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.

Firearms Controls

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I know a little about the subject, and I think it is often easier for police officers to grant or re-grant a firearms or shotgun certificate than risk the possibility of judicial review. In fact, they should be more robust and say no if they believe that someone should not be granted a shotgun or firearms certificate and should, if necessary, defend the case robustly at judicial review. In my experience that does not always happen and it is when it does not happen that there are problems such as the Atherton case. There was clear evidence, which I will come to later, that the police should have decided to revoke the certificate. In any case, I think the new guidance that was published at the end of 2012 will help. I have no doubt the Minister will mention it in his summing up and I look forward to hearing what he says.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise, Mr Sheridan, for not being present at the beginning of the debate—I was in a Committee meeting that has just finished—but I am interested in this subject. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of many other incidents? I am aware of allegations in my constituency by ex-partners or ex-wives against their spouses that are then unsubstantiated.

The process that applicants for firearms certificates must go through is laborious, and they may be removed or reinstated. A balance must be struck. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the legislation, which I understand the shooting bodies support, is balanced?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

My hon. Friend—I call him that because I know he knows a great deal about the subject—is absolutely right. Of course, a balance must be struck and, as he said earlier, often a judgment must be made. If an experienced firearms-licensing officer, hopefully with the appropriate training, has made a judgment that a licence should never have been issued or should be revoked, they should stick to that judgment robustly, even if it leads to judicial review.

My hon. Friend is right, and there is always a process that must be gone through, inquiries to be made, and a judgment to be reached. The experience of firearms officers should ensure that a wise judgment is made. According to the guidelines, every new incident of domestic violence should automatically prompt a police review and police officers would not have to rely only on actual convictions of domestic violence in making their decision, allowing them to use their discretion on whether they believe an applicant is suitable to hold a firearms licence.

My second point is the lack of need for specific legislation on firearms licensing. I understand that the hon. Member for Easington wants consistent application of the rules throughout all 43 police forces and I strongly agree with him. It is critical that the guidance on firearms control is implemented fairly, equally and consistently throughout the country. I have spoken to the Minister about that and I believe that he has some sympathy with it.

I agree that it would be more rational to have a national licensing authority instead of licensing decisions being made separately by 43 different authorities. That would achieve much greater consistency in the application of the guidelines and gun licensing legislation, as well as being quicker and cheaper for applicants. It would ensure that all current shotgun or firearms licence holders are immediately entered on the police national database.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will refer in a moment to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and licences. I envisage that many local police firearms officers would still be employed by the national agency to make the local inquiries, so there would still be an element of localism in a national firearms licensing organisation.

If the new guidelines are recognised and implemented consistently throughout the country, they will be able to protect against inappropriate decisions being made. The guidelines are there to be implemented, and it is crucial that they are used by police officers when making decisions on issuing firearms licences.

In line with that consistency, I also want to see an improved system of health checks for firearms licence holders, which the hon. Member for Easington also talked about. We need to have proper arrangements in place so that doctors are required to pass on any related health developments to the police. One way of achieving that may be to negotiate such an obligation into the GP contract. That duty must be done on a continuous basis, and not just at the application or renewal stage of a firearms licence. That is because a very small number of people’s medical circumstances can change dramatically; for example, if they become a severe depressive, or addicted to alcohol or drugs. That should be reported to the police by a medical professional and should lead to serious consideration of a revocation of a licence, which in normal circumstances, only occurs every five years. There should also be a robust check when a licence is granted or re-granted to assess whether any information is being withheld by the applicant from the doctor or police.

[Jim Shannon]

I just want to put this point on record. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some police forces in England share data with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for example. Because of that, and the fact that data can be used by other—well, we do not know what it can be used for, of course; that is the question we are all asking. However, does he feel that when it comes to the data that the police hold, they need to ensure that the data are for use within the control of the police and that they are not for use by any other organisations, whatever their motives might be?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Where I do agree with my hon. Friend is that there should not be a two-way share of information; I think the police should be able to gain their information from any source they like. However, I, too, read the reports that the police are sharing their information with the RSPCA and I wholly deprecate that. It is quite wrong for the police to share any information that they have with any other organisation. After all, it is of a confidential nature and it should remain confidential. Perhaps the Minister may care to say something about that when he winds up.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) after his intervention, a comparison is to be made with the issuing of a driver’s licence. Although there is no legal obligation on the medical profession, there is a strong public duty on a doctor to report a change in a driver’s medical condition. Doctors can report their concerns to the DVLA. GPs are able to do that at any point and are not expected to wait until a licence is due to be renewed. I understand that the DVLA follow up medical investigations that are reported to it. Indeed, it has its own medical team to carry out medical investigations and assessments. There should be a similar, although perhaps stronger, obligation on doctors in relation to firearms certificates.

I would also welcome a codification of the existing pieces of legislation. As the hon. Member for Easington said, there are 34 separate pieces of legislation relating to firearms. Bringing them into one document would provide clarity and understanding, and I would completely support that move. However, I am opposed to increasing the amount of legislation, as I do not think it will be any more effective in protecting vulnerable people against the consequences of putting guns into the wrong hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I want to add my voice to the congratulations given to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), particularly on the measured tone in which he introduced the debate. I agree with his remarks about the appropriate way to discuss the matter, and I am happy to say that that approach was echoed throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made a speech that was knowledgeable and thoughtful, as were the interventions from both sides of the House.

The hon. Member for Easington has inevitably been concerned about the issue in question since the tragic events in his constituency on New Year’s day last year. Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of the three victims, Susan McGoldrick, Alison Turnbull and Tanya Turnbull, whose lives were so terribly cut short by the incomprehensible acts of Michael Atherton.

I have listened carefully to the speeches. It is now a year since the hon. Member for Easington obtained a similar debate on firearms control, and apart from answering the specific points that have been raised I should like to update the House on some of the work that has been done since then. The Government have responded to the terrible act in question, and there have been many changes. One of the things that unites everyone in the debate is agreement that the focus of the work must be on ensuring that gun controls continue to be robust and effective, so as to minimise the risk of harm to members of the public.

As has been mentioned several times, since the debate last October the Independent Police Complaints Commission has issued its report into the Atherton case. We are considering the recommendations and we shall respond in the autumn. In doing so I shall, of course, take into account the points that have been made about the report in today’s debate. As the hon. Member for Easington said, I have met Bobby Turnbull, a close relative of the victims, more than once, and I will take his views carefully into account.

In June this year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary responded to a letter from Mr Andrew Tweddle, the Durham coroner, who wrote to draw attention to a number of issues related to the Atherton case. Mr Tweddle expressed the view that there needed to be a root-and-branch review of firearms licensing. I absolutely understand why he made that recommendation, but I do not agree with him. Many of the issues raised by the coroner centred on the weaknesses in the handling of Atherton’s case by the local police force. That has been the subject of much comment today as well.

Durham constabulary has, of course, subsequently reviewed and strengthened its processes and shared the development of that work directly with the Turnbull family. Again, I take the point made by a number of hon. Members that we need consistency of application throughout the country and a degree of competence and common sense in applying the laws throughout the country. I know that other police forces will take that into account as well.

[Jim Shannon]

On the point about consistency, I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) the data that some police forces in England make available to other organisations—for example, the RSPCA. That information is confidential. It is specific to firearms, where they are held, but also to the individuals. Does the Minister intend to ensure that confidential information such as that is not disclosed to other organisations without knowledge of what is going to happen, and that whatever happens happens consistently across the whole of England and Wales?

[Damian Green]

I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman that the use of confidential data should be controlled so that it is serving a specific purpose, proportionate and done in an appropriate way. Indeed, the issue that he has brought up has been brought to my attention by other hon. Members, so I am very aware of it.

However, I think that the practical problems that the coroner revealed are different from there being issues with the licensing process at national level. I am satisfied that the existing test in law for the grant or renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate remains appropriate, but there are indeed issues about how the current law is applied in individual cases, which I will come to shortly.

Protecting Children Online

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I have not, but retailers source their wi-fi from a small number of providers, which have agreed to provide what is effectively clean public wi-fi.

We asked the Government for a formal consultation on opt-in filtering and got it. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has rightly said, it is not clear that the consultation was entirely representative and democratic. However, it was an open consultation and we did our damndest to encourage people to respond. Consultations are not always democratic, and that one was what it was. Basically, the consultation rejected the idea of opt-in, but the Government response was clear that we should have much better filters that protect all devices; robust age verification; and a system that people cannot simply click through, and in which the filters remain on unless people choose to take them off.

Those changes are being implemented by the four main ISPs, which control more than 80% of the internet market to the home in the UK, and will be rolled out to new customers by the year end.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Claire Perry]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will try to make progress before taking another intervention.

In addition, as the Minister has said, the ISPs are trialling ways in which to get the filter into the installed base. The sea change in attitude among the ISPs—British companies that are family-friendly trusted brands and want to sell us stuff—has been enormous. That is a tribute to all hon. Members and Members of the other place who have campaigned so hard. The change in the situation is like night and day.

The second problem with the motion is that the call for the Government to set a timetable for the introduction of safe-search as a default is confusing. That is the same proposal as mandatory opt-in—it refers simply to Google SafeSearch functionality. The Internet Watch Foundation pointed out to me this morning that that proposal would only screen out material that is sexual in nature, and that anyone seeking illegal child abuse imagery would simply switch it off. That is an important debate, but a slightly different one.

We are already focusing on age verification. The industry is testing much better age verification loops and splash pages. Splash pages alert people who are searching for blocked content that it is illegal and damaging, and that they should go somewhere else to look for help. There is widespread support for that proposal on both sides of the House.

Should we legislate further? As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland knows, I am not at all averse to calling for legislation, but my sense is that, in this space, it is not helpful. Let me explain why. To make protection work, we need three things. First, we need committed politicians who are completely clear on the ask for industry. Secondly, we need engaged companies. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) referred to one problem with legislation. Children now access the internet via mobile phone, but when the Bailey review came out in 2010, there was only one mention of access to the internet via smartphone. The technological world changes faster than we can possibly imagine. It is a falsehood to say that clunky politicians and—forgive me—civil servants can be ahead of that change, as opposed to the companies that monetise that change. We have to get the companies engaged. Thirdly, we need to educate users—parents, grandparents and children—which is why I welcome what has been done in the primary school curriculum to improve e-safety and digital safety.

Therefore, it is depressing that the motion has been presented in a partisan way. We have had a hugely productive agenda in the House for the past two years by working together. I believe that debates such as this one encourage industry to adopt a wait-and-see strategy, and to say, “Well look, the politicians cannot decide. Unless they make things illegal, we’re not going to engage.” That has been the problem with the internet all along. The industry has said, “We’ll wait till you tell us what is illegal, and that’s as much as we will do.” We must move beyond that situation, which we will do by working together.

I have one final point to make. The House will forgive me if I come across as a politician—I do not want to be a politician on this issue; I want to be a pragmatist. Our recommendations go so much further than the Byron recommendations, which were commissioned by the Government of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. Those recommendations used toothless language, did not require any form of legislation, and were not well implemented. They were also based on a completely false ideology that default filters would lull parents into a false sense of security. There is no evidence of that, but the thought has permeated the debate for the past four years. Hon. Members can tell me if they believe that these two of the Byron recommendations are forward thinking or appropriate, or whether they do more than what we have proposed. The first recommendation is that search engines should make it easy to turn safe search on, and the second is that parents should be given free parental controls when they get a new internet connection. Our Government, with huge cross-party support, have done far more than that and made far more progress.

I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion, to ask to come to the summit next week, and to build a cross-party consensus on the asks. That is how we will make progress and keep our children safe online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

This is an extremely important debate, which deserves wide and thorough consideration in this House. It is right that in recent years much attention has been given to this subject. I pay tribute to the Minister for the way he has responded to the debate, to the Prime Minister for the interest he has shown, and to his adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has driven the agenda from quite an early stage and to whom credit should be given.

It is also important to give credit to the press, which has fed back persistently and consistently on this subject. I have no doubt that the Daily Mail’s campaign and active interest have contributed to encouraging politicians’ attention on to something that is obviously very important to the public in general, and, dare I say it, to its readers.

I must say, however, that the motion, as it is phrased, is not very helpful. It conflates child sexual abuse content, which is illegal, and adult content which is legal but from which we need to protect children. The actions needed to tackle these different types of content are different and it is very unhelpful to confuse and conflate the two.

This is one of the most dynamic problems we face as a society. As soon as one issue seems to have been dealt with, another problem emerges. That is the nature of today’s fast moving society, but this area of policy is certainly at the leading edge of the speed of change. Technology is developing faster than any Government can legislate, and avoidance measures lead to anti-avoidance measures, which in turn go on in a cycle. This throws up the risk of Members and individuals believing that there are straightforward solutions. That is not the case, and I pay tribute to the Government for stating on the record that their policies will develop. That is the pragmatic approach we need to take. We need to develop clear principles: focusing on helping parents to introduce safety features; offering a choice of filters available from internet service providers; prompting parents towards security features; making it easier for parents to take charge; challenging the industry, which is exceptionally important; and working with law enforcement organisations to combat illegal content.

[Jim Shannon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a balanced contribution. He will be aware that many companies have a zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse. One of those companies is Google, which helps fund and is a member of the IWF. Does he think it is now time that companies that are not members of the IWF joined and helped to fund it and adhered to its policies and principles?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the IWF—I should declare an interest as one of its champions—and would encourage all the industry to join and support its greater funding in the way that Google announced earlier today.

Before the Government’s welcome statement in response to their consultation on the debate over opting in and opting out of adult content, we ran the risk of presenting the situation as one that was relatively simple and where responsibility to protect ourselves could be conveniently passed over to others—for example, to ISPs. In reality, it is not that straightforward; it is far more complicated, and that is my issue with the motion, which, rather than helping, confuses the subject. Thankfully, however, the evidence to the consultation was clear.

I pay tribute to Reg Bailey, the chief executive officer of the Mothers’ Union, who recognised that complexity, against the general direction of the debate at the time and against those calling for a simple opt in/opt out approach—or an appropriate variant of it. A filter not only passes responsibility from parents to large organisations, whose judgments might be completely different from those of individual families, but makes false promises, because of the avoidance measures I mentioned earlier. Encryption, for example, is a typical problem that an ISP filter would not overcome, but a parent would not necessarily understand that.

At the moment, about 30% of customers choose to have an ISP opt-out. If the policy was reversed—so that people had to opt into adult content—the proportion would likely be much higher, which would run the risk of legal adult content providers using common avoidance techniques, such as encryption or proxy servers, which create further problems. Web proxies, which are a more recent development, and peer-to-peer networks are also not covered by ISP-level filters, but, believing their household computer to be safe, parents would be led into a false sense of security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate.

It is clear that neither the Minister nor anyone else can solve this problem on their own, but the Government can take action to help protect children online. My particular concern centres on the unmonitored use of the internet by those whom we already know to have a history of sex offending. The Government’s consultation on parental internet control stated that it was looking into the best way of shielding children from harmful and adult content, including sites that exposed children to online sexual grooming. Most of the debate and consultation in this area have focused on restricting access to adult, pornographic and child abuse material, but in looking at the most serious threat—of grooming and sexual abuse—we need to be serious not just about the online content, but about online users and those with whom children come into contact online.

In my maiden speech, I began with a few words about Ashleigh Hall, a young woman who lived in my constituency. When she was 17, she was murdered by a registered sex offender she met on Facebook. The 33-year-old offender used a fake identity, and for his profile took a picture of a younger man in order to start talking to and grooming Ashleigh. After she agreed to meet him, the offender posed as his internet personality’s father in order to pick her up, after which he abducted, raped and murdered her.

This man had a history of violent sexual offences, including multiple charges of sexual assault, rape and kidnapping. He was known to be dangerous and was a registered sex offender, but although he and his home were registered and expected to be monitored, his internet use was not. He was under no obligation to register his online identities, and I have learned that any refusal to do so would have been met with no action whatever. The authorities had no idea what images he was looking at or who he was communicating with.

We know that one quarter of 12 to 15-year-olds report using social networking sites to communicate with people they do not already know. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre receives more than 600 reports of grooming each month, yet as the situation stands, people we recognise as a serious threat to public safety are monitored in the community but not online, where they have as much access, if not perhaps more, to building relationships with young people and may pretend to be someone they are not.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the Labour party’s proposals refers to making extra resources available to the police to ensure that these things can be monitored. Could that have prevented that case from happening?

2011 Public Disorder (Compensation)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reed]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I compliment him on his work as the Member for Tottenham in standing up for riot victims not just in his constituency, but elsewhere in London. That has been of great reassurance to my constituents as well as his. I absolutely agree with him. The issue is not just that premiums have gone up in areas hit by the riots; businesses have even told me that they cannot get insurance at all.

If we hollow out whole areas of London, we will further blight the lives of people who, through no fault of their own, were victims of hooligan mobs trashing and looting their way through London. We need the Government to step up to the mark, take on the issues that confront these areas and work with insurance companies to ensure that whole areas do not get blighted because of incidents two years ago that were nothing to do with the people who were living their lives peacefully and running businesses there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I spoke to him beforehand about wanting to make a helpful intervention. The Northern Ireland Compensation Agency has been in place for many years and has helped victims of public disorder and, indeed, terrorist attacks get redress and financial assistance quicker and more efficiently. Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be helpful for the Government to contact the agency to ask it about its processes in order to enable victims in London to get redress quicker and more efficiently and not find themselves in a morass of bureaucracy?

[Mr Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I hope that the Government will look at other parts of the United Kingdom that have more experience of disorder and that therefore have more agile and nimble ways of responding to it. It would be foolish not to consider such experience and I hope that the Minister will take the hon. Gentleman up on his generous offer and speak to him about experiences in Northern Ireland.

Football Referees

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

The times being what they are, I feel I should declare an interest at the very start: I have always wanted to be popular. Some would say that being a Conservative Member of Parliament is not exactly the best way of going about that. If we add the fact that I am an active and qualified football referee, one could think that I have chosen what we might call a “challenging path” to that popularity. I took my referees’ course at the age of 12 and qualified shortly afterwards, which I believe means I have just finished my 33rd season as the man in the middle. I have been a member of the Referees Association for all of that time. I should also declare a financial interest. For each game I officiate I receive a fee. I have tried to register it, but the relevant authorities got bored after a while and told me to stop wasting their time.

I have to admit that I love the game. Like anyone who volunteers, coaches or officiates at any sport, I am passionate about the sport I practise every week. One has to be passionate to go out there in most weathers doing one of the least popular jobs in the country week in, week out. I have officiated at all types of games in the UK and abroad at amateur and semi-professional level. I have been very lucky not to have personally experienced what too many referees have experienced: I have not been assaulted while officiating at a game of football.

Every ref I know looks forward to his or her next fixture. While we get paid a small amount, we do not referee for the match fee. We receive good in-service training from the Football Association and the Referees Association, and we go out to do the best job we possibly can in every game. Occasionally—I know this will be hard for Members to comprehend—match officials do make the odd mistake. The vast majority of times, however, we get the decision right. Alas, on some occasions—Members may have seen some well-publicised examples—players do not like the decisions we make. Referees have to deal with that by using common sense.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the introduction of goal-line technology and a fourth official would reduce some of the friction between footballers and referees on the pitch?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am sure that that would help at the highest level of the game, but at my level I am lucky to have two club linesmen, let alone a fourth official. I hear where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I do not think they would necessarily help in this particular situation. There is no goal-line technology in Northamptonshire Combination football league games as of yet.

We deal with challenging situations by using common sense, people management skills and the odd yellow or red card. In most cases, while the teams and their supporters might not like some decisions, everyone just gets on with the game. Sometimes they do not, however. Recorded assaults on referees are thankfully few and far between. The number of physical contacts against officials has fallen quite dramatically by 21% since 2010-11, from 618 cases to 528, but that is still 10 physical assaults on football referees in England and Wales each week.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?

[Kate Green]

With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation in them, either as family or friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weatherley]

Of course I have total respect for the Attorney-General’s opinions, but as we all know, in law and legal advice, there is no firm decision or certainty until something goes to court. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I have yet to hear a cohesive argument for why what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) describes would be the case. Just saying it time and time again does not make it right. If someone can say why that would happen, we would of course listen. The last thing I want to do is delay the implementation of same-sex marriage, as my hon. Friend will know, but we are in danger of missing a huge opportunity to extend equal marriage to a huge section of our population who at the moment are being ignored.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should ignore the advice and legal opinion offered by the Attorney-General? Does he think that we should just put that aside and push ahead with this provision?

[Mike Weatherley]

People ignore legal advice for all sorts of reasons. I am saying that I would like that legal opinion to be put to the test. We should not simply say, “Oh well, if that is the case, we will just sit back and not do this.” It is up to us to find a way of doing it. I do not happen to think that that interpretation is the correct one, and I would like to see it put to the test, as would many other people.

It is evident from what is happening in Scotland that there is a huge latent demand for humanist marriages, as well as for equal marriages. If humanism was right for my father, I for one would like to see equal marriages extended to include humanist marriage ceremonies. I would find it odd if those who supported same sex equal marriage did not also support equal marriage for others, which is why I am supporting the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I step back and wonder whether all these amendments are required right now and whether this is where society wants to go right now. Many Members have been forced to make a decision, and there is naturally a tendency to want to support the Bill and not to view it as out of place. My question is why these issues are being brought to our attention at this moment in time. As I say, I did not see the deluge of calls for this measure, although the trajectory of society moving forward means that this is very much how we would anticipate the Bill and its amendments.

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to conduct this debate, which has prompted us to think about the wider issues of the role, purpose and values of marriage in our society. We are debating amendments relating to gender recognition and so forth, which has educated us about the historic role of the state in respect of the Church.

The Bible is full of commands that are unknown or ignored by many Christians today. That reflects how society is very much moving forward. Wives used to be subject to their husbands; children arguing with their parents used to be taken out and stoned to death; women used to have to cover their heads in church. Those things are either unknown by Christians today or simply ignored because they have no place in modern society. The Church has changed its views over the years—indeed, the Bill has changed as we have debated it over these last few months.

The Church remains divided on many subjects: the burning of witches, abortion, contraception, the status of illegitimate children and so forth. On a wider perspective, it is the role of Parliament to challenge the Church on these issues and through the Bill and amendments, as we did on the grander issues in the past. Slavery was indeed defended by many bishops because of the Bible; the Old Testament regulated for slavery; divorce was clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels, and those who had divorced were not permitted to remarry. In the Church of England, marriage was “Till death us do part”; it was long thought to be lifelong and indissoluble, yet divorce was formally introduced in this place in 1857.

What, then, are my thoughts on this Bill? I am absolutely supportive of the concept, but, like many of the Government amendments, it is ahead of its time. That puts many of us in an awkward position. Do we support the Government amendments and the Bill, which I believe to be somewhat messy and not well handled, albeit on a subject to which I do not object. Should I vote against the Bill and the amendments for which many of my constituents have called? A significant number of them were moved enough to call me to make sure that I did not support specific amendments or indeed the Bill as a whole. Then there is the final option, which is to abstain on the amendments and the Bill, thus honouring many of the calls not to support the Bill’s proposals while ensuring that my vote is honest to myself.

I shall conclude because I know others wish to participate in this important Report debate. I hope I shall not digress too far from the subject matter by mentioning that the FTSE 100 yesterday recorded its highest value in 24 years; despite being a significant economic indicator, it got no mention in this place. I hope that after Third Reading later today, we can back to considering the economy. The subject of gay marriage is significant and should be brought into law, but I remain to be convinced that it should be a priority for now. Those who will benefit from the change in the law are calling for the change now.

[Jim Shannon]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 27 and 28. It will not be a surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. I have said that in Public Bill Committee and in this Chamber in the earlier debate, I said it yesterday and I will reiterate it today.

I want to thank the Government for at least listening to me and my party on one issue. The Bill proposes that same-sex marriages formed in England and Wales should be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the way in which overseas same-sex marriages are currently recognised in the House.

I was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. When I say “scrutinised”, I mean that the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) scrutinised it very thoroughly. Most of the Committee’s members, however, sat in silence throughout the five days of our debates on the clauses, and most of them tabled precious few amendments. They seemed to see themselves as cheerleaders for the Bill, rather than the scrutinisers that they should have been. Never before, during my short time in the House of Commons, have I known members of the official Opposition to abdicate their responsibility to hold the Government to account quite so thoroughly.

Some of us did table amendments, and took the time and the trouble to speak. I pointed out to the Committee that Scottish Ministers were to be asked to give their consent to legal changes allowing recognition of English same-sex marriages, whereas Northern Ireland Ministers were merely to be consulted. Amendments 27 and 28 give us an opportunity to align the law with that in Scotland, which is good news.

As I said in Committee and have said in the Chamber, the Bill has generated the biggest single postbag I have received on any issue in all my years as an elected representative—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am trying to be as tolerant as possible, but we are discussing this group of amendments, not previous amendments and what happened in Committee. I am trying to be fair, but we are in danger of not remaining where we should be.

[Jim Shannon]

Amendments 27 and 28 provide for “consent”, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remove the reference to consultation. Why is that important? It is important to the people whom I represent in Northern Ireland because it introduces accountability to the process. Some 1,700 of my constituents have contacted me about the issue: members of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the Elim Pentacostal Church, Baptist Brethren, evangelical groups, Roman Catholics, Sikhs and Muslims. Members of faith groups throughout Northern Ireland have asked us, as Members of Parliament, to push for consent rather than consultation, and we have done so.

I believe that when we convey opinions about the importance of faith and religious persuasions, as we have in the House today and as we did in Committee, those opinions cannot be ignored. It has grieved me when some members of the Committee, and perhaps some Members in the House, have brushed aside the opinions of those with hard-held religious views.

Several of my fellow Northern Ireland Members have received similar amounts of correspondence from constituents, all of them pushing for consent rather than consultation. Only 17 of my constituents who contacted me were in favour of the changes. Theirs was very much a minority view, but it is one that we must respect and take on board.

The Northern Ireland Assembly will make the final decision on the issue, which is why amendments 27 and 28 are important. The Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage on two occasions under the consultation process. The first occasion was on 1 October 2012, when it was rejected by 50 votes to 45. Then, on 29 April this year, it was rejected by 53 votes to 42.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have been generous, and have allowed what I thought was a kind of preamble, but we are actually discussing a group of amendments entitled “Gender, benefits and miscellaneous”. That is the problem that I am facing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be getting there. I am sure that he is, and will confine himself to the subjects under discussion from now on.

[Jim Shannon]

I may have been a wee bit over-ambitious in trying to express some of my points of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate your generosity. I will return to the issues directly.

The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), confirmed to me, in a letter that I received yesterday, that

“Amendments 27 and 28 to clause 15(6) of the Bill make all orders and regulations made under the Bill subject to the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel if those amendments would otherwise fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

The amendments have clearly given the Assembly the authority to make a final decision on the issue. That is very significant, and I thank both Ministers for what they have done.

This issue is immensely important to us in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to a massive postbag. I thank Ministers again for enabling consent rather than consultation to be enshrined in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I could not quite hear everything that the hon. Lady said, but my consideration is that it is down to Northern Ireland to respond. I am assured that that is right, but if that is not correct I will write to her to clarify that.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps the Minister’s correspondence could clarify the matter. I believe that the authority lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps she might like to reply, if that is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mrs Grant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am being reassured from both flanks, and from much higher authorities than me, that that is the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.

I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Jim Shannon]

I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.

There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:

“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”

Claims Management Companies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The claims management industry has grown dramatically in recent years. In 2007, it was estimated that there were 400 claims management companies. There are now more than 3,000. The value of the industry in terms of annual turnover continues to grow and is now estimated to be £774 million, which is up 33% on last year.

Unfortunately, not all claims management companies behave responsibly. Consumer research conducted by the Association of British Insurers found that about four out of five adults in the UK had received unsolicited texts encouraging them to pursue claims for accidents or mis-sold financial products. In just 8% of cases, the individual who was contacted had had an accident or held a policy against which there might be a claim.

A Which? mystery shopping exercise found widespread rule breaches, misleading statements and unfair contract terms by a significant number of claims management companies. If you have received a text message or seen a TV advert telling you that you have thousands of pounds of unclaimed payment protection insurance, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are not alone. The research by Which? shows that 93% of people have.

In 2011-12, the claims management regulator received 10,000 complaints about claims management companies from consumers and firms. The cold calls, high-pressure tactics and misinformation that are used mean that the behaviour of some CMCs is extremely damaging to members of the public, particularly elderly and vulnerable people. Furthermore, the damage to businesses from the tenacity and dishonesty of some CMCs is very concerning. As the Motor Accident Solicitors Society points out, problems with the regulatory structure have allowed such bad practices to flourish. That is why that organisation and others have called consistently for better regulation.

The mis-selling of payment protection insurance by banks was one of the biggest mis-selling scandals ever. The courts have rightly said that those who were mis-sold PPI must be compensated. However, when claims management companies enter into the fray, further injustices occur, as a scandal of mis-selling begets a scandal of misclaiming. The claims management companies wilfully exploit the structures that are in place to protect consumers by submitting countless claims that have little or no merit, with no fear of a financial penalty. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Every one of us as elected representatives has had complaints from our constituents on this matter. One of my concerns is that when people who are vulnerable financially receive information about such claims, they think that there is nothing to lose and that they will get the money. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is time that these companies were regulated so that they do not raise people’s expectations so that they think they will get the money, when at the end of the day they will not and, indeed, will be out of pocket?

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

So, at this late hour, we finally reach the Third Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill and gather to bid it farewell and send it on its way back to the other place. I have to say that it is lovely to see the Home Secretary in her place. We missed her last week—at least on this side of the House—and now that she is here, perhaps she would care to intervene and tell us what her alcohol pricing policy is. We would love to hear it, because unfortunately, her crime prevention Minister, the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), struggled to tell us what it was. He took the flak for her, and given the news about his new arrival, she really does owe him one. She needs to ensure that she pays that debt.

Opposition Members owe thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), all of whom have led our efforts on the Bill.

We support the Bill overall, and we support many of its key measures and objectives. We clearly support the Leveson measures that we have discussed extensively this afternoon, and the aims to strengthen the fight against organised crime. We also support the efforts to increase judicial diversity, although we wish that the Government could have done more in that regard, and we support the action on drug-driving.

The Home Secretary has done an admirable job of attempting to create a theme in what many Members have repeatedly described as a Christmas tree of a Bill that has had an increasing number of different things attached to it during its passage through the House. That leaves the right hon. Lady and me to take it in turns to play the fairy on the top in the debate this evening.

Although we support the principles behind many of the key measures, the detailed debates have revealed considerable weaknesses in the Government’s implementation plans and a chaotic approach to some serious aspects of the fight against crime and terrorism. The Home Secretary made great play of the issues regarding the National Crime Agency, which, as she knows, will simply pick up much of the valuable work now being done by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. However, the Bill will leave this House with the Government still having failed to reach agreement on how serious organised crime will be dealt with in Northern Ireland. The Bill will abolish SOCA, which has done a considerable amount of work on human trafficking, drug smuggling and other organised crime in Northern Ireland, yet the National Crime Agency will be unable to operate there or to continue any of that work because the Government have failed to reach agreement on that matter. We have no idea how long it will take to sort that out, or how that work will be done in the meantime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a matter of concern that we read in the papers back home today that someone who is involved in crime in south Armagh has been able to launder some £85 million through various banks. That is an example of an issue that cannot be addressed, and it is down to the intransigence of Sinn Fein at this time.

[Yvette Cooper]

There are some very serious gaps as a result of the Bill. The Government chose the timing of its passing. I think it was nearly two years ago that the Home Secretary announced that she wanted to replace SOCA with the NCA, yet they have failed to reach agreement on the way in which the NCA should operate in Northern Ireland. That is a matter of concern. As a result of the joint work between SOCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, more than £13 million of drugs were seized, 33 potential victims of human trafficking were rescued, and more than £4 million of criminal assets and 23 million counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes were seized. There were also 23 criminal convictions for serious environmental offences.

That was all as a result of the important joint work being done by the PSNI and SOCA. As of tonight, however, we do not know whether any of that work will continue, or how and when a solution will be reached. And if that was not bad enough, there is no agreement on handling the overseas proceeds of crime with Northern Ireland either. Again, the Home Secretary made great play of the importance of overseas and global reach. Criminals in England, Scotland and Wales, however, who have assets abroad will rightly find under this Bill that they can be seized by the courts, but because of the Government’s failure to reach agreement, criminals in Northern Ireland will be able to keep those assets abroad untouched. Again, we have no idea when that will be sorted out. The Home Secretary chose the timetable, yet she failed to get agreement and has created this gap.

On terrorism, too, the Home Secretary’s approach is chaotic. After the Government were defeated in the other place on their plans on counter-terror and the National Crime Agency, she told the House on Second Reading that she would “listen and reflect” on the concerns of the experts, including the former Metropolitan Police Commissioners in the other place, but she has done nothing of the sort. Instead, at the last minute, she has simply reinstated an order-making power to deal with a major change to counter-terror action in Britain, yet with no reason given in her Third Reading speech when she had the opportunity to do so. She has told us repeatedly that she has not made a decision whether or not to transfer the powers from the Met to the NCA. In that case, why put an order-making power in the Bill? We can guarantee that there will be another Christmas tree Bill coming from the Home Office, if not many more, which will give her the opportunity to do so and to have a proper debate after she has taken a decision, when she can set out for Parliament the grounds for her decision rather than trying to pre-empt serious debate—either in this place, or in the other place—despite the serious concerns raised with her. I am sure that the other place will want to look at this again.

We have had other concerns, such as the watering down of protection against abuse by bailiffs; ignoring the concerns of the Lords; removing the obligation inserted by the other place to address problems for women offenders; the lack of implementation plans for drug-driving; removing immigration visitor appeals even though a high proportion of decisions are wrong in the first place; and the Government’s failure to bring in the stronger immigration enforcement powers we called for. We are concerned that the Government were late in bringing forward the proposals on a forum bar without consultation. I hope that the Home Secretary has got the details of this right. Clearly, it is extremely complex, but given the importance of extradition issues, it is unfortunate that she still proposes to pull out of the European arrest warrant.

There are some very important issues in the Bill, and we will support it. The Government have, however, wrongly ditched some of the improvements that the noble Lords made, and I hope they will be made to think again. We will support the Bill tonight; we hope the Lords will improve it; and we very much hope that the Government will sort out the serious gaps and failings in the detail and implementation that these debates have exposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment. The Conservative party—although not the Opposition, from what we have heard today—is committed to the need for change and to ensuring that international human rights frameworks do not inappropriately intrude on the democratic decisions of this Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that an essential part of probation for reoffenders is monitored interaction within the community, and that community service can be a useful tool for reintegration in society?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that prisoners reintegrate. That work should start when prisoners are still in custody and continue through the gate into the community. We want to see more of that and will encourage it in any new system that we design.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

I shall come on to that in a while.

I was making the point that back then, Parliament acted as a brake on women’s ordination, but in the intervening two decades there has been a huge change in attitudes in both Houses to gender equality in general and on the role of women in the Church in particular, as we have experienced and witnessed women’s ministry in practice in our communities. My assessment is that when a resurrected Women Bishops Measure comes before the House, the main danger for it is not that it will contain insufficient safeguards for its opponents but that it will contain too many and be deemed inconsistent with widely accepted views on equality.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Figures that have just been released show that half of those who voted against the legislation to allow female bishops were women. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

[Mr Bradshaw]

The hon. Gentleman will have to examine the Church personship of those particular members of Synod, but it is not a secret that there are as many female members of the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings of Synod as there are male members. We do not necessarily make choices and choose values based on our gender.