Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

If I thought that was going to happen, I would not be standing at this Dispatch Box. It has not happened elsewhere; it did not happen in the Republic of Ireland. What has happened there is that people are alive today who would not have been if the legislation had not been introduced there, which is why this Bill is so important. We will, however, make sure that we learn from the mistakes in the Republic of Ireland, and we are going to accept and work with lots of amendments that were tabled in the other place. I will have to table consequential amendments in Committee to make sure that the Bill is legal in that framework, but we are going to accept these recommendations and changes proposed in the other House.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in Northern Ireland that it is organised crime and paramilitaries who have exploited this legal loophole, making misery for the young people who have got involved in taking legal highs and for the families. I am a Member of Parliament for a mother who grieves for her son who thought he was taking something that was going to do him good but who died because of it. Will the Minister confirm that in Northern Ireland there will be no hesitation in using non-jury trials where there is intimidation and a present and real threat of jury tampering by paramilitaries when we are trying to take forward a prosecution for using these highs?

[Mike Penning]

Under this legislation, the highest penalty for selling or purchasing these products—particularly for selling—will be seven years, which is not a light sentence. It indicates the severity of the offence. We do not want to criminalise a whole group of people who have, for many years, been buying a product that was perfectly legal, but there are some real changes that we need to make on behalf of our constituents, which is why we are all in this place. For once, we should get ahead of the drug dealers and chemists. Huge amounts of money are involved not only within the paramilitaries but within organised crime. By having a blanket ban, there are real concerns that we will be banning things that we all enjoy. I am talking about caffeine—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I genuinely think that Ireland is much more comparable to us than Poland. However, I do not think that I will get to Poland in the next week—if I can, I will—but I will certainly look at the evidence cited by the hon. Gentleman.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lyn Brown]

No, I will make some progress.

Cannabis

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have many particular problems in Northern Ireland due to paramilitary activity. Paramilitaries in Northern Ireland have made a fortune out of the misery of others by selling illegal drugs, including cannabis. Has he had a chance to calculate what the impact on the activities of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland would be if cannabis were legalised?

[Paul Flynn]

I have not been to Northern Ireland to discuss this, but I went to the Oireachtas a number of years ago following a report on this issue; there were terrible problems with the criminal market in Dublin, as the hon. Lady will know.

What we are against is the fact that we have a substance of great popularity, used by millions of people, but the market for it is controlled by irresponsible criminals with little regard for the results for customers. They do not pay taxes. We have an empire of criminals building up throughout the world, exploiting their customers. The sensible way forward is to replace that market with one that is run by the state, has strong controls and does as much as it can to keep drugs out of the hands of vulnerable people, including those with mental health problems, the young, pregnant women and so on. No one is asking for free-for-all drug use; we are asking for an intelligent system that can be run and controlled.

It is ludicrous that these drugs should be known as “controlled” drugs when they are totally out of control. I have had constituents come to me and say, “Well, I thought it was legalised anyway.” The police are now very reluctant to arrest for these minor offences. It is many years since a case of someone using cannabis medicinally has been taken to court, because the juries are refusing to convict and it is a waste of everyone’s time, but that is still the law—the law supported by those who are against legalisation here.

If we can take the control of the drugs trade out of the hands of criminals, it will be an all-round improvement. That is what is happening elsewhere in the world. I mentioned the United States, but it is also going on throughout south America. A number of groups have come here recently from Mexico, Honduras and Bolivia to talk with the all-party groups about their revulsion at the drugs state and the terrible effect it has had on their countries. They were the producers, but the problems were in downtown Chicago; the consumers were on the other side. The most serious problems of drug trafficking and warfare involved people in south America.

One major benefit for countries—particularly Mexico—that border the United States, where they have seen the control of drugs taken into the hands of the state, is that there is less trafficking. Fewer drugs are going across the border, which will be a benefit.

[Paul Flynn]

A great deal of good work has been done by the agencies and those who work in this area. The previous MP who ran the all-party group on drug misuse in this country pointed out that there is an establishment of people who are involved and have a vested interest in drug prohibition. He went every year to a group who were helping people with drug problems, but he noticed in his 15 years in Parliament that there were more people coming every year.

Great work is being done, and it will always need to be done to rehabilitate people who are afflicted by drug addiction. One accepts that, but what has taken place in this country and throughout the world in the past 45 years of prohibition is hugely increased drug use. It is going down now, because of the matter to which the Chair referred at the beginning of the sitting: young people are obsessed with the new addiction of playing with their iPhones and iPads. They do not have time to roll a reefer. That is the new addiction, and it has a beneficial effect. That is the fashion throughout the world, and it probably does not do them much harm. The Home Office has admitted that there is no correlation between harsh punishment, harsh penalties and the use of drugs. It is entirely to do with fashion and what young people regard as acceptable and what they regard as naff.

We imagine that we can control what is going on, but we cannot. The whole process is out of control. Holland has given us a fine example over the past 40 years by de-penalising cannabis use. Now and for nearly all that period, cannabis use in Holland has been far less than here in the United Kingdom. There is a good reason for that: people in Holland can go to any coffee shop and have a cannabis cake with their grandmother. Where is the fun in that? They have taken away the allure of forbidden fruit.

In America, groups of young former hippies were sent out to the sticks to deter drug use. At that time, drug use was rampant in cities, but not in rural areas, so these attractive, long-haired hippies went there with guitars and said, “We’ve been subject to degradation. We’ve been through hell. We’ve been through sexual orgies. It was terrible. For goodness sake, don’t do drugs.” Their message was: “Drugs are dangerous. They will upset your parents and destroy your health”—rather forgetting that young people all know that they are immortal. Danger is an attraction, as is upsetting their parents and establishing their own identity, and drug use followed the drug education programme as surely as night follows day. This futile experiment, lasting 45 years, should now come to an end.

Let me give just one example of what has happened. People in America suggested that if cannabis were decriminalised for recreational purposes, there would be all kinds of consequences, but in Colorado and Washington, decriminalisation of recreational drugs took place a year ago, and the disasters have not occurred. The evidence shows no spike in cannabis use among young people and no increase in road fatalities. What there has been, of course, is a large reduction in the criminal market because the state now runs 60% of the market. In Colorado, they are nearing control. If the state government decides that problems are emerging, they can change things, because they pull the levers. They can decide what happens, instead of allowing criminals to use their drugs freely and sell them irresponsibly to build up their criminal networks, as happens in Northern Ireland, or to sell them to people whose mental health is fragile.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for prompting me to get to my feet again by mentioning Northern Ireland; it is so kind of him. In response to my first intervention, he referred to his first trip to Dublin, but not to Northern Ireland. As he knows, cannabis is still illegal in the Republic of Ireland. Will he give some attention to the thought that, although cannabis remains illegal in the Republic of Ireland, we have a very porous border, and it is easy to move into Northern Ireland and therefore into the rest of the UK? What does he believe the impact would be of changing the status of cannabis in the UK but not in the Republic of Ireland?

[Paul Flynn]

Similar concerns were expressed about the Netherlands and other countries when the laws were changed. It was said that there would be drug tourism and that people would flock across, and there have been examples of that, but one hopes that the world will gradually come to its senses, through a gradual process—it is happening now—and that laws can be synchronous and work in that way, as happens in many other areas. My trip to the Oireachtas happened because I was writing a report for the Council of Europe at the time. I was representing the United Kingdom, rather than my own opinions on the matter. What we saw in Dublin with regard to criminality was horrendous. It was very much a replay of what happened in the ’20s in America, and we have yet to learn that lesson.

One of the interventions reminded me of our attitude in this place. We have been talking about this for many years, and I prize the memory of one debate in which the Opposition spokesman and the Minister in charge had to leave. They could not stay for the full period because they needed to go outside the Chamber for a fix—they were both tobacco addicts. They did not see any contradiction in denouncing the use of an addictive drug in the Chamber, for young people, while they were themselves addicted to another drug.

I will not mention any names, but I recall another Conservative MP saying to me, “I just can’t understand it. I went to a prison and my constituent told me he wanted to get hold of some paracetamol for his toothache. He was told, ‘You can’t get that until you go and see the doctor tomorrow morning. You might be supplied with it then.’” The MP’s constituent made this point: “I can go out of this cell now and within 10 minutes, I can get heroin, cocaine”—Mr Evans, you might recall this story—“and cannabis as well”, because they were freely available. Can we persuade the Government to face up to the abject failure that has occurred over this long period?

I have spoken for longer than I intended, and I know that there are many other Members here with a long history in this subject who want to speak. I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for the Green party, and the Liberal Democrat Members who—I read in my copy of The Guardian this morning—are going to take up this issue in a more serious way. No party in this House has contributed more to this subject and the cause of reform than the Liberal Democrats. It is sad to see that a number of them lost out in the last election, particularly the former Member for Cambridge and the former Member for Lewes. Those people have perhaps been punished by the press and possibly the public for having been caught in possession of an intelligent idea, but they deserve credit from this House. I look forward to hearing what Members have to say.

I shall conclude my remarks with a story about a person called Elizabeth Brice, who campaigned under the name of Clare Hodges. Sadly, she died in 2011. Elizabeth Brice led protest after protest here, and she single-handedly convinced the Belgian Government in 1998 to change their law on medicinal cannabis. She was an extremely gifted woman; she was a producer for a television company and a classicist. Among her more bizarre achievements, she was translating the Noddy books into Latin, of which I have a prized copy. I mention her story, although I am grateful to all the people who have written to me recently—there is no way that I can do justice to the number of letters and submissions I have received.

Elizabeth wrote:

“Multiple Sclerosis is a cruel disease. You develop it when you’re young and healthy, and slowly but surely you lose all your faculties, abilities and functions. Nowadays you can expect to live your full life span often until you are completely dependent. And of course this is a very depressing prospect…all the future seemed to hold was deteriorating health and no medicines that really helped.

When I did try cannabis, the physical relief was almost immediate. The tension in my spine and bladder was eased, and I slept well. I was comfortable with my body for the first time in years. But, just as important, I felt happy that there was something, after all, that could help me. It was as if a huge weight had been lifted from me.”

She stated:

“Cannabis helps my body relax. I function and move much easier. The physical effects are very clear. It is not just a vague feeling of well-being.”

On one of her visits to the House of Commons, she committed a serious crime. Out on the Terrace, she asked for a cup of hot water, to which she added a green substance—I am sure that the staff were curious about what those green specks were in the cup afterwards. She had taken herbal cannabis in the House of Commons. The law at the moment says that she could be put in prison for five years, for the crime of seeking relief from pain. Does anyone believe that that law is sensible? That law is an ass. For so long, this House has been held back from full-scale reform by the timidity of Members of Parliament, because of a reluctance to reform for fear of being attacked by the media and losing votes. Now is the time for compassion and courage.

[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene as he is coming to the end of his contribution. He rightly emphasises looking at the evidence. May I invite him—my right hon. friend from a different party—to revise what he suggested earlier in his contribution? I am not a member of the Government, nor do I wish to be, but he cited a percentage of the Government who he said were users of cannabis, and I do not think that he would want that percentage to stay on the record without correction, without evidence.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course, my suggestion was speculation, but very many young people—about a third—choose to take cannabis at some stage. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said earlier, that percentage of the population choosing to use cannabis starts to undermine the rule of law. Perhaps the percentage is a third and not a half, but one can make a reasonable judgment that a significant proportion of this Government will have used cannabis at some point. That is a reasonable assumption to make, yet the Government appear to be comfortable with other people in this country ending up with a criminal record. That is what I find distasteful and that is what has to be challenged. We need policy based on evidence, which focuses on health and not criminal justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are currently trialling some 600 body-worn cameras in 24 prisons, which is absolutely the right thing to do. I saw them being used at first hand in Glen Parva recently, and both prison officers and prisoners reported that they felt a lot safer. I think they are leading to an increase in professionalism and general reassurance across the estate, and I warmly welcome their introduction.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Minister will be well aware that in Northern Ireland prison officers not only fear assault in prisons, but are in peril of their lives because of murder threats on a daily basis from dissident republicans. Thirty prison officers have been murdered in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister consult the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland on progress on the memorial garden that was supposed to have been set up to commend and commemorate the 30 murdered prison officers?

[Andrew Selous]

I am not familiar with the important issue the hon. Lady raises, but she has asked me to look into it and I commit to doing so and getting back to her.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

That is a good point on which to conclude.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Rory Stewart]

I can see that the hon. Lady wishes to intervene and I will let her do so.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention from me as a Member who represents a constituency in Northern Ireland. I know that he will be very sensitive to the role of the British Army in Northern Ireland, which has in the past been very divisive for some sections of the community. May I urge the hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind, when he does his research in Northern Ireland, that former members of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Ulster Defence Regiment are very reluctant to raise their profile, because they are anxious not to be targeted by dissident republicans? I would be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman when he comes to Northern Ireland to do his research and to be as helpful as I possibly can be. I am sure I speak for all Members who usually sit on these Benches.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her offer and I would love to take it up.

On the penultimate intervention, the provision of mobile phones is a simple example of a very important point that every Member has raised so far: what we do know about veterans who offend and reoffend is that the military provides a very powerful possible support network. Unlike other sectors of society, it provides an instrument or lever that could be incredibly helpful and supportive to backing people in their recovery process. Trying to make sure that we get the very best out of institutions that already exist will be the key. We have an obligation to the individuals who offend and reoffend; we have a particular obligation towards the military; and we have an obligation towards society as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I apologised to you in advance, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I apologise to you again for missing the beginning of the debate on this group of amendments. I extend my apology to all hon. Members. I had an important meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and I got here as soon as I could. I did not intend any discourtesy, and I hope that no one will think that I have been discourteous.

I want to speak briefly about my amendment 7, which would delete clause 10. I do not want you to remind me that today is not a Friday, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I intend to be as brief as possible. Therefore, I will not read out exactly what is in clause 10, save to say that it makes special provision for the arrangements for supervision and rehabilitation of female offenders. As far as I am aware, the clause did not appear in the original draft, but was added to the Bill at some stage in the other place. Perhaps the Minister will expand on the reasoning behind the Government’s keenness to accept the clause, given that they do not appear to have been keen to introduce it in the first place.

The reason I object to clause 10 and therefore seek to delete it is that it is absolutely unnecessary. I suspect that it was put in—I hope that the Minister can help us here—to appease those whose whole mission in life is to keep virtually everybody, but female offenders in particular, out of prison. They have perpetuated a myth, which has built up a head of steam over recent years, that—bizarrely—women are treated more unfairly than men in the criminal justice system.

I pressed the Minister during Justice questions not long ago—I think it was just before Christmas—on whether he accepted, agreed with and stood by the figures produced by his Department on rates of offending, reoffending, sentencing and all the rest of it in relation to male and female offenders. I got the impression that he was prepared to stand by the Ministry of Justice figures. If so, and he still stands by them, he should clearly know that not this bizarre claim that women are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system but the exact opposite is the truth.

As it happens, as I am sure that the Minister knows, for every single category of crime, men are more likely than women to be sentenced to prison, to be given longer custodial sentences and to serve longer proportions of their sentence in prison. Yet clauses are still introduced to Bills to try to give even more preferential treatment to women in the criminal justice system, which is totally and utterly unjustifiable. There is this sort of politically correct myth that women offenders are currently hard done by and need special protection.

I am not a big fan of the equality agenda. In the previous Parliament, not only did I introduce an awful lot of amendments to the then Equality Bill, but I voted against it. This clause is a perfect example of why the equality agenda is such a sham. It should not really be called the equality agenda. It should be called the “equality but only when it suits us agenda”. All the people who campaign so vehemently on these issues argue, quite rightly, that men and women should be treated the same. There should be no difference in their pay, the way they are treated in the workplace and so on. I agree with the premise that we should be gender blind in all matters. That, to me, is true equality. It should not matter what somebody’s gender is. It should not matter what their colour is, what religion they are or what their sexual orientation is. Those are all irrelevances when it comes to anything, whether it is what they are paid or what opportunities they are given.

It therefore seems to me that gender should also be irrelevant in how the criminal justice system treats offenders. It should not matter whether the offender is male or female—they should be dealt with on the basis of the crime they committed, the seriousness of the crime, the persistence of their offending and their likelihood of reoffending. I do not see what on earth their gender has to do with any of those factors. Their treatment should be gender blind.

I believe that the view I have set out, which is that everybody should be treated the same, irrespective of their gender, is what most people would sign up to. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister and the other Members who support clause 10 will explain—because for the life of me I cannot see it—why they believe that everybody should be treated the same, apart from when it comes to sentencing and the treatment of offenders. Perhaps when he winds up, the Minister will explain why he thinks that women should be treated far more preferentially in the criminal justice system. If anybody doubts that, I have all the figures to hand. In the interests of time, I will not bandy them about the Chamber, but I have them here and am happy to share them with anybody. They are the figures from the Ministry of Justice itself and the evidence is striking.

Women are treated more favourably than men not only when it comes to being sentenced to prison, although that is particularly stark, but in the recommendations of the probation service. In a recent parliamentary question, I asked on how many occasions the probation service makes a recommendation of immediate custody for sentencing in the Crown court, which considers the most serious offences, for men and for women. The probation service recommends immediate custody for 24% of men who are up before the Crown court, but only 11% of women.

People would be forgiven for thinking, on the basis of that statistic, that the probation service is already bending over backwards to treat women more favourably than men in the criminal justice system. It recommends prison twice as often for men as it does for women. And yet there is a clause that seeks to make the probation service go even further in giving preferential treatment to women. That seems to me to be completely unnecessary.

The Minister might have been better served finding a way to ensure that men are treated more fairly in the criminal justice system, because that is where the problem lies at the moment. The figures on that are stark, and yet the Minister wants to go further in the opposite direction. The argument I have heard is that women should be a special case because they are often more vulnerable, but that ignores the fact that there are plenty of men who come from vulnerable backgrounds as well. Why are we not interested in those people? Why are we not giving them a fair lick of the sauce bottle, as they say in Australia? Why is it only vulnerable women offenders that we are bothered about?

Not only is what I have said about prison sentencing true, but men are more likely than women to be given the highest level of community order. More men than women go to prison, so we might therefore expect women to get more higher level community sentences than men because of the shortage of numbers going to prison. Even at that level, however, more men are sentenced to the highest level community orders than women—10% of women compared with 16% of men. At every possible level in the criminal justice system, men are already treated far more harshly.

So that the Minister is aware of this I will quote the latest report from the Ministry of Justice, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2011”, which makes it clear that on average, women receive shorter and less onerous community sentences:

“The average length of a community order and Suspended Sentence Order for women (12.9 and 17.8 months) was shorter than for men (at 15.0 and 18.3 months respectively). The average length of both orders was also shorter for women in each of the four preceding years.

Women beginning the most common types of supervision orders in 2011 generally had fewer requirements with which to comply than men. For community orders, 43 per cent of women and 51 per cent of men were given more than one requirement with which to comply. For Suspended Sentence Orders, the corresponding proportions were 55 per cent for women and 63 per cent for men.”

Women were also more likely than men to be given supervision as a requirement, and regarded as a lower risk category when being assessed.

There are already sentences run by probation services that women cannot be given, even if they fit into the offending type. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to his new clause 12, and the sad thing about that is that it perpetuates the problem I am trying to highlight. It states:

“It shall be the responsibility of the National Probation Service to provide all Building better relationships rehabilitations programmes for male perpetrators of domestic violence”.

As it happens, there are an awful lot of female perpetrators of domestic violence. They may not be a majority, but there are an awful lot of them and in some age groups I think they are the majority of offenders. The new clause states that only male offenders are required to go on treatment programmes, and there is nothing about female offenders. I would have supported the new clause if it also included a requirement for female perpetrators of domestic violence to go on those courses, but the hon. Gentleman has spectacularly failed to mention that, for reasons best known to himself.

[Lady Hermon]

I have listened patiently to the hon. Gentleman, but with increasing exasperation. Has he made equal efforts to obtain statistics from the Department of Health about the impact on the mental health of women who have been sent to prison or had custody orders imposed on them and—just as importantly—on the welfare and health of the children of women who have been sent to prison? I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman read out those statistics to the House.

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted; I am trying not to go off the scent, so to speak, but perhaps you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure these facts are a terrible irritation to the hon. Lady and may not suit her particular agenda and the world she would like to portray, but I am merely stating the facts as produced by the Ministry of Justice. If she does not agree with the statistics, she should feel free to contact the Minister. I can do no more than ask questions and get the answers.

The hon. Lady asks about children, and there may well be a case there. I would not mind so much if people said to me, “Well, of course women are treated more favourably in the criminal justice system, but there is good reason for that because they might have to look after children.” If somebody wanted to go down that line of argument I would at least have some respect for that; the point may or may not be valid, but that is not the argument that is made. The argument is that women are treated more harshly in the criminal justice system, but—quite frankly—they are not. It is no good people pretending they are when the facts are perfectly stark: they are not.

As the hon. Lady mentioned children she might want to bear it in mind—again, the Ministry of Justice made this clear—that two-thirds of mothers who are sent to prison are not even looking after their children at the time. In two-thirds of cases the children have already been taken off those mothers because they are not deemed fit to look after them. The people we are talking about are hardly great role models for their children. In fact, some prisoner organisations have made it clear that it is actually a relief when the mother is sent to prison—in one case they described those mothers as causing “merry hell” in their families. Therefore, the idea that it is to everybody’s advantage, including the children, to keep persistent and serious offenders out of prison to look after children is a bizarre one by anybody’s standards.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention so promptly. When did he last visit a women’s prison? Will he do me the great courtesy of accepting an invitation to Northern Ireland to see the conditions in which women prisoners in Northern Ireland exist? I would be grateful for a response on both points.

[Philip Davies]

I would be delighted to visit Northern Ireland. As it happens, I have been a regular visitor to prisons around the country, including women’s prisons. I have visited 12 or 13 prisons in the UK, including two female prisons. I have also visited prisons in America and Denmark to see how they treat offenders. My point is that there is no justification for the new clause and no evidence to justify it.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions today. That will not be a precedent for the future.

On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.

Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the Freedom from Fear campaign.

Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.

It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.

Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.

We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.

New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel they need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.

We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.

Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of highstreet legal high sellers.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Jack Dromey]

I will not give way, because of the time that I have available.

In conclusion, I recognise that some progress has been made and I also recognise the action that has been taken by many trading standards officers. It is absolutely clear, however, that the Government need to go further. Their approach should be flexible but determined, with the necessary powers to take us beyond the existing arrangements, under which only a handful of legal highs are scrutinised every year. This is a marketplace where new products constantly evolve, many of which put those who use them seriously at risk, and in the future we should tackle the problem, banning the use of such products, while, where appropriate, putting out of business those who promote and sell them. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this powerful case, not least because it is being put by many of those whose sons and daughters have died as a consequence of using substances that they never believed for one moment would put their lives at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I take the opportunity to welcome for his last hurrah on this Bill the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), before he moves to the equally exciting field of immigration policy. It is an area that—I say this with some experience—I know he will find life enhancing.

The Bill has been much improved by the scrutiny of this House. We often beat ourselves up—and are beaten up by people outside—about the level and quality of scrutiny we apply to legislation in this House, but I think the Bill is now in better shape than it was when it entered Committee, and for that I thank hon. Members from across the House. Foremost among the improvements is the insertion of a whole new part of the Bill at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and 67 other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who supported new clause 5. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the energy and perseverance she has shown in pursuit of her Childhood Lost campaign.

In 2012-13, well over 1,000 people were convicted in this country of offences relating to child sexual exploitation. It is a horrible and repulsive crime and we owe it to the victims, and to all children, to do all we can to eliminate it. Prosecutions and convictions are essential, but by then, of course, the damage is done—or, as my hon. Friend put it, a childhood has been lost. We must therefore do more to prevent such horrendous crimes from occurring in the first place.

Civil orders, which help protect the public from individuals whose behaviour means there is a risk that they will sexually abuse or otherwise sexually harm others, play an important part in our prevention strategy. Although provision for such orders has been in statute for 10 years, and there are many cases in which they have been used effectively, it is clear that the current regime in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is too inflexible. Instead of supporting the protection of vulnerable children, it places unreasonable obstacles in the way of keeping them safe. The new sexual harm prevention order and sexual risk order will simplify and strengthen the current powers available to the police, rebalancing the scales of justice in favour of children and vulnerable adults.

In many respects, the approach we are taking to the reform of civil prevention orders under the Sexual Offences Act mirrors our approach to antisocial behaviour powers, and as in that case, the Bill sweeps away the complex and bureaucratic array of powers that put unnecessary obstacles in the way of front-line professionals taking fast and effective action to protect vulnerable people and communities. With the ASBO, however, there was an additional problem because the existing powers simply do not work. ASBOs can take many months to obtain, and, once secured, most are breached with more than four in 10 breached repeatedly. We need powers that will not only offer fast and immediate protection for those at risk of harm, but drive a change in behaviour and provide a long-term solution.

In her article in The Independent last month, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) bemoaned the fact that the ASBO is “much maligned”. She has recently moved on from the Home Affairs brief, on which I congratulate her, but I put it to her and to her colleagues who remain on the Front Benches that it is also time to move on from the ASBO. The ASBO is maligned for the good reason that it has been ineffective, and the Bill will rightly see the back of it.

As well as ensuring that front-line professionals have the powers they need, our reforms place the victim at the heart of the response to antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will be enhanced if it is developed locally within a national framework. Out-of-court disposals must be seen to be a fair and effective way of dealing with offending behaviour if they are to have the confidence of the community. To achieve that, each and every one should have a punitive, restorative or rehabilitative element, or a combination of those. I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for his comments about strengthening the provisions of the Bill to that end. Out-of-court disposals must be used appropriately, and as I have repeatedly said, they should only be used as the first response to low-level offending. When the seriousness of an offence, or the frequency of the offending behaviour, warrants prosecution, prosecution is what should happen.

Under the Bill, victims of antisocial behaviour will be able to take advantage of the community trigger. No one should have to suffer repeated incidents of antisocial behaviour because the police, local authority or landlord repeatedly fails to respond to the victim’s call for action.

The community trigger will give victims the power to demand a case review. That case review must assess whether further action is required, and it can result in the relevant authority being required to take appropriate action. That is real accountability. It gives ordinary people real power to compel the authorities to respond in a way that will stop them being victimised.

After the debate on Report and the House’s clear rejection of new clause 3, I hope we can move on from the debate about dog control notices. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the need for more effective preventive powers to tackle irresponsible dog owners. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published the draft of a comprehensive practitioners manual that shows how the new antisocial behaviour powers in the Bill can be used to tackle dog-related problems. I put it to the House that the time has come for all parties, including animal welfare groups, the police, local authorities and others, to work together to ensure that the provisions in the Bill deliver the outcomes we all want.

[Lady Hermon]

The Minister will know very well that responsibility for policing and justice was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2010, but bits of clause 98, on dangerous dogs, appear to apply to Northern Ireland. I do not understand why some bits and pieces apply to Northern Ireland when other bits and pieces do not, but on the bits that apply, what consultation was there with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which is responsible for dogs?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, throughout the passage of the Bill and on many other matters, there has been regular, continuous contact at all levels. I see the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice regularly, and our officials are in contact on detailed matters. We work closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House for any great period. I had the great privilege and honour of serving on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who was not always given an easy time by those whom he was whipping, even on his own Benches. As a number of hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the proceedings in the Bill Committee. It was a great pleasure of course to work with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and with the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who was also taking the Bill through Committee.

The Bill has shown the House at its best. It has been improved throughout the Bill Committee, both by Opposition amendments that the Government have taken on board—they have brought changes to the Bill before the House on Report—and by amendments tabled by Government Back Benchers, which the Government have also taken into account. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her work during the passage of the Bill, which a number of us were pleased to support and which has led to the vast improvement of the Bill before it leaves this place.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn for indicating he will not divide the House on Third Reading, but insofar as there is any difference between the two sides of the House on the Bill, it appears principally to centre on whether ASBOs have been a good thing. I understand that there is politics around this and the Labour party is deeply attached to the idea, but as I pointed out in our debate yesterday, whether or not ASBOs were originally effective, as matters now stand they have turned out not to be effective at all. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, they have become a badge of honour for some teenagers, and the breach rates of ASBOs among teenagers in particular have risen to such levels that they have proved completely ineffective at controlling antisocial behaviour. It is therefore entirely right that the Government have moved to tackle this issue—as, I say to the right hon. Member for Delyn, I suspect that that would have been the position even if his party were in government.

[Lady Hermon]

We had to wait and wait impatiently for years for the Labour party to introduce ASBOs in Northern Ireland, and we were very grateful indeed when we had them extended to Northern Ireland and we have found them very effective.

[Stephen Phillips]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the breach rates among teenagers have in some places reached as high as 90% and in those circumstances it is absolutely plain, at least in England and Wales, that ASBOs are not working to control antisocial behaviour. The poll to which I referred yesterday and to which the hon. Member for Cambridge has referred today found that the vast majority of people in this country do not see ASBOs as an effective way of tackling antisocial behaviour. The position in Northern Ireland may be different, but the reality is that whichever party was in government, this issue had to be grappled with. I am pleased the Government have done so and have brought forward measures to deal with antisocial behaviour that are largely welcome on both sides of the House.

As the Bill leaves the House, there are great sadnesses. One of them is that we are yet to have a proper debate on the extradition provisions. We have had the Scott Baker report, yet that has never been debated at length in this House. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) have repeatedly sought to have a proper debate on extradition, and it remains a matter of great sadness to me—and, I know, a number of other colleagues—that we have not yet had that debate. I therefore hope that, as this Bill leaves the House with these effectively undebated provisions relating to extradition, they will receive a great deal of scrutiny in the other place.

When my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the Third Reading debate he pointed out that one of the things this Bill will do is put the victim at the absolute heart of tackling antisocial behaviour. That is greatly to be welcomed. I had some concerns about the way in which community remedies were going to be dealt with in the Bill, but the Government have listened to the concerns I and a number of others had around how those provisions were to be interpreted and whether or not guidance should be given. That is one of the ways in which the Bill has been improved, and it serves to show this House in its best light.

The Government have listened and brought forward measures designed to improve the Bill, so that when it is rolled out across the country, it tackles the things it is designed to tackle. I have paid a number of tributes already, but may I pay a final one? It is fair to say that the officials at the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were given a great deal of work to do by the Bill Committee during the passage of this Bill, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister would wish to join me in congratulating them on all the work they did. As this Bill goes to the other place for further consideration, I can say that, in its drafting and the way in which it has been improved, it is, in my short tenure in this House, one of the best Bills the House has considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

It is important that we have this debate. My view comes from looking at the detail of the Bill and from the fact that humanist marriage is already established in Scotland and seems to be working well. It seems to me that the Bill provides an obvious opportunity to introduce equality between humanists in Wales, England and Scotland sooner rather than later. I do not see that as a problem.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. He made fun of the advice given to us by the House’s most senior Law Officer. I obviously do not sit on the Government Benches, but I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General’s advice, and he told us clearly that supporting an extension only to humanists would be discriminatory. We have the European convention on human rights, and I say hooray for that—I am in favour of it—but how does the hon. Gentleman excuse the fact that the new clause applies only to humanists rather than having broader coverage? It is discriminatory.

[Geraint Davies]

The status quo is discriminatory in any case, which is why we are asking for equality for same-sex couples. Humanist marriages occur in Scotland without being challenged in the European Court, so there have been test cases. Like others, I am free to make jokes about the Attorney-General; he has no planet-sized brain that should intimidate us, and his reference to tiddlywinks invited scorn and ridicule, which I thought it was reasonable to supply. On that hilarious note, I will bring my comments to a close.

[Mr Blunt]

I rise to reassure the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that there is support for him on the Government Benches and to encourage the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to press the new clause to a vote and not be put off by the blandishments that she may hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I say that because I am suspicious when I cannot hear a single argument against the principle of a proposal—there is agreement that it is absolutely reasonable and a proper extension of rights to humanists—but we get a barrow load of technical or legal difficulties and risks, and the idea that there has not been time for consultation. The idea that we do not have the opportunity during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament to sit down and address the technical objections to this suggestion and others, and to get the Bill right before it finally hits the statute book, does not reflect terribly well on us as legislators or on the advice that we can command.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said that the Bill was not the right vehicle for addressing the matter, but I do not think that we will see another marriage Bill coming down the track any time soon. Ministers’ enthusiasm for re-engaging with the issue, after going through the joy of the past 18 months of consultation and processes, will be a little limited. That was why, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested a five-year time bar before the issue would be reconsidered. That was overturned at the insistence of the Opposition, whose amendment she accepted. I rather suspect that that time-limitation arrangement was suggested because Ministers have been somewhat scarred by the process of the Bill.

That makes it more important for us to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with some fundamental points that seem glaringly obvious to me. It seems glaringly obvious that humanists ought to be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies and that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has put forward yesterday and today ought to be addressed. We should take this opportunity to have a fundamental look at how marriage is delivered and to divide civil and religious marriage properly, so that we have dealt with all the problems that we are now wrestling with.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) prayed in aid the advice that we heard from the Attorney-General, but I have to say that although I am a very great friend of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and have huge admiration for his work and his intellect, I have never heard such nonsense on stilts put forward under the guise of independent and wise advice. It was certainly not the product of careful consideration, because it has come to the House at rather short notice. On reflection, his rather strange division between secular people and religious people, with the former not deserving the same consideration for the protection of their rights, would itself fall foul of any convention on human rights worth its name.

My right hon. and learned Friend ought to have the opportunity to give rather more considered advice as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I am sure that when it is considered in another place and then comes back to this House, if there is satisfaction that his arguments hold water, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her colleagues who tabled the new clause will be happy to consider them again. We need to address the technical and legal objections that are being made to a measure to which I have heard no Member put forward principled opposition.

[Lady Hermon]

Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. I am not making this up; I am reading in black and white article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention—”

that includes the right to marry, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the convention—

“shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”

within the United Kingdom. It could not be clearer. The advice of the Attorney-General is that if new clause 15 is accepted and extends only to those who are humanists, that is discrimination and in breach of article 14. Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?

--- Later in debate ---

A written question, answered by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), the Minister with responsibility for equality, confirmed that 151 interim gender recognition certificates were made—the certificates given when someone seeking full legal recognition is in a pre-existing marriage. The interim certificate could be used as grounds for annulment. After annulment, a full certificate giving the long sought-after civil rights could then be issued. Some of those 151 couples will have gone on to divorce and continue to live with, or form civil partnerships with, their former spouses. It is only they who would be eligible for compensation under the amendment, so the cost would probably be no more than tens of thousands of pounds and could not, at the absolute maximum, be any more than £151,000. The financial implications of the amendment, therefore, are tiny to the point of being negligible. This is about a symbolic apology: the state apologising for having, as the hon. Member for Cambridge put it, stolen those marriages.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on what is a very interesting contribution. Will she clarify a small point, but one that is of great significance to those in Northern Ireland? I am following the logic of her argument. Under schedule 2 to the Bill, those in England and Wales can avail themselves of same-sex marriage. As soon as they go to Northern Ireland, however, that marriage would have to be treated as a civil partnership. Is the logic of her argument that the state that passed the legislation must also compensate those who regard themselves as married couples in England and Wales, but become civil partners again in Northern Ireland?

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Given that we are talking about a symbolic apology, it would be generous and appropriate for it to be offered in Northern Ireland too. My argument is not a narrow legal argument. A wrong was done. To the extent that the wrong was done by the Government, one can make an argument that the measure is relevant only to those who were living in the country at that time.

[Lady Hermon]

It is very generous of the hon. Lady to take a second intervention. Just to be clear, I was not making a recommendation that compensation be paid by the state. I was simply asking the hon. Lady whether her amendments would oblige the Government to pay compensation in the circumstances she outlined. Is the logic of her argument that she would advocate compensation in Northern Ireland? I certainly am not doing so.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. In that case, my answer is simple: yes, I would.

Amendment 22 would remove any reference to compensation and deal specifically with the reinstatement of marriages in cases where couples had their marriages annulled, so that a person could obtain a gender recognition certificate and continue to live together without forming a civil partnership. In cases where civil partnerships were formed after forced annulment, I am pleased that the Bill provides some assistance. Under clause 9, a couple are permitted to convert their civil partnership into a marriage to be treated as having subsisted since the date the civil partnership was formed.

Couples who were forced to annul a marriage and enter into a civil partnership will not be able to rewrite history—at least not legally—but it will almost be as if there was no break in their marriage, which of course they never wanted to annul in the first place. These are not the only cases, however, and we must ensure that all cases are covered. As a result, amendment 22 is designed to help couples who annulled their marriages so that one person could get a gender certificate, but who did not then enter into a civil partnership. As far as possible, the injustice that they have also faced must be addressed.

When the issue was discussed in Committee, the Minister expressed sympathy for couples who had been required to make the difficult choice of whether to end their marriage to enable one of the parties to obtain gender recognition, but she said that she could not support an amendment that sought to reinstate marriages from the date they were annulled because of the difficulties that could be caused with any rights and responsibilities that the couple had accrued since their marriage was annulled—for example, retrospective entitlements to benefits and taxation.

In order to help the Government and make some progress, in this version of the amendment, I and the hon. Member for York Central are proposing that reinstatement of the marriage be from the date that the couple gave notice to have it reinstated. This would address Ministers’ concern about retrospective legislation. It is not ideal. I would much prefer a fully retrospective measure, but given what the Minister said in Committee, it would be better than nothing for this small but greatly wronged—I still believe—group of people. Couples were forced to make a distressing and appalling choice, largely because policy on same-sex marriage was lagging so far behind what was right and just. I hope that we can use the window of opportunity in this historic Bill to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

Government amendment 48 relates to marriages in overseas consulates and armed forces bases, and means that if an Order in Council made under schedule 6 contains provisions that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament must be consulted before such an order is made. Similar arrangements are proposed for Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

My intervention relates specifically to Northern Ireland and harks back to the useful advice given at the beginning of the debate by the Attorney-General in relation to the risk of discrimination. The Minister will know that under the Bill as drafted, if it is enacted, schedule 2 means that a couple who avail of the facility of a same-sex marriage will be fine in England and Wales, but as soon as they go to Northern Ireland it reverts to a civil partnership. My concern, mirrored by the Attorney-General’s intervention in relation to an earlier amendment, is that within the United Kingdom, surely that is discrimination on grounds of different status in Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly work very hard on that together.

I turn now to Government amendments 30 to 32, which are purely technical and simply ensure that the use of the phrase “existing England and Wales legislation” is entirely coherent, so as to remove any possible doubt as to its meaning. Government amendments 33 to 39 are technical and make changes to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 to ensure that it works entirely properly for same-sex marriages. Amendment 33 makes changes to the 1973 Act in relation to what applies to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages and to give effect to schedule A1.

Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38 make changes to ensure consistency of language with the 1973 Act. Amendment 37 inserts a provision into schedule A1 to enable applications for an order to end a marriage because one of the couple is dead to be made under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. Amendment 39 enables schedule A1 to work using the presumption of death provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the 2013 Act is not in force when the Bill comes into force. Amendment 39 also amends schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 provisions on staying—meaning halting—matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales when there are other court proceedings at the same time outside England and Wales about that same-sex marriage. That will ensure that such proceedings on the same divorce, judicial separation or annulment do not give rise to conflicting decisions, which would prevent resolution of the issue.

[Lady Hermon]

I am listening intently to the Minister and am sorry to interrupt her at this stage, but I must bring her back to Northern Ireland. I really want an assurance from the Government that we in Northern Ireland will not see legal challenges on the grounds of breaches of the European convention on human rights by those who, if the Bill becomes law, avail of same-sex marriage in England and Wales. It is specifically paragraph 2 of schedule 2 that concerns me. It states:

“Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership… (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).”

I just need reassurance from the Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are getting to Third Reading points and I would not want the hon. Lady to use up the points that would be better made then.