Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The compensation culture to which my hon. Friend refers means that honest drivers are having to pay higher premiums because of abuses, especially in whiplash claims. That is why the Government have put in place measures to deter unnecessary speculative and exaggerated claims, while ensuring that genuine claimants can come forward and have proper redress. In the first phase of our measures, which will start next month, there will be fixed costs of £180 for medical reports, which in the past had been as high as £700.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There have been many examples across the whole United Kingdom of scams being carried out by a number of individuals with different insurance companies. Is it not time that insurance companies exchanged ideas and ensured that they are forensically competent in dealing with fraud?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That exchange of ideas is happening, and we are encouraging it to happen more.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to say a few words about this Bill, and I congratulate the Secretary of State in his absence on bringing it before the House. I support the principle of the Bill. That may come as a bit of a blow to my colleagues in the Opposition and is probably unusual, but I feel that the principles behind the Bill are right, and its theme and thrust appropriate. I am aware that the Bill currently relates only to England and Wales, but I give it my full support and I am both hopeful and confident that in future it will extend to Northern Ireland so that protection is given and awarded to volunteers. I am reminded of the comedy programme back in the ’70s—you will be much too young to recall it, Madam Deputy Speaker—called “Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width”: do not judge the Bill by the fact that it contains only five clauses; it is important that we judge it on its content.

In 2007, a national survey of volunteering found that 47% of people who do not volunteer said that one of the main reasons for their not doing so was the fear of being sued. We are in a very litigious age in which people are sued for the smallest things, sometimes without justification. However, the number of people volunteering is increasing and it is estimated that about 15 million people volunteer every month. That is a fantastic number who contribute on a volunteer basis every month of the year to help very many people. As Members of Parliament, each one of us will be aware of the impact of those volunteers. That is great news, and it is even better that 28% of young people between 16 and 25 volunteer—something that I know in Northern Ireland is supported and encouraged by schools and universities. Volunteering gives those young people experience and discipline when it comes to making a contribution and giving time each day.

I was speaking to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), about the age of litigation, and I reminded him of a story from back home. It was the Christmas before last and there was terrible snow and ice in the streets in front of the shops. The shopkeepers said, “Should we clear the ice? We are afraid that if we do so we will find ourselves in a position where if someone falls outside the shop, we will be held responsible.” It turned out that those shopkeepers cleared the ice anyway and took the chance, and everything worked out okay. However, their fear was that someone could fall and that they would be held responsible. I suspect that the Bill will address such cases.

There are provisions in the Compensation Act 2006 for those caught up in litigation, but I completely support and agree with the aims of this Bill, which are to ensure that the good Samaritans out there, and the thousands of volunteers and charitable groups across the UK, are not put off helping for fear of getting into difficulties. Those thousands of volunteers and charitable groups—the good Samaritans of this world whom we all know—are those we need to help. The Bill will ensure that people receive what I believe is a “fair trial”, and those who have been acting for the benefit of society will not be punished for their actions or interventions. The Bill will also seek to protect those acting in an emergency.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) intervened at the beginning of the debate to speak about floods in the south of England and the people who react to emergencies. Will they be held responsible? I hope that the Bill will reassure such people and recognise that they were simply trying to help. Again, there is a clear issue there.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is outlining circumstances of deep winter and people clearing snow, or flooding in south- east England. Does he agree that when dealing with people who voluntarily try to help others, we need to see substantive evidence during the passage of the Bill that the situation will be dramatically different in future?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In his introduction, the Minister—and, to be fair, the shadow Minister—made the point that the Bill is trying to achieve much in principle, but will probably need to be firmed up. My hon. Friend is right, but that will come out through the Committee stage, and everyone will have the chance to contribute.

Helping someone in need seems like the natural response, and so it should be on every occasion, but everything has become so bureaucratic these days that people will often cross to the other side of the street—unlike the good Samaritan in the Bible—because they fear that they might become part of a conflicting or illegal situation. It is important that people do not turn a blind eye, or develop a Nelson’s eye, to what is going on. They should continue to have a compassionate interest in people and in what they can do to help.

I fully support this Bill, and believe that it will bring positive changes to the current system. Hopefully, it will encourage the 47% of people who are concerned about volunteering to do so. A number of people had expressed their concerns about volunteering, fearing that it could have an impact on them in the event of litigation. Hopefully, the Bill will address that issue as well.

This Bill will also protect those who are acting in a “generally responsible way” when an accident occurs. For example, there are youth leaders who organise numerous events and trips throughout the year for young people. People in such roles do fantastic jobs, which is why I think this is a worthwhile Bill to support.

I was disheartened to hear that some of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches have concerns about the Bill. Hopefully, they are frivolous concerns, and when it comes to discussing the contents of the Bill, they will come together to support it. This Bill is certainly not a waste of time; I believe it is something that people want to see. Given the importance that is placed on voluntary work in this economic climate, particularly for young people—the Prime Minister has talked about volunteers many times—it is a vital piece of legislation to introduce, and the benefits will be there for young people as well. The Bill will ensure that further checks and balances will exist for anyone making unmeritorious claims, and as an outcome we expect they will be deterred from making such claims. I hope to see the Bill introduced in Northern Ireland in the not-too-distant future. Given the large number of volunteers in Strangford, who do a really tremendous, worthwhile job, and whom we could not be without, I certainly welcome its introduction.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so keen to agree that I got carried away.

The amendments deal with the new antisocial behaviour powers in parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, and I will deal briefly with each one in turn. Members will, I am sure, have watched with interest the proceedings in the House of Lords on the test for issuing an injunction in part 1 of the Bill. Because of the clear vote in the Lords, where there seems to be a majority, and in the light of that debate, the Government has accepted that the test for an injunction should be amended. Lords amendments 1 and 5 will provide for a two-tier test, and the nuisance or annoyance test will continue to be used to deal with housing-related antisocial behaviour. In all other circumstances, the test of harassment, alarm or distress will apply.

The Government believes that the fears raised in the Lords and by campaign groups were unfounded, and our view is shared by the Law Society and housing providers who have been using the nuisance or annoyance test responsibly and proportionately for more than a decade. The suggestion was made that we somehow wanted to curtail the activities of carol singers. It is slightly difficult to believe that any Government would want to do that, and that we would mis-write legislation to enable that to occur. We are then expected to believe that a local council or police officer would want to use the legislation to ban carol singers. We are then expected to believe that any court in the land would deem it proportionate, just and convenient to ban carol singers. Of course, by the time a court had so decided, several weeks on, the carol singers would have left the place where they were singing and it would not be possible to capture them. I think that that example shows some of the exaggeration and scaremongering that have occurred on this proposal. The Lords have spoken, however, and we have listened carefully. It is a democratic Parliament and we have therefore accepted, largely, the substance of Lord Dear’s amendments.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I do not take exception to the Minister’s comments, but those of religious persuasion who are concerned about the proposed changes support the view that the Lords have put forward. Will the Minister confirm that the position of those of religious persuasion and religious beliefs will not be in any way changed?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, I am happy to deal with the issue of religious beliefs. Lords amendments 2 and 19 respond to concerns by the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the provision in clauses 1 and 21 that requires a court to avoid, so far as practicable, imposing prohibitions or requirements in an injunction or a criminal behaviour order that would conflict with a respondent’s religious beliefs. The amendments remove this wording, as the right to hold a religious belief is absolute. It was simply the manifestation of a person’s religious beliefs that we intended the provision to capture, but a court would be obliged to consider this in any case to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Act. That being the case, the neatest solution is simply to remove the provision. That is what has happened, and I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I sympathise greatly and understand the issue that the hon. Lady raises. In the case of someone against whom a domestic complaint has been made to the police which is unsubstantiated, how would that be taken care of, in the Opposition’s view, under impending legislation? Incidents are not always taken as proof; there may be only complaints that are not substantiated.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He is right that incidents of domestic violence do not always make it to court for a number of reasons, usually involving the vulnerability of the victims, but in such cases the police would have to find credible evidence of domestic violence or drug or alcohol abuse, and that refusal could be challenged in court. As a first premise, we should be clear that we should not put guns in the hands of people with such a record. We know that there are people who need to hold guns for a number of reasons. For example, farmers—some of my relatives are farmers—and vets do, but we should not be putting guns into the hands of people with a record of domestic violence. I hope that in time the Government will see that.

I shall comment briefly on the amendments to deal with child sexual exploitation, particularly amendment 76, which allows closure of premises suspected of harbouring those who have committed child abuse. We know from the cases that have happened in Rochdale, Oxford and other towns in this country how horrific some of this abuse has been. The reviews from Oxford and Rochdale were very clear that certain premises were repeatedly used for grooming and sexual exploitation. It was, in my view, impossible for the proprietors of those premises not to know what was taking place there. In Oxford it was guest houses in particular, and it was horrific beyond belief.

When the Minister responds to the debate, will he clarify one point in particular? For a closure order there has to be reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has occurred. This could be a sexual offence against a child, but the obvious thing that we are likely to be dealing with in such situations is grooming, and the offence of grooming is quite a hard one to establish. That is why there are few convictions for it. The adult has to have met and communicated with the child twice, and the adult must then meet the child and, at that time, the offender must have the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify for us how the police will have a reasonable suspicion of all aspects of the offence of grooming, and whether the difficulties in establishing this will prevent the power from being used. If that is found to be the case as time goes on, will he undertake to come back to the House with further proposals if necessary? This issue is causing deep disquiet in some of our communities, and rightly so. When we are talking about protecting children, we should err on the side of caution—on the side of children, as it were, rather than anyone else.

Deaths in Custody (Legal Aid)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

Let me deal with a point directly. The family did not choose to be in this position; the Coroners Act 1988 demands an inquest. We in this House are the people who insist on the position my constituents are now in, and we do so for a very good reason: we want to know what happened. Our predecessors in this Parliament felt so strongly about the unchecked actions of an arbitrary state that they deposed the monarch and fought a war to insist on the liberty of the individual and a measure of their protection—we want to know what happened.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There were 5,998 deaths in police custody in the 11 years from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there must be a method for families to access support in suspicious cases and that legal aid is an important part of that support for grieving families?

[Mr Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some will say, “We should not get too worked up about this. The inquest process is inquisitorial not adversarial. It is just a gentle canter around the facts.” But when we are dealing with death in custody, it is different. How can we tell? It is because the public servants represented at the inquests will not just have one lawyer; they will have teams of lawyers, paid for by the taxpayer, on their side. We have to ask ourselves: how can we allow such a profound inequality of arms in the inquest room? How can we pretend to ourselves that that is even remotely equal, fair or right? There is now growing evidence, not just in my home city of Birmingham, but across the country, that wrongful legal aid decisions are being made in cases such as this. Many in this House will have seen the tragic case confronting Alex Kelly’s family, which was highlighted in The Observer on Sunday, and INQUEST, an organisation I wish to praise to high heaven, has brought to me a number of other cases where bad decisions are being made in our name.

In the short time remaining to me, I want to put five questions to the Minister. I appreciate that he will not be able to answer all of them tonight, so I hope that he will follow up in writing and that the House will be able to return to this subject, perhaps in the light of the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) later in the year. First, will the Minister meet me to discuss the legal aid decision in my constituent’s case? The case clearly meets the threshold of having “wider public interest'” set out in section 2.4 of the Legal Services Commission’s funding code criteria, which refers to the “potential” of the proceedings

“to produce real benefits for individuals other than the client”.

Secondly, when will the Lord Chancellor bring into effect section 51 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which will extend advocacy support to those who died in custody? No stand part debate was held on that measure and, to the best of my knowledge, the Minister was not in the House to vote on the Bill on Third Reading. I do not believe the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats opposed this legislation when it was brought to the House, so will the Government give us a date for bringing in section 51 as soon as possible?

Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that it is ministerial policy, and not simply administrative discretion, to seek a contribution from the family in inquests where a death in state custody has occurred? Fourthly, will the Minister tonight agree to a review of the way families are offered support and funding for inquest costs, not least because there is now evidence that the process is out of control, with the most invasive questions being asked of families in order for them to prove they do not have the resources to help contest these cases? Finally, will the Minister tell us how many families have been asked to make a contribution since 2010? What is the total bill that families in this country are now paying for cases such as this?

When I asked my constituent what she wanted from tonight’s debate, her answer was as generous as she is compassionate. “Hopefully,” she said, “we can change this for other people so that they will not have to suffer what we have suffered.” When all is said and done, the question at the heart of this debate is simple. It is the story of a mother’s loss, a mother’s love and a mother’s search for justice. Will we, in this House, stand on a mother’s side, or will we stand against her? When we begin work in this House each day, we pray for strength and wisdom to make the right decisions. I hope that we can now call on that strength and wisdom and make the right decisions in the case of my constituent and her lost son.

Dangerous Driving

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, indeed, but that of course is a separate point. As I hope I indicated, I have listened carefully to what has been said, specifically about sentencing for the offence of causing death while disqualified from driving. We will take away everything that has been said, but I have paid particular attention to his point. The Justice Secretary wrote to the Sentencing Council—as it now is—asking it to review the death by driving guideline, and it has agreed to include that in its programme of work.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being present earlier. Is there a reciprocal agreement between this country and the Northern Ireland Assembly that if someone is disqualified from driving in Northern Ireland, that disqualification will apply in England, and vice versa?

[Jeremy Wright]

We have striven to ensure that disqualifications, wherever they take place, are reflected in the knowledge of the courts here. I am sure that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman more specific reassurance in writing, but I am confident that what he says is correct. I am sure that those of us on this side of the water would want to know about disqualifications on the other side.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Last month, the National Association of Probation Officers held one of the biggest ever rallies in Parliament and called on the Government to rethink their proposals to privatise probation. Two large Committee Rooms overflowed with members of the association, but what struck me was that their main concern was public safety. Even their own jobs came third or fourth in the list, which illustrated the fact that their concerns were genuine and heartfelt.

When the Bill reached its Report stage in the other place, the Government were defeated by a cross-party amendment that now stands as clause 1. The clause states that no reform of the structure of the probation service may be made by the Government

“unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”

Before he left the Chamber today, the Secretary of State said that he would reverse that provision in Committee. He wants to do that because it challenges the Government’s intention, which is to bring about wholesale change to probation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government are planning to do that in spite of a tremendous public outcry and fierce opposition from the probation sector itself and the criminal justice system more widely.

On Thursday last, I attended a conference in London with representatives of the police forces, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the fire service, local authorities, housing associations and police and crime commissioners all coming together. These were practitioners who know how these plans will affect community safety and crime levels on our streets. During a discussion on plans to reform probation, not a single person spoke up in favour of the Government’s proposals.

I understand that the Government intend to use the Offender Management Act 2007 as the vehicle through which to abolish probation trusts and to create new community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service. The 2007 Act, of course, enabled probation trusts to work with third sector voluntary organisations and possibly the private sector to ensure that services could be carried out locally.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that subject, I understand that voluntary organisations have expressed some concern that providers should not be able to park these offenders who have complex and expensive cases. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that this legislation does not address that properly?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I was not in the Chamber yesterday, so may I welcome the Minister to his new post and let him know that any conspiracy theories he comes up with about me will probably be true?

The Opposition accept the need to deal decisively with forced marriage in Scotland, as in England, and we are pleased that the Government are extending to Scotland provisions that make forcing someone into a marriage a criminal offence. We therefore support the new clause and its consequential amendments. It was clear from evidence taken in Committee that there are differing views on the issue, and some who are active in the sector oppose the use of criminal law in that area because they believe it would deter victims from reporting what is happening to them. That is an understandable view, but not one I share. Victims of forced marriage are British. They are of many ages, although many are young people. British boys and girls, of whatever colour, deserve the same protection as every other British boy and girl.

It is important to make the point that forced marriages are not about religious beliefs—they are not condoned by any of the major faiths, whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Forced marriages are about abuse, often of children. What we condemn as abuse in any other sector of society cannot be condoned because of the colour of a person’s skin, their ethnic background or their parents’ culture. I am therefore glad that new clause 9 will make coercing someone into a marriage a criminal offence in all parts of the UK. I hope we will give young people, their communities and others the confidence to challenge forced marriage and to stand up and say no, knowing that they are supported by the law throughout the country, and, I would hope, by others in the community.

It is fair to say that, in some respects, Scotland has moved ahead of the rest of the UK on the matter because, as the Minister has said, breach of a forced marriage protection order is a criminal offence in Scotland, as it will be in the rest of the UK when the Bill becomes law. It is therefore clearly right that new clause 9 extends the criminal offence of coercing someone into a marriage into Scottish law. However, the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to do much more. No forced marriage protection orders have been issued in Scotland since its current legislation came into force, and yet no one would seriously argue that there were no forced marriages last year. In fact, the UK forced marriage unit gave support in 1,483 cases related to possible forced marriage. That is a high number, but the National Centre for Social research report published in 2009 estimated that there were between 5,000 and 8,000 reported cases throughout the UK each year. Of course, many cases go unreported.

The Opposition therefore support the Government’s legislation for Scotland and the rest of the UK, but I should tell the Minister that the legislation by itself is not enough. We need to put in place a system that allows people to report when they are at risk of forced marriage, that encourages them to report, and that offers them the support they need. Currently, that is sadly lacking. For example, much more work needs to be done in schools, so that teachers are alert to the signs that a pupil might be being forced into marriage. Young people need to be educated so that, if they or one of their friends are at risk, they know where to seek help.

I therefore ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to raise awareness of forced marriage. Where is the money to fund such a campaign? In 2012, the forced marriage unit said that many agencies, whether those dealing with children or with vulnerable adults, still did not recognise forced marriage as a safeguarding issue. That is totally unacceptable. There is evidence that police throughout the UK recognise the need to deal with forced marriage proactively, but other agencies—not just schools, but colleges and health organisations—still have a long way to go. I hope Ministers discuss the measures needed with the Scottish Government, so that we can develop a common approach throughout these islands.

We must have training not only for teachers to allow them to recognise the signs that their students are at risk, but for others. Teachers are important because, sometimes, they are the only person outside the family with whom a victim has contact at first. I remember the tragic case of Shafilea Ahmed in my area—she lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). She was so desperate that she drank bleach when she was taken to Pakistan. Later, she was missing for a week before anyone from the school raised the fact that she was not there, despite the warning signs she had given. Teachers did not intervene, and health workers did not follow up or ask the right questions. In the end, she was tragically murdered. I tell the Minister that, although the legislation is welcome, the Opposition want to know what he will do to ensure there is not another Shafilea.

Social services provision is struggling because of the draconian cuts the Minister’s Government are making to council services. Women’s refuges have lost a third of their budget, and refuges and specialist advice services are closing. There is evidence that services that cater for women from black and ethnic minority communities are particularly hard hit. One test of the willingness of both the Scottish Government and the coalition Government to enforce the provisions will be whether they provide the services that people need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the hon. Lady’s submission to the House that more focus should be on certain cultural or ethnic groups rather than having a generic focus? I ask because the examples she gives—other hon. Members will give similar ones—come from certain cultural areas. Should the financial focus be on those areas to help them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I welcome what the Government are doing. It is quite brave. Dealing with any topic such as this one fuels great passions. All of us love dogs, but those of us who are parents feel slight fear when we see an unruly dog in a playground or somewhere else.

We have to strike a proper balance. The whole thrust of what the Government are doing in this area is to simplify and make flexible antisocial behaviour legislation so it can be more easily used. Therefore I urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, although I accept they have been tabled for understandable and strong reasons, and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) certainly made a very good contribution. We ought to go forward with what is being proposed, which is CPNs, and see whether they deliver what the Government have assured us they will.

There are DPNs in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the Government have looked at them and concluded they would rather have CPNs. If devolution is to mean anything, it must allow Scotland and Northern Ireland to go their own way and the rest of the United Kingdom to go a different way if it perceives that is a better way to deal with the problem.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Syms]

No.

We all know the problem is irresponsible dog owners, and the Government’s raft of proposed legislation ought to be able to deal with that effectively. I therefore urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, but I also urge him to give special attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said. The Committee came up with some refreshing ideas. Some of the Back-Bench Members had meetings with Ministers, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Lord de Mauley. The refreshing thing was that they were prepared to look at the issue of the tariff and sentencing. A consultation took place in the summer, and although my hon. Friend is disappointed that it has not yet been published and any changes will be made in the House of Lords, by Whitehall standards this is the speed of light: we have a Bill, we meet a Minister, the Minister undertakes to have a consultation, we have the consultation and in a matter of weeks something will come back to the other place. That is pretty good, so I welcome what the DEFRA officials and the Minister have said.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I want to focus my remarks on new clause 4. Part 8 of the Bill deals with firearms, and I broadly welcome the Government’s proposals on sentencing, but I urge them to go further on checks and fees. Following the Dunblane shootings in 1996, in which 16 children and one teacher lost their lives, the Labour Government were right to ban handguns and introduce tough new licensing laws, but it is also right that we, as parliamentarians, periodically review such laws. I therefore commend the Minister for the introduction of these proposals.

Despite the UK having one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the world, it is no secret that there are pockets of the country in which the criminal use of firearms remains a problem. It is often most notable in large cities, where gangs can plague communities. However, it would be wrong to assume that the sale or transfer of prohibited firearms is the only consideration that Parliament should look to reform.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right to pursue legislative change against law-abiding citizens who do not transgress? Would it not be better to focus attention on the lawbreakers instead?

[Steve Rotheram]

I suppose it would depend on the aim of the legislative change. The community that I represent needs a strong message to be sent from this House that the current level of gun crime is unacceptable and that we will give the police every power possible to tackle the blight on our neighbourhoods.

In recent years, we have also seen a rise in the use of firearms, breaching police and public safety, by individuals with track records of domestic violence and mental illness, leading one coroner to call for “root and branch changes” to gun licensing laws. For instance, in the last 12 months, 75% of female gun deaths occurred in domestic incidents, and 53% of female gun deaths in the last five years have involved the use of a legally held weapon, so the improved guidance that the Minister has provided for the police on this issue is to be welcomed.

Such statistics reinforce Labour’s call to ensure that applicants do not have a history of domestic violence or violent conduct as a statutory requirement and not just as a discretionary guideline. While the last Labour Government went a long way to reducing crime and encouraging safer, stronger communities, and introducing tough sentences for gun crimes, too many people still believe the use of guns to be an occupational consequence of their criminal activity. Perhaps the most high-profile incident of gun crime was the appalling murder of 11-year-old schoolboy Rhys Jones in Liverpool in 2007. Sean Mercer was sentenced to life in prison, but what made the incident even more sickening and unpalatable was that Mercer was just 18 years of age. That is why the Government are right to be tough on those who possess prohibited firearms and who sell or transfer them to criminal gangs, which blight neighbourhoods in so many of our major cities.

In my own city, we have tried many innovative approaches to tackling gun crime. Across Merseyside, the police and the local media deserve enormous credit for the campaigns they have undertaken on firearm detection and recovery. This is not just some right-wing tough-on-crime agenda; this is an issue that primarily affects the lives of ordinary people up and down the country, something that Parliament must ensure is reflected in the strength of the laws that govern gun control licensing and in the length of imprisonment. That is why I support clause 100, which seeks to separate the existing offence in the Firearms Act 1968 into two parts, and, in doing so, make it an offence to possess prohibited firearms for sale and transfer, and introduce a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

It is also right for the clause to increase the maximum penalty for the existing offences of manufacture, sale or transfer, or the purchase or acquisition for sale or transfer, of unauthorised firearms from 10 years to life imprisonment. Speaking with Merseyside police and the governors of local prisons, it is becoming increasingly clear that the tactic deployed by gangs is to use the same firearm for different shootings, but then to redistribute the gun to different members of the gang as and when it is “needed”, so to speak. By making the transfer of a firearm a crime punishable by a life sentence, I am positive that this will act as a stronger deterrent, and that those who ignore this change and are later prosecuted will receive severe custodial sentences.

I support clause 101, which seeks to amend sections 50 and 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to increase the maximum penalty for the unlawful importation of firearms, prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, from 10 years to life imprisonment. This is particularly important for an area such as Liverpool, with our revitalised docks now shipping record tonnage of trade. Inevitably, there will be those who wish to import illegal firearms into the port. The clause sends a strong message to people involved in the smuggling of weapons into Merseyside that if they are caught, this activity will carry a life sentence.

I support clause 102 in its efforts to allow British Transport police officers to carry firearms without requiring an individual certificate, giving them the same powers as officers of other police forces. Many incidences of gun attacks have taken place on public transport in Britain over the years. It is therefore right that we remove this anomaly and give the transport police the powers they require to combat this specific threat.

I am keen for the laws on firearms to be as tough as possible. New clause 4, tabled by the Labour party, will help the Government to achieve this common aim. New clause 4(4) notes the rising cost to police forces of administering the current firearms licensing regime. According to the Minister, more than 170,000 firearms licences and approximately 620,000 shotgun licences have been issued. The current fee for a firearm or a shotgun licence is only £50 for five years, yet the cost to the administrating force is, according to the Gun Control Network, about £200. Considering that the firearms licence averages out at just £10 a year, it is cheaper to own a gun than it is to own a fishing licence. That is absurd. I cannot see why the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise a large number of gun licences that are being issued to and used by a minority of individuals who wish to use guns for recreational sport. I am not aware of any other licensing system that subsidises to that degree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I shall deal shortly with the third issue that I identified earlier, namely the costs of legally held guns.

[Jim Shannon]

What guarantees or safeguards will be in place for husbands or partners who are firearms holders but who have had malicious allegations made against them? What legal protections will be in place for them when the investigations by the police are completed and the malicious allegations are found to be untrue?

[Damian Green]

The protections are the new guidelines, the new professional standards issued by the college and any recommendations that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary comes up with from its inspection. Those things will make the whole system more robust, so that the specially trained individual police officers who will be making those investigations will be better trained than ever before to judge whether, for example, an accusation is malicious or whether it is a genuine accusation and there is evidence of domestic violence or abuse and that therefore the individual should not be permitted to possess a firearm. Clearly, what one can expect and demand in such cases is that the individual officer taking the decision is as well trained as possible and is operating to very clear guidelines. That will be the case, and it is the best protection against malicious accusations. Equally, or perhaps more importantly, it protects those who may have been victims of domestic abuse and who may be victims of something worse if a gun is left in the wrong hands. That is what hon. Members on both sides of the debate are seeking and, as I say, it is an argument about practicality.

The third aspect to this debate relates to the costs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked a number of questions, and the answer to her question about e-commerce and the new system is that 24 forces are already signed up to phase 1, which comes into force either this year or next year, with eight other forces involved in phase 2. Thirty-two forces have therefore already agreed to do this, and I know that the national policing lead on firearms is energetically going around the country to ensure that all other forces eventually sign up.

The hon. Lady made the point, quoting the Treasury document, about full cost recovery. It is true that, in principle, full cost recovery within the Treasury’s policy on managing public money does apply to firearms licensing. Of course, we are in discussion with the Treasury on the subject of firearms fees. As I said, we are working towards full cost recovery as our ultimate objective. However, in this period our commitment is to increase the efficiency of the licensing process, as a first step. That is essential to achieve a balance between increased income and increased efficiency. The trick—this is true in all areas of public spending—is not to regard full cost recovery as a given, because we can always bring the costs down. We have already seen in the early pilots of the use of an electronic system for licensing not only that people get a quicker and better service, but that it is considerably cheaper for the police to operate, and so there is a benefit all round. One hon. Member cited a figure of £200 from the Gun Control Network, and I know that the police have come up with a figure of about £190 for full cost recovery, but the figure will be much lower under an e-commerce system. That is to the benefit of the police and of those applying for licences, be it for working purposes, as is the case in many rural parts of the country, or for recreation, which various hon. Members have mentioned.

Child Protection

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on setting the scene and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on her contribution. They told us what this is all about.

I can well remember my boys as children watching Jimmy Savile in “Jim’ll Fix It” and wanting to have their dreams come true by meeting him. I am glad they never had their dreams come true. I cringe every time I think about that loathsome person. His name is a reminder of the fact that we have lessons to learn, and a year on the question, through this debate, is whether we have learned those lessons. As MPs we all have constituents coming to us with issues of children who have been abused, or who have a partner who has abused them. Sometimes the allegations are true; sometimes perhaps they are not, but we have to advise on the correct way to handle those situations and the right people to see, and we do that.

We read the horror stories in the NSPCC report, which stated that more than half a million children and young people are estimated to have been a victim of maltreatment by a parent or guardian last year and, indeed, every year. All of a sudden the magnitude of the problem becomes very real. There is still a part of me that thinks that that figure cannot be right. How could it be? How could half a million children and young people be maltreated every year? We are a civilised country. We have a high moral code. Can that happen? The problem is that the figure is all too accurate for known cases, and I am shocked at how many children do not get a real childhood. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) underlined the importance of the early years of childhood and the bond between mother and child. Too often in those half a million cases the bond between mother and child or father and child has not been real. Had it been, perhaps we would not have had such cases.

When we think of our own childhood, we remember the scrapes we got into with our brothers and other children and the tellings-off that we got, but underpinning everything that happened to us was a mum and a dad who loved us and were prepared to try to guide us. The thought that so many children in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole do not have that understanding saddens me greatly, and it makes me more determined as a Member of Parliament to ensure that adequate protections are in place for our children.

As I read the report I became more shocked to understand that for every child who is known to the authorities as being abused and on the register, there are another estimated eight children who have suffered maltreatment. Fifty-six children were killed last year, which is still more than one a week. Other Members have outlined those cases. More than one in five children experience serious physical abuse, sexual abuse or severe physical or emotional neglect. Things must change and we must move on.

Since the recent Savile case and the other child exploitation cases that have been mentioned, the National Association for People Abused in Childhood has had a 60% rise in referrals, cases and phone calls. The NSPCC reports that calls to the helpline have increased from 44,500 in 2011-12 to 51,000 in 2012-13, and more recently it has reported an 84% rise in sexual abuse referrals during June and July 2013 compared with the same period in the previous year. People are more aware and they are coming forward. So what are we going to do to help? I know that there are stringent rules for working with children. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) referred to the need for Churches to respond positively, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I want to describe what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because it is important that a marker is put down. Churches have introduced a code of conduct and are specifically addressing the issues. I give the example of my own Church, where we took a stand on the need to do those things. In my Church anyone who works with children in any shape or form must attend a yearly child protection seminar and be police-checked every few years, but is that enough? Is there enough understanding? When I listen to some of the women who have worked with children voluntarily for years, they say they are saddened that they can no longer pick up a crying child and put them on their knee to comfort them. They must get down to the child’s level, pat their arm and speak soothingly. The bus driver must be very aware of these issues and cannot be alone with a child. If he is hugged, he must step away quickly, ensuring that someone else has noted his physical reaction. These rules may seem extreme to some people, but they are what the Churches and other bodies that work with children feel they must do to ensure protection from those who in the past have abused their positions or abused children.

The more reports I read concerning abuse, the more wary I see we must become. One of the NSPCC’s recommendations is something which I know many Churches and youth clubs are having their leaders trained in—that is, detection and quick action. The NSPCC report says:

“We need to look at the behaviour of institutions, public services and professionals where failure to report concerns has prevented action from being taken either to protect or intervene at an earlier stage. We need to encourage them to discuss and report their concerns about child abuse to ensure no more children slip through the net.”

How true that is and what an onus it places on each of us in this place and on every person who works with a child. We have to be aware of such things and there must be measures in place to help with raising this awareness. There must also be support for victims, which is sometimes forgotten, but it is underlined by reported cases. We see that in our constituency work as MPs. People should be trained not only to spot the signs of abuse, but to help to deal with it.

I recently arranged a seminar in my constituency. I brought people from Barnardo’s down to the local town hall and invited all youth leaders, Churches, teachers and community workers in my area. They were given an insight into what signs to look for and what to do once they had suspicions. More than one teacher told me that they had learned something new. It gave them an awareness of what happens and also taught them what to do next.

Perhaps the Minister could suggest what additional funding will be made available to the regions of the United Kingdom so that people who work with children can be given the opportunity to receive training on how to deal with child abuse issues, because they do not always know what to do, when to do it and how to do it, and we need to be aware of that.

Child protection seminars tell us who to report to if we have suspicions that a child is being abused, but we are not trained in how to deal with the situation afterwards. That must be offered to people who give up their time to teach children or who give them a safe place to play or hang out with their friends. Will the Minister give us an assurance that additional help will be made available so that people can receive that training, which could make all the difference to the life of a child?

Time has beaten me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and there is so much more to say. Although steps have been taken to address child protection, I believe that a lot more can and should be done. People should be aware of the signs, know when to flag something up and, more importantly, know who to flag it up to. We need the involvement of the community groups, the youth clubs, the homework clubs, and the Church organisations such as the Boys Brigade and the Campaigners, which are run by unpaid volunteers who have a love for their children. We cannot afford to have voluntary sector organisations become so frightened about what they can and cannot do and so unsure about how to raise suspicions that they pack it all in. A little bit of knowledge can made a difference to the life of a child. Rather than merely saying that each organisation should have a child protection officer in place, we should be making available the training to ensure that all those who work with children know the signs and the next steps to take.

I see my constituents who lovingly give up their time to work with children, and that little bit of attention can make all the difference to a shy child. It can help with their education and make them feel loved. We should ensure that the voluntary sector has all the help and support it needs to help and support children. This House shines better when we agree on issues. Today we all agree on this, and we will agree on a strategy. I urge everyone to put their shoulders to the plough and see that we get the work done for the safety and protection of child and adult alike.

Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

Of course, but the point is to dispel the bonkers notion that old lags cost the money. The reality is that people are entitled to a defence, and I will address that later.

I want to deal briefly with the suggestion that the previous Labour Government were profligate with the system. I have spent years defending my party because many practitioners say that the previous Government cut the system to the bone, but we were careful with legal aid spend. I also want to dispel the myth that only self-interested, fat-cat lawyers are concerned about the changes. I have been lobbied by charities, constituents, colleges and trade unions that do not benefit in any way from legal aid, but want a system that continues to be fit for purpose and protects the most vulnerable at the time when they need access to justice.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the House for consideration. On his reference to those who are less well off, Citizens Advice in my constituency has told me—I am sure that many other hon. Members here have received similar information from their citizens advice bureaux—that the least well off will suffer more and those with little or no money will be unable to take a case to court to protect or defend themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the critical issue is that the less well off will suffer more?

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The reality is that the proposals will lead to a system in which only the rich—those who can afford to be represented privately—will have access to the courts. That is simply not justice.