the failure to report, which suggested that some individuals deliberately wished not to report, while others did not know what they were looking at.

Frankly, I was surprised to hear from some of our witnesses that doctors might not know what FGM is. Given that it takes seven years to train a doctor and medicine is one of the most difficult subjects to get into at university, I would have thought that most people who came out of that training would know whether FGM has been committed against a patient, rather than requiring further training. Of course we need particular FGM training, but doctors ought to know when something is wrong. I was really surprised that people, including social workers, were saying, “Well, the doctors might not know.” When we asked why, they said, “They may not be trained about it.” That is a big area that we need to look at, and the Committee believes it is important that we do so.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The information given to us by a number of witnesses was that although prosecutions in Britain have been very few—there have been hardly any, although the first are now taking place—in France there have been 40, and sentences have been imposed. Why should there be that difference, bearing in mind that this barbaric custom must be eliminated as far as we are able to do so?

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The French need to be congratulated on the way they have dealt with the issue. He will recall the evidence given to the Committee by the witnesses from France whom I have already mentioned. I went over to Paris to meet doctors and prosecutors, and I was extremely impressed by not just the passion of those on the front line but the willingness of the authorities themselves to get things done. We went to meet the officials of the relevant Minister. They were determined to ensure that that willingness continued. We could not understand why there was a difference between what the French were doing and what we were doing, with so many prosecutions in France and only two in our country.

We asked every one of our witnesses from Britain whether they had gone over to France to look at good practice. Frankly, none had done so, from the ACPO lead to those who run our royal colleges. It is really important that we compare what is being done abroad to ensure that we are doing the right thing.

We also believe it is important that all schools provide training for teachers on the issue on in-service training days. Although we did not take direct evidence from schools to the extent that we would have wished, simply because we did not have time to see everyone, we felt that that training was important. Teachers and those in the education profession should be aware of and able to deal with the issue. If we look at a place such as London, there is no reason why every teacher in every school ought not to be made aware of the problem. They should be told about it and told exactly what to do about it, so that we can get to the truth of what is happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Winnick]

In order that there is no misunderstanding by those who may be sensitive, in the medical profession or elsewhere, that this could be a form of racism, should we not make it absolutely clear that what we are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with the Islam religion as such and that the leading campaigners—very courageous people whom we should praise, as I am sure my right hon. Friend has done—are themselves Muslims?

[Keith Vaz]

Yes. I support that absolutely. I am sure that my hon. Friend was moved, as I was, by the fact that Leyla Hussein broke down in tears before the Select Committee on Tuesday when she was asked whether she had been subjected to death threats and other threats to her and her family. The courage of people such as Leyla Hussein goes against those who believe that some kind of political correctness means that people cannot talk about these subjects—that the community is somehow on its own and no one can comment. As my hon. Friend said, this is barbarism—brutality—and it needs to be dealt with. There is no community, religious or political justification for what is going on, which is why it needs to be stopped.

To finish my point on the medical profession, it needs to do much more. This country does not do mandatory examinations of young children as France does. That is not what we do here, but we believe that if a doctor comes across this, there should be a mandatory duty to report.

Let me deal finally with where we go from here and what the Select Committee hopes will happen to its report. The Home Affairs Committee does not believe in publishing reports with a lot of recommendations and then just walking away from them. That is why this week we revisited the conclusions of this report and took fresh evidence. I can say now, even though we have not written another report, that I was not overly impressed that huge progress has been made since we published this report, but we made a promise to the campaigners that we would look at the issue again, so we will produce a report as a result of our revisiting it. However, it will be for our successor Committee in the new Parliament to look at it again.

The worst possible thing that we could do for those who suffer every day is to produce a report, let it lie on the shelf, wait for the Government response and not pursue it. We wish to pursue this matter until we see real change, and I do not mean just the kind of FGM that we have been discussing today. We raised with all witnesses that which is happening as we speak in places such as Harley street—private clinics that women go into to create what are described as designer vaginas. They consent to that happening; they are not forced to do it by individuals holding them down. They go voluntarily, for whatever reason—peer pressure or another reason—and have these operations themselves. I believe that this should be a criminal offence, and I am very pleased that all the witnesses who gave evidence to us this week—barring Detective Chief Superintendent Niven, who thought there should be a debate about this—also felt very strongly that it should be a criminal offence.

The argument is that we can allow this to happen if there is consent and it is done in the private sector, but not if it is done in people’s homes and redone sometimes in the public sector when women go to hospitals and doctors perform the operation again, for whatever reason. We should not have double standards. That is why I believe that what we have proposed should happen.

I wish that I could say in conclusion that, as a result of something we have done, someone has been prevented from being the subject of FGM. We do not claim that. All we say is that we hope that we have raised the issue in a positive and constructive way. I believe that we are pushing at an open door. Government and Opposition are united on doing something about this. I saw the Prime Minister’s personal commitment during the Girl summit. Leaders came from all over the world to support the initiative that he and the Department for International Development had taken.

The Minister should take credit for the Girl summit and her involvement in that. Everyone is for it and everyone is united, but this practice is still going on in London, Leicester, Bristol and Manchester and is not being stopped. We have to stop it, because that is the right thing to do, it is the humane thing to do and it protects the human rights of girls and women.

Child Abuse Inquiry

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The inquiry will be looking into significant issues and it will not be able to come to decisions in a short space of time. However, the panel members I have spoken to are clear—as am I—that they should recognise the need for striking a balance between getting to decisions and ensuring that they are doing the full job. This is not an inquiry that should simply be pushed into the long grass, and we need to have some answers for the survivors within a reasonable period of time. I have said before in the House that the inquiry panel, under the new chairman, will have to look into whether they report to survivors and survivors groups, to this House and more widely on a more ongoing basis than would normally be the case, because of the nature of the issues that they are dealing with.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I do not for one moment doubt the Home Secretary’s commitment to holding a thorough inquiry, but does she acknowledge that if someone had set out to wreck the whole process from the very beginning, that person could not have done a more effective job than this? I hope she recognises that this is a tragedy. It goes beyond Ministers or Back Benchers or anything of the kind. As far as the survivors are concerned, what has occurred is a tragedy—first, when they were abused, and now with what appears, to them at least, to have been a farce since the inquiry was established.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that survivors will rightly be concerned to ensure that the panel inquiry is established on the basis on which they wish it to be established, with a chairman, and that it gets on with its role. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, when the inquiry was first established, it was based on the model that we had used for the Hillsborough inquiry, which had been very successful. We felt that that was an appropriate model to use in the circumstances. In discussions with survivors and others, however, it became clear—particularly from the survivors—that they felt that statutory powers were needed, which is why I have indicated that when the inquiry continues under a new chairman, it will do so on a statutory basis.