Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Paisley and Yvette Cooper

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We support a series of measures where we think the Government should go further. We will table amendments in Committees and we will probe the detail of the Government’s legislation. I am happy to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about the details of those issues, as they are immensely important.

There are areas where we should do more to take back from criminals the assets that they have stolen from victims of crime right across the country. The aspects that we highlighted in the past related to preventing criminals from switching their assets to family and friends and getting away with it, and toughening sentences to deal with the problem of people serving only short sentences, even though they were continuing to squirrel away huge illegal gains. We support the measures to give more powers to the courts to tackle so-called designer divorces and third parties keeping hold of assets, and we support plans to require offenders to pay swiftly. The Government accept that more can still be done and we will probe this further in Committee.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

What has the shadow Home Secretary got to say about those people in Northern Ireland who make a packet out of smuggling fuel and counterfeit vodka, which was described in the Sunday Independent this week as a multi-million pound vodka moonshine operation by the IRA? People such as Mr Murphy and Mr Hughes, who operate in the border area, have never been put in jail and have never been prosecuted for such activity, yet they are at it at large. What can be done to put those people where they deserve to be?

[Yvette Cooper]

Wherever racketeering and exploitation take place, action should be taken to tackle those serious crimes. It is a problem that we highlighted from the beginning, when the legislation for the National Crime Agency was drawn up, but Northern Ireland is not covered by the work of the National Crime Agency. That continues to be a challenge and to cause problems.

If we can increase the resources taken from the proceeds of crime, that will help victims and also help to improve and support the criminal justice system. I welcome the Home Secretary’s comment today that she believes the Bill will raise additional resources and will save money, and that she will consider extending the relevant measure to those who owe less than the £10 million provided for in the Bill. That is the same policy that she claimed this morning would cost £19 million, and her own document claimed would not save any money at all because it assumed that no one would change their behaviour. So she said one thing at noon and something completely different at 5.30 in the afternoon, and undermined her claims from this morning.

Many other aspects of the Bill have been added as a result of strong campaigns and amendments put forward or supported by Labour in the Lords and by many Members across this House. We welcome, for example, the three new clauses and new schedules added in the Lords for stronger action against the appalling and barbaric crime of female genital mutilation that takes place against young girls. We have called for stronger prevention orders and are glad that they are included, as well as the measures on anonymity for victims and stronger responsibility. I pay tribute to some of the campaign groups which have worked so hard, as well as hon. Members who have pursued the issues. We will look further at the detail in Committee.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between Ian Paisley and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As we understand it, no restrictions will be in place for these six men, regardless of the security risk. We do not know what the security assessment of these six men is; that is why the Home Secretary needs to tell us. She may now believe that they are no longer a risk and that no further restrictions are needed. If further restrictions are needed, however, we need to know what they are. We are happy to engage in a cross-party discussion about whether further legislation and changes are needed, but we need answers from the Home Secretary on the security assessment of these men.

Let us take the man known as AM, for example. The Government have argued that he was part of

“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic airlines by suicide bombing”.

Here is what the judge said just 18 months ago:

“But for the disruption of the transatlantic airlines plot, there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people.”

Those are the judge’s words. He also said that

“convincing evidence of a change of heart was required before the Secretary of State could reasonably consider that the need to protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism had gone or been reduced to a level at which preventative measures were no longer required.”

The Home Secretary has now removed those preventive measures. Does she believe that there has been

“convincing evidence of a change of heart”?

Does she have evidence that

“the need to protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism”

has gone? I have cited what the court said 18 months ago, but what does the Home Secretary say about AM now? Once again, I give her the opportunity to intervene to answer the question whether she believes that AM is still a risk.

There are others, such as the man known as BF. Just seven months ago, the Home Secretary described him as a

“long term, committed and historically well connected extremist”

who

“maintains a desire to travel overseas and he would seek to travel after restrictions are removed and he would seek to engage in terrorist related activities.”

That was seven months ago; what has changed? Is he still a risk; yes or no? Then there is the man known as CE. The Home Secretary told the courts that he was trying to travel to Somalia to engage in terror-related activity and that he was linked to a UK-based network of Islamist extremists who are fundraising and supporting terrorism in Somalia. Is he still a risk; yes or no?

The courts confirmed nine months ago that CF had attempted to travel to Afghanistan to engage in suicide operations, while the Security Service said he was fundraising for al-Shabaab and recruiting fighters from the UK. Is he still a risk? The man known as BM is accused of fundraising for terrorist organisations in Pakistan and of trying to travel there to engage in terror-related activities. Is he still a risk?

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Perhaps the Member known as YC will tell the House what measures she would introduce to replace those to which she is referring.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an important question. We think that the decision about the framework must depend on the security assessment, to which the Government have access but we do not. We believe that it was wrong to introduce the two-year limit in the first place, and wrong to remove the relocation powers. That was our view when the legislation was passed, and we continue to be concerned about those issues. However, we are willing to work with the Government and with other parties, on a cross-party basis, to consider what the framework should be now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) advanced important proposals which have also been advanced by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. There may be other options, and we think it important for those to be debated, but they need to be debated in the light of the security assessment.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the right hon. Lady agree with the independent reviewer that there should be a licence system, or does she recognise its weakness?

[Yvette Cooper]

The independent reviewer’s proposals should be looked at very seriously. As I have said, there may be other options, such as the extension of time limits. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, any set of proposals will involve limitations. This is the kind of debate we ought to be having in Parliament, but it needs to be informed by that proper security assessment.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Members of this House who opposed civil partnerships now strongly support them. Members of the House of Lords, including bishops, voted against civil partnerships when they were introduced, yet many in the Church now support blessings for civil partnerships. Attitudes have changed and it is right that they have. We should support that and support them as they change further.

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I want to make a little progress.

[Ian Paisley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but the facts paint a very different picture. Since same-sex marriages were introduced in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, the number of mixed-sex marriages has decreased considerably—indeed, by tens and tens of thousands—[Interruption.] The facts are clear. When they were introduced in Spain, 208,000 people were married in mixed-sex marriages, whereas last year 161,000 people were married in mixed-sex marriages, so the numbers are declining, not increasing. The introduction of this legislation could reduce the number of parties in which the right hon. Lady appears to be interested.

[Yvette Cooper]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the long-term trends in marriage across a series of different countries, including those that have same-sex marriage and those that do not, he will struggle to find a causal connection suggesting that the fact that some gay and lesbian couples can now get married means that heterosexual couples are all running from the church door or the registry office.

It is worth hearing why many gay and lesbian couples say they want to get married. One gay man told me:

“My parents have a really strong marriage—I’ve always seen how meaningful and important it is. We want the same thing—it’s hard to explain but its about the value of our relationship. I want my nieces and nephews to feel that Uncle Adam and Uncle James are getting married, just like their Mum and Dad.”

Another said,

“we want to have the same celebration and status as our parents and grandparents—it’s about being normal. I want to have children. But I believe children are brought up better in a married relationship.”

Someone else said,

“I asked the question, ‘Simon will you marry me’ he said yes. I said ‘Marry me’, not ‘would you like a civil partnership’”.

Civil partnerships have been a fantastic step forward, providing for the first time proper legal recognition for same-sex relationships, and they continue to be a great source of great joy and of security. It was right of Labour to introduce them in the face of deep controversy, but it is time to take the next step for equality and to allow gay and lesbian couples the chance to marry if they choose to.

Another person reminded me of the practical differences that some people face when they are in a civil partnership. They have to declare their sexuality every time they fill in a form for something such as a mortgage or insurance, as there is a different box for someone in a civil partnership than for someone who is married. Why should they have to? Another person said:

“Language does matter. Marriage is universally understood as a meaningful commitment. People might say that in time civil partnerships will mean exactly the same. We say: ‘why wait?’”

Why should they wait—they want to celebrate their relationship now—when they could get married?