Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will recall that Wellingborough prison was closed without any notification to me, and that I learned about it through the media. I have just been contacted by my local press and learned that Wellingborough prison has been sold. I have received no notification whatever from the Ministry of Justice, and there is no written statement in the Library. Can you advise me of how I might get some more information about what seems a very unfortunate situation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chair has not been advised of such a sale, but his point is now on the record, and I am sure that since he has raised it, the Prisons Minister will get in touch with him to say whether it has been sold. I look to the Government Front Bench as I say that I presume that has been taken on board.

New Schedule 2

Proceeds of crime provisions: Northern Ireland

Part 1

Civil recovery provisions

Meaning of “relevant civil recovery provision”

1 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant civil recovery provision”—

(a) section 33(2), (3), (5) and (6);

(b) section 33(7) so far as it relates to amendments made by section 33(2), (3) and (5) and Part 2 of Schedule 17;

(c) each provision in Schedule 17;

(d) each amendment or repeal made by the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c).

Relevant civil recovery provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

2 (1) The relevant civil recovery provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 3.

Power to provide for relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

3 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland

4 (1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland.

(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—

(a) provide for section 282A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have effect in relation to orders made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(b) provide for an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282B of that Act;

(c) provide for a receiver appointed under an order made by the High Court in Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282C of that Act;

(d) provide for the High Court in Northern Ireland or a receiver appointed by an order made by that court to make requests for assistance under section 282D of that Act;

(e) provide for an enforcement authority or trustee for civil recovery to make a request for assistance under section 282F of that Act where a recovery order has been made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(f) provide for section 316(8B) of that Act to have effect in relation to an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland

5 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

6 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted or reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

7 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 3, 4 or 5 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) Such an order may provide for provision amending, repealing or otherwise modifying Chapter 2 or 4 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have retrospective effect.

(3) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(4) An order under paragraph 3 or 4 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 5.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

(6) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).

Part 2

Investigation provisions

Meaning of “relevant investigation provision”

8 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant investigation provision”—

(a) each provision in paragraphs 2 to 13, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 of Schedule 18 (including each amendment or repeal made by those provisions), and

(b) section 34 so far as it relates to each of those provisions.

Relevant investigation provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

9 (1) The relevant investigation provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 10.

Power to provide for relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

10 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland

11 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland

12 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

13 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted matter or a reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

14 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 10, 11 or 12 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(3) An order under paragraph 10 or 11 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 12.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

(5) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I beg to move, That the schedule be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

‘made by the High Court in England and Wales or the Court of Session’.—(Mr Syms.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. In the deferred Division on the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, the Ayes were 288 and the Noes 225, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 286, the Noes 223, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Tax Credits Up-rating, etc. Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 286, the Noes 228, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013, the Ayes were 289, the Noes were 224, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

New Clause 18

Sanction for and trial in relation to drink driving

‘Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended such that the time period stipulated as punishment for an offence under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit) is two years and such that the said offence shall be triable either way.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 120, in clause 41, page 45, line 44, in clause 41, at end insert—

‘(3A) In section 3ZB of the 1988 Act (causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers), after (c) insert—

“(d) section 5A of this Act (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit).”.’.

Amendment 2, page 46, line 31, in clause 41, at end add—

‘(8) The Secretary of State shall have responsibility to ensure that within 12 months of Royal Assent an assessment has been made by the Home Office on the impact of this section on equipment, training and resources with particular regard to published impact assessments from the Home Office, Department for Transport, Department of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service.’.

Amendment 89, page 46, line 34, in clause 42, at end insert—

‘(1A) In section 4(1) (“Fear or provocation of violence”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.

(1B) In section 4A(1) (“Intentional harassment, alarm or distress”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.’.

Amendment 90, page 46, line 36, in clause 42, at end insert—

‘(6) In section 6(3) (“mental element: miscellaneous”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.’.

Government amendment 84.

[Mr Burrowes]

Both new clause 18 and amendment 120 concern sentences for driving over the prescribed limits for drugs and alcohol and both seek to fill a gap in sentencing. There are 220 traffic cases each year in which individuals die on our roads owing to a driver who has been impaired through drink or drugs.

On the subject of filling gaps, I pay tribute to the Government for filling the gap in drug-driving offences. The new offence will not require proof of impairment. Owing to the imminent arrival of roadside drugalysers, it will become an offence that sits alongside drink-driving. It will be possible to rely on proof that someone is over the prescribed limit, whether for alcohol or drugs, rather than relying solely on proof of impairment.

Here I must declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. I must confess that I recall many prosecutions that did not succeed because of ambiguities and complexities relating to proof of impairment. The filling of that gap might not have been welcome to some of my clients of old, but it will be welcome to victims of offences of this kind, and it will be welcome to those who believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that drink and drug-driving offences are prosecuted properly.

However, I am also concerned about another gap. The purpose of new clause 18 and amendment 120 is to draw attention to it, and to ensure that, in one way or another, we fill it. Without the new clause, the maximum custodial sentence for driving after consuming excess alcohol, or indeed drugs over the prescribed limit, will still be six months’ imprisonment. Statute has properly provided that, if carelessness or dangerousness is proved, greater penalties will follow. The last Conservative Government recognised the need to ensure that drivers who caused death while under the influence of drugs or drink should be more heavily penalised. We now have on the statute book the offence of death caused by careless driving while the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.

In 2011, the number of drivers tried for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was 27, and the number of those convicted was zero. Rather than relying on the good work of the last Conservative Government, we need to ensure that it is followed through in practice. When it comes to the sad and tragic cases of people who die as a result of the actions of drivers, particularly drivers who are under the influence of drink or drugs, there must be a penalty that exceeds the fairly minimum penalty of a six-month sentence.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 8, page 1, line 7, leave out ‘nine’ and insert

‘an elected Chair and eight other’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Chair is to be a member of the House of Commons elected in the same way as the Chairs of Departmental Select Committees.

(2B) A person is not eligible to be elected as Chair of the ISC unless that person—

(a) has received the formal consent in writing of the Prime Minister to that person’s candidature, and

(b) is not a Minister of the Crown.’.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 16, line 5, after ‘person’, insert

‘elected as the Chair or’.

Amendment 12, page 16, line 7, after ‘(2)’, insert ‘The Chair or’.

Amendment 13, page 16, line 12, after ‘is’, insert ‘the Chair or’.

Amendment 14, page 16, line 16, leave out

‘Parliament by virtue of which the person is a member of the ISC’

and insert ‘Commons’.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment 58, line 11 at end add—

‘(e) may make payments to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and House of Lords in respect of any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred, in relation to remuneration payable to ISC members in respect of their membership of the ISC.’.

[Steve Baker]

Before I deal with amendments 8 to 14, which stand in the name of, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), I should explain that my hon. Friend has been unavoidably diverted by long-standing and immovable duties in relation to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. He sends his profuse apologies to the House.

I am acutely aware of what is at stake in relation to the Intelligence and Security Committee. In 2009 the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report entitled “Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture”, which considered the ISC’s ability to work within a circle of secrecy and yet deliver credible scrutiny. It states:

“The missing element, which the ISC has failed to provide, is proper ministerial accountability to Parliament for the activities of the Security Services. In our view, this can be achieved without comprising individual operations if the political will exists to provide more detailed information to Parliament about the policy framework, expenditure and activities of the relevant agencies.”

The provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome on the whole, but amendments 8 to 14 would remedy a crucial deficiency in the struggle to provide that political will to answer to Parliament.

The amendments would have a very simple effect. They provide for the election of a Chair of the ISC from the House of Commons on the same basis as the election of Select Committee Chairs, apart from the fact that candidates would be required to obtain the formal consent of the Prime Minister in writing before standing. Ministers would be ineligible.

There are three reasons why reform of the ISC is needed. First, it tried, but failed, to get to the bottom of British involvement in rendition; its investigation of British complicity in extraordinary rendition was a test that it failed.

Violence against Women and Girls

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart]

If I keep giving way I will take up too much of the debate, so I will try to resist, but if any Members are really assertive I will give way. How about that for a deal?

Research shows that young men have a higher tolerance of sexual violence than young women. Although both are changed by good-quality sex and relationships education, the sad thing is that a lot of research studies show that the young men move from a very bad set of attitudes to about where the young women’s attitudes start. The young women get more confidence and change their attitudes a lot by understanding that it is not tolerable to put up with physical violence, sexting, sexual bullying or being barged about.

As I have said, I used to be a teacher and a teacher educator in the days when things were much worse. I remember a teacher education resource about computers in education. In those days, computers were rather new in the classroom and the resource stated how the boys would be really excited about them and how the girls’ ribs would be bruised as the boys pushed past them to get to the computers because they enjoyed the lesson so much. That was a resource for people learning to teach. It indicated a tolerance of violence in the classroom that is utterly unacceptable, and that is the reason why I think the motion will do more to prevent the violence that too many women and men in our society face.

I have discussed successful sex and relationships education and how it can change things. Some of it is successful and some of it is very bad. Ofsted’s report says that about three quarters of the lessons observed were good and about a quarter were poor. Of the good lessons, Ofsted noticed that the bit that was not so good was relationships education. I think that we have created an education system that focuses far too much on the mechanics of sex and not sufficiently on autonomy, the right to say no, positive relationships and empowering young women in that way.

I commend the evidence sent by the PSHE Association, which provides teachers with assistance on personal, social, health and economic education. It notes that about 40% of 16 to 18-year-old students have not received or cannot remember lessons or information on sexual consent. Only 6% of respondents said that they got the information on relationships that they needed in PSHE. It points out that good quality PSHE teaching not only helps to raise young people’s awareness of abuse, but supports those who experience abuse to develop practical strategies and skills to stop it, and that it challenges prevailing negative attitudes towards women and girls. We know that this can work and prevent the appalling problem of young girls thinking that violent, abusive relationships are normal and that the controlling way in which their so-called boyfriends manage their behaviour is acceptable.

In view of the cases in Oxford, I asked my local police commander whether there was the same problem in my area of the exploitation of young girls by organised gangs which seduce them with violence, bullying, presents and threats. He said that he did not think that there was an organised gang in Slough, but that he had identified about 12 young women who are very vulnerable, but who think that they just have boyfriends and are not at risk.

That is why we need this education. We need it to enable girls to be safe. We need it to enable boys to know that such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable throughout society, even if it happens behind closed doors. We need it to ensure that people who have been victims of violence know that it is not their fault. We must make a society in which all those things are real. I believe that excellent sex and relationships education based on zero tolerance to violence will deliver that. We are still miles behind according to the evidence that has been sent to us by groups such as the National Union of Students, which reports that many students still face sexual bullying and violence as the norm in colleges and universities.

This motion, if implemented, could really make the difference. I urge the Minister in his summing up to tell us that he will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education, which in my view has done less than his Department to deal with this issue, and remind them that this is not something for the future; this is urgent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There is a six-minute limit on speeches. We may have to reduce that towards the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are too many private conversations and it is difficult to hear Mr Davies. I am sure we all want to hear what he has to say—[Interruption.] Perhaps not, but at least he can enjoy it.

[Philip Davies]

That is part of the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear anyone who does not agree with them. One could be forgiven for thinking that the perpetrators of all these crimes were men and not often women, but again, that is not true. There are many female perpetrators of violence against both women and men, and according to official Ministry of Justice figures, the most common offence group for which both males and females were arrested during a five-year period was violence against the person—34% of females and 31% of males arrested in 2010-11 were arrested for violence against the person. Again, that is not restricted to women but applies also to girls. In 2010-11, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females were arrested.

I am afraid that time does not allow me to go through those figures in more detail, which I would like to do.

Police

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2013-14 (HC 876), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from previous days. On the motion relating to the draft Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 276 and the Noes were 196, so the Question was agreed. On the motion relating to the draft Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 284 and the Noes were 190, so the Question was agreed.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

My book is being reprinted, I am pleased to say, but when there is a revised edition I will add that. The truth is that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As successful as the right hon. Gentleman’s book is, I am sure that we do not need to get bogged down in his book sales. We look forward to the next volume.

[Mr Straw]

The truth is that my right hon. Friend had to make those ministerial decisions because visitor appeals had not been introduced at that stage. Ministers will end up with a lot more demands on their plate, among other things, if they take the route of abolishing visitor appeals.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are 16 speakers to get in, so it would only be fair, because some of the earlier speeches were quite long, to put a limit of 12 minutes on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is he not making the same mistake? The Home Affairs Committee asked the deputy Children’s Commissioner about this particular issue—she is now carrying out an investigation throughout the whole country—and she said that it is not to do with race or religion, but is just one form of methodology of sexual abuse.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can I just say that we have to have short interventions? I know that the hon. Lady wants to speak, and I am sure that she does not want to use up her speech this early, but the problem is that if she continues to intervene, she will understand if she is moved down the list.

[Kris Hopkins]

Perhaps we could conclude that conversation outside the Chamber. What I would say is that I genuinely think that police officers were not encouraged—“sat on” is the wrong phrase—to go in pursuit of people. If we think about the ’70s and ’80s and the culture around child abuse, that was not specific to the Kashmiri community. Generally, police were not encouraged to go in pursuit of people who were abusing children. The consequences of that can be seen in Rochdale and in other cases that are now coming to light. However, I need to put on the record that I am absolutely confident—I have had frank conversations with police officers in my town—that the police will go in pursuit of those individuals. I say to those who have raped children, “Look over your shoulder, because the police are going to come for you, and the full weight of the police and the judicial system will pursue you.”

Some time ago, a friend of mine told me that to address a problem it is sometimes useful to look upstream to find out why it may have occurred. Perhaps some of my friends, both in the House and back home, will not like what I am going to say, but one of the problems is the way that women are treated and valued by Muslim men. I want to challenge the behaviour that says, “I embrace and honour my family, my grandmother, my mother and my sister; you are my blood, I love you and I have great affection for you,” when that passion, love and affection does not address the inequalities those women and girls have to endure. Fundamentally, there is a sexist behaviour by Muslim men towards women. We talk about institutions and commissions and all the rest of it. Fundamentally, as leaders, we need to challenge the behaviour that is going on. We need to do that from a point, though, of not being racist. We are friends who want those people to be successful in our society. They are part of British society, but there is behaviour that is unacceptable.

I want to consider the way boys live in those households. I am afraid, as one senior council officer said to me, they are little princes: they can do nothing wrong, their behaviour is not challenged, and eventually that can manifest itself. In one instance outside Bradford university, Muslim men patrolled the streets around the university verbally abusing women and girls all the time. Rather than the community of peers challenging that behaviour, we had to have a specific police intervention to stop that sexual abuse of women. I am sorry, but that is not something that just manifested at 16, 17 or 18; it is a cultural thing about the behaviour towards women that has set in right at the beginning.

I know there can be love in this, and I know there is an issue about arranged marriages, which my faith probably facilitated not many generations ago, but I would ask why so many women are brought into this country to marry. One reason why I think that plays out is that women from Pakistan are subservient. They do not speak English or understand the values and freedoms that a girl born over here may live by and have confidence in. It is more convenient for a man to have a subservient woman in his household. They are not equal citizens.

I have seven mosques in my town. The biggest can accommodate 2,000 people at prayer. I do not visit all the mosques, but I know most of the elders. I say again—because I have to—that I am not a racist, and I respect Islam as a peaceful religion. I must say, however, that some of the behaviour of the elders in those mosques is unacceptable. I talked a while ago about an imam who was caught beating and kicking children—he was caught on television and eventually prosecuted—but the political and mosque leaders tried to cover it up, as if it was somehow all right. Eventually the council had to intervene and run Criminal Records Bureau checks on the imams and tutors.

That mosque was built using the resource of the community and at no small cost—it accommodates 2,000 people, has great minarets and all the rest of it—yet the council had to CRB check those people and look after their kids. I think that some priorities are wrong in this. Do I want a material thing, or do I want my children to be looked after? If those values are not embedded inside that community, I am sorry but there are great opportunities for things to go wrong.

Finally, lots of women wear traditional dress, including the veil, but there is an issue with men looking at women in western clothes—there is the idea that they are doing so because they want sex and think that those women are available. That behaviour by some Muslim men towards western women needs to be challenged. I could talk in-depth about this matter, but I am running out of time. It is enough to say that I want people in my town to be successful, but they must understand the values that we live by.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

Yes, I will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Minister has now spoken for 20 minutes and although people want to hear from him, if he had responded at the end of the debate he would have been limited to around 15 minutes. I hope that he will take account of the fact that many hon. Members want to speak, as taking advantage is not fair to others.

[Mr Browne]

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall give way one final time before bringing my remarks to a speedy conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Kelvin Hopkins.

[Kris Hopkins]

It is not Kelvin, but never mind; and my constituency is pronounced “Keithly” by the way, not “Keely”.

The point I wanted to make was that there is an opportunity for people to be outraged here. The hon. Lady says that this is not about race or religion, but time and again it is a white girl being raped by Muslim men. If we deny that fact in this House, the BNP and everybody else will climb on board. We must be very careful about how we structure these arguments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Keighley is, indeed, Kris Hopkins. We must, however, have shorter interventions, important as they are.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I was saying that it is important to recognise the methodology involved. In the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley, on the face of it the victims were white and the perpetrators were Muslims, but that is coincidental and not deliberate.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend is being extremely generous as she receives no injury time for this intervention. Is the point she advocates so strongly that these samples become self-selecting after a period, and that the evidence base is not advanced enough for us to draw conclusions about race and ethnicity? Understandably, however, certain newspapers will go after certain cases.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has got the message and the hon. Gentleman will understand if he now gets moved down the list. He does want to speak but he has intervened a couple of times already.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Let me explain why this issue is about methodology rather than race or religion. Sir Cyril Smith, for example, seems to have had a desire to abuse young boys, which seems to have been his pattern of behaviour. A system of trafficked victims—young girls who are forced into prostitution—is one method used by pimps and other criminal gangs so that they can take money from them. Jimmy Savile obviously had a penchant for young girls, and he used his position and power, and whatever presents he could give them, to influence them in order to do what he did. Sadly, most of those involved in such activities are men. Care homes contain people in a vulnerable position, and the adults who abused them were mostly men as well.

Hon. Members have also referred to grooming cases. Grooming is not new—there were such cases in many of our cities 20 years ago, but the newspapers never talked about it. I remember dealing with the type of cases that the hon. Member for Keighley spoke of, but the victim and the defendant were white. It is important to emphasise that, and not to fall into the British National party and English Defence League trap of saying that the problem is linked to race or religion—it is not.

A common factor and theme run through those different types of abuse. They virtually all involve men, and the victims are always young girls or boys or children, and always vulnerable. Leaving aside internal family cases, the external cases never involve the child who has a secure, happy family life or a home life where someone looks after or takes care of them. The cases involve children who are abused by priests when the church is looking after them, or children in a care home in a vulnerable position who do not have anyone to look after them, or young boys, such as in the Cyril Smith case, or the young girls in Keighley and other places. Many of these young people are vulnerable. Criminals virtually always commit crime on vulnerable people. People mug little old ladies. Why? It is because they are easy targets. Such people would not want to mess with 6-foot big, burley men, because it would be difficult to take anything from them. The key is vulnerability, and nothing else. If we get distracted by race or culture, we will lose sight of the bigger picture. It is the same with the inquiry into Savile. We talk about him, but what his victims went through is more important.

We need to do a number of things. The country at large needs to be educated and made aware of how prevalent sexual abuse is, particularly sexual abuse in the home. We must set up systems in schools, social services and the police, so that they are places where children can go when they are being abused. When they say what is happening to them, we need to take them seriously. I am not saying that they should be believed, but there should be an objective investigation—they should be heard and the matter should be thoroughly investigated, and their complaints should not just be put aside. At the end of the investigation, action should be taken if it is needed. Many years ago, that investigation process was not happening, as it did not more recently in the Rochdale case. We need to ensure that we have better systems and a better framework so that children can come forward and feel confident in talking to adults, including their teachers and others, about what they have been going through.

Hon. Members are shocked when they hear about sexual abuse, grooming and so on, but should we be so shocked? Historically, since time immemorial, sadly, a small percentage of men—irrespective of which part of the world they come from—have had desires towards children. We need to recognise that that small minority are interested only in abusing young children, whether boys or girls. Many child abusers do not abuse adults—their specific lust is for children. We need to recognise that that is the root of the problem.

How do we deal with that and recognise it? The best way is to use whatever mechanisms we have to prevent abuse, to detect abuse when it happens, and to deal with abusers as criminals, as they should be dealt with. Unless and until we recognise that and have systems to make it easier to protect our children, we will have those problems.

Hillsborough

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

First, I want to reiterate what I said on 12 September, when the report was published, and commend the tenacity, drive and sheer breathtaking commitment of the families for what they have achieved with the support of politicians of differing parties and, in particular, my colleagues from Merseyside and my right hon. Friend—a friend outside, as well as inside, the House—the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I also commend the Bishop of Liverpool and the panel, who have shown that it is sometimes better not to have a judicially led inquiry. We might learn from that. I also want to reiterate what has been said about Ken Sutton and the secretariat, who were absolutely superb and had the most enormous job in getting to the kind of truth that was not seen and available elsewhere.

I, like my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), have been a lifelong supporter of Sheffield Wednesday. As such, I want to say that the hearts of the people of Sheffield are, as then, with the people of Merseyside and the families. On that terrible afternoon, kindness shone through the darkness: people took families and individuals into their homes around the ground, used telephones in a day when mobile telephones were not available, ran people back to Merseyside, where appropriate, and did their best to indicate a humanity that I hope we will also remember.

The debate has so far been of the highest order, and I want only to say one or two things that might add to it. I commenced representing Brightside in 1987. At the time, I did not hear from any thinking human being who genuinely believed that the deceased had anything to do with the events of that afternoon. How could they have anything to do with it, given that they were in the ground well in advance of 3 pm and so at the front of the dreadful pens that existed at the time? As I said two months ago, the tales that were made up and the way the so-called facts were reiterated demonstrated that we could only really rely on truth and justice being revealed when we had absolute transparency. Today, that is more possible, given mobile technology and the way everything is recorded—we have seen that in recent days—and that is a good thing, but it can only really work if there is a change of heart from the top down.

I want to refer to the three elements of the case—the events of the day, the cover-up and the inquest. I was not in the ground on the day, but I visited Northern General hospital the following morning and talked to those with minor injuries and to some of the parents. I was impressed by what the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) said about Kevin’s mother, Anne, whom I heard on the radio a week last Friday, showing the most enormous dignity, having demonstrated the most enormous courage in pursuing this matter and having coped with what she has had to live with ever since. I do not know whether the inquest will bring any kind of peace, but it will certainly bring greater truth.

I understand that such an inquest has incredibly difficult barriers to overcome. The bar was set extremely high by those who took the civil case 12 years ago, and the Stuart-Smith inquiry set the bar at a height that makes it difficult, 23 years on, to achieve the kind of justice that those in the Gallery today rightly seek. What is absolutely sure, however, is that the cover-up must be revealed if we are to prevent such a thing from happening again. It is about culture and perception. The fact that on the day 116 officers wrote down what they believed had taken place but had their testimony altered is a testament to their efforts to tell the truth. The scandal was that senior management in South Yorkshire police and the West Midlands force—the latter has also been tellingly referred to this afternoon—overrode their decency and honesty. That is the lesson for us. The issue is about how senior management, not those at the bottom, should be pursued. I believe that 100 members of the 1989 force are still in place. I hope that their experiences in respect of senior management will be listened to and that they will not be made to feel that they are being pursued. Otherwise, we will get the wrong conclusion by pursuing the wrong people.

As with the organisation and supervision on that tragic afternoon and as with the cover-up, the inquest, which, of course, turned out to be a scandal, was based on presumption and a particular perception of the fans. I say that regardless of what Bert McGee, with whom I am glad to say my relations were nil, might have written in the programme that afternoon. As the MP covering the stadium, I never repeated any of the garbage told to the then MP for Sheffield, Hallam, Sir Irvine Patnick. I believe that the perception had arisen out of the previous years—out of what had happened at Ibrox, Heysel and Birmingham, where two people were killed, and the hysteria around the situation with fans. Action by the Taylor committee was taken on the back of that. Here is a thought: the Taylor committee, which got to part of the truth, came out with recommendations that were more about dealing with fans than they were about the outcome or the truth and justice of what happened at Hillsborough in April 1989. We have to ensure, in detection and investigation in future, that that never happens again—that we do not have a police force or inquiries that build on existing perception, but that we genuinely try to get to what happened.

We have a challenge before us, because the truth is virtually out. The families are near to getting some sort of peace and settlement, if that is possible. The Parliament that we stand in today is revealing and opening up what has been covered up for 23 years, but to go forward we need to be able to pick up some of the issues around future transparency and strong outside investigation. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to this issue. I was the one who set up the Independent Police Complaints Commission, because its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority, was totally and utterly inadequate. I would like us to strengthen the IPCC immediately, because waiting to legislate on something new would not be the answer. Therefore, we should by all means provide greater powers, but this is also about process, as well as culture and enforcement. The top-down examples that I have referred to are about changing the way we operate our police service. This is also about what happened with the other emergency services—not least the ambulance service—which led to the terrible tragedy of those who might have been saved being left on that afternoon.

We are, 23 years later, trying to put right a wrong that is part of our history. We are trying to do so without undermining the morale and the feeling of service of those in the police and emergency services in South Yorkshire, who I have to care about because they are the ones who are serving my constituency and those of my hon. Friends. They need to know that, while we are getting to the truth and providing justice and accountability for the past, we are also mindful of their lives and their work, and that is why—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) concludes by rightly saying nothing like this must ever happen again. Sadly, however, there are other cover-ups going on at the moment. The Hillsborough independent panel report states:

“The disclosed documents show that the bereaved families met a series of obstacles in their search for justice.”

The hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) highlighted a case going all the way through to the European Court of Human Rights and the truth not coming out. We must learn from Hillsborough, and from other cover-ups, and work to get greater transparency so that such cover-ups never happen again.

On Friday, my Family Justice (Transparency, Accountability and Cost of Living) Bill will receive its Second Reading. It should, perhaps, be re-titled the “No more cover-ups Bill”. In the case of Hillsborough, there was a cover-up. There was also pressure placed on police officers not to complain. In the case of Jimmy Savile, there was a cover-up, too. There was also pressure placed on people not to complain—ironically, by banning them from watching the TV and withdrawing other privileges.

As a country, we do little to support whistleblowers. Clause 7(2) of my private Member’s Bill aims to stop people threatening others to stop them complaining. Only last week, I received a report from a fellow Member about one of her constituents being threatened.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss his Bill, but he knows that we are not doing so today. He also knows how important Hillsborough is, and how many people are present who are very concerned about the events that took place there. I therefore ask him to speak to the subject in hand, rather than drifting on to the topic of his Bill, which I know he has a keen interest in.

[John Hemming]

I take that point, Mr Deputy Speaker. My concern is that we have other cover-ups going on, and I would have thought that it is in order to discuss them and how to prevent them. I will not refer to my Bill, however.

In England, it is even possible to get a court order that stops a complaint being made. The Hillsborough case went as far as the House of Lords and involved inquests, inquiries and judicial reviews, but the truth did not come out until there was an independent panel.

My own view is that we need to be willing to look at cover-up allegations by establishing committees of inquiry in Parliament. However, there are other things that could be done to improve the accountability of public officials. Judicial review proceedings are used to deal with the accountability of public officials, and they were used in dealing with Hillsborough. The General Medical Council is also subject to judicial review. However, public bodies have very deep pockets, and there are cost risks for ordinary individuals if the costs of such a process are not covered by public funding. If cost limitations on judicial review are not set at an early stage, ordinary people cannot take on the system—the GMC, perhaps, or a local council planning decision, or a coroner as in the Hillsborough case.

In the case of Hillsborough, judicial review did not provide an adequate system of scrutiny; that was made clear in paragraph 2.9.100 of the report. One of the difficulties with criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions is that all the processes are somewhat remote from the people affected. At paragraph 2.9.114 Terri Sefton is reported as stating,

“none of the questions that she had wanted answered had been answered.”

We need greater transparency and accountability. We know, for example, that the Slovak Republic has identified 40 cases in the English courts involving 89 children where it does not think the legally correct decision has been taken, yet they have gone through our system without any challenge. To me, that is a serious criticism of the system.

The system also has an automatic cover-up in that the media in the UK are prevented from discussing details of what has been going on. Even academic researchers are banned from looking at these secret cases, to see if the decisions are sensible. More recently, it has become clear that one of the people involved in the Haut de la Garenne scandal was Jimmy Savile. Hillsborough happened in 1989, and the Savile issues arose many years ago. However, the US—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you are well aware, the motion on the Order Paper relates specifically to Hillsborough. Time is at a premium, and many Members want to speak about those events. Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) not creeping out of order here?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am aware that we are drifting from the topic under discussion. I have brought the hon. Gentleman back to the subject being debated once before, and I am sure he does want to speak about Hillsborough, and that is what he will do for the rest of his speech.

[John Hemming]

I do want to speak about Hillsborough, but there are similar cases that go before the Europe courts. Unless we solve the systemic problems and ensure that cover-ups do not continue, there will be further cover-ups. I am sure the Hillsborough families wish to see the system changed so that such situations do not happen again. I will not mention any of the other relevant examples at present, but, over time, we must look at them, because, as the Minister accepted earlier, the system is very vulnerable to cover-ups.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we are getting away from licensing. Mr Davies, I think you are desperate to get back to where you were and I am sure that you do not want to be distracted.

[Philip Davies]

As ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, you read me like a book. I was just thinking about how I did not want to be distracted by the hon. Gentleman, but I have every confidence that his next intervention will put us back on track.

UK Border Agency

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am aware that we are due to start the next item at 4 o’clock. Owing to the numbers who wish to catch my eye, I suggest a limit of around eight minutes, which should enable us to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The issue we are debating is very important, and I thank the Home Affairs Committee for its continuing work on it. I encourage it to continue monitoring the work of the UK Border Agency. I am also grateful to the Minister for his active engagement with this issue, and with me as a constituency MP when I have brought cases to his attention or to the attention of his staff.

My general analysis is somewhat different from that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), as I do not think that under the last Government we were anywhere near nirvana in respect of immigration and asylum cases. The situation is considerably better now than it was under the last Labour Government. This has been a huge and intractable issue for the Home Office over many years. I am grateful for the progress that has been made, but that does not mean that I in any way think the UKBA or the Government have fully addressed all the problems.

Although we are talking about the UKBA, what we are actually talking about is people. I shall therefore refer to some people. First, I shall mention the two people in my office who every day try to unravel the knots of other people’s family lives when dealing with asylum and immigration cases. Magali Tang and James Harper are wonderful public servants—working for me as an MP—and they are hugely valued by our constituents. When I last checked a year or two ago, I was either first or second in the league table of Members who brought Home Office-related immigration and asylum constituency issues to the authorities. I have no idea where I am in the league table now, and that does not matter, but I do know that a large volume of such work gets done. Some 40% of the work that comes before my constituency office is Home Office-related, and we try to give a good service.

Achieving that depends on the individuals at the other end of the process as well—on the personality of the account manager. I pay tribute to Claire Shacklock who previously did the job for us in Southwark, when Southwark was an area on its own, and I pay tribute to her successor, Helen O’Brien, who is the account manager in Lambeth, Bexley, Greenwich and Southwark. After the handover, it took a little while for us to get the communication established and working well. It is now working well, and her staff are beginning to understand what we expect and are beginning to deliver. That required us to be quite gruff with them, however. We had to tell them what they needed to do and make them understand the urgency of some of the cases.

I asked my constituency team to tell me the three key issues. The first of them was post-study work visas. This is what my team said:

“This route is being closed and so everyone has applied at once, and this has thrown the system into chaos. We have had between 15-20 cases in the last month of people who have been waiting around 3 months, when the published waiting time is 1 month. They are stuck as they can’t work and some people are losing accommodation/job offers because of the delay. Why did the UKBA not see this coming and what are they doing to make sure the backlog is cleared quickly?”

The second issue was reconsideration requests, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned. My team said:

“Currently, when people make ‘in country’ applications for leave to remain and these are refused without a right of appeal, applicants can ask the UKBA to ‘reconsider’ the decision. This was always an informal process but it was accepted that in general the UKBA would reconsider a case once. It seems that a backlog of reconsideration requests has built up and now the UKBA are saying they are reviewing how they deal with these requests. What does this mean? Are they going to stop reconsidering cases”—

or define what a “reconsideration” is?

“If so, they need to say so to people clearly. In one case we had recently, a woman who had been told her reconsideration request had been received later received a letter from Serco saying that according to the UKBA, she had no basis of stay and should leave immediately.”

The left hand and the right hand were clearly not co-ordinated, which was very “confusing” as the Serco letter

“didn’t refer to her reconsideration request, which she felt was still outstanding. If the UKBA are going to stop reconsidering, they must surely explain this clearly to people, not just get Serco to send them letters telling them to go home.”

I hope it does not stop reconsidering; I hope there is a reconsideration process, and we know what it is and how it works.

The third issue my team raised was the UKBA website, which

“despite recent re-modelling, is still not well organised or user friendly, and constituents regularly report this to us. It needs to use clearer, non-technical English wherever possible and be better laid out. The DirectGov website is a good example of how a website can be user friendly, as is NHS Direct (medical advice online). There are always links saying ‘do you need help with x....if so click here…’, ‘was this what you were looking for?’…that sort of thing, and the English is very good and accessible. The UKBA website lags a long way behind these websites.”

It surely cannot be beyond the wit of Government, with all their technical advisers and expertise, to get that sorted out. Please can it be sorted out soon?

I would now like to make a few points of my own. As has been said, there are still a huge number of really rubbish legal advisers and solicitors. I am weekly, if not daily, rescuing people from having to pay considerable sums that they do not have for so-called advice, often bad, telling them to take action they do not need to take and that will not produce any positive results. That gives them false hope. They are also often asked to pay for a service that is never given because the case in question is either not dealt with at all or not soon enough to be of any use. Please can the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner get a grip and do its job properly? It is still not effective. It does not clamp down on bad advice; it tackles only crime and maladministration. That is not good enough. I should not have to be perpetually writing to these so-called solicitors or so-called advisers saying, “I want the money to be given back to my constituent because you haven’t done anything.” That is a scandal and it needs to be addressed.

The problem of so-called bogus colleges is not as bad as it was but I am not persuaded that there are not still some that do not produce the service they advertise. I encourage the Government to continue to be relentless in such cases. I want to encourage more students to come to this country and I think the Government understand the benefits of that—the universities and colleges certainly do—but that cause will not be helped if bogus colleges continue.

My penultimate point is to ask whether we can please not send people back to places such as Sri Lanka if they are Tamils whose life and liberty are likely to be at risk? I still think that the Home Office is not sensitive enough in such cases and I want a review of cases where there are historic and current conflicts.

Finally, I would like to help people to see the good side of some of the work done by those people with us. On Saturday, I went to the wedding of Sheku Jalloh and Raphaëlle de Joffrey. Sheku came to see me when he was in his teens as a Liberian asylum seeker and refugee. He has now married a Swiss graduate whom he met here, they have settled down and they are a good news story. There are lots of good news stories—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

European Convention on Human Rights

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Is the Home Secretary aware of the series of speeches made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Judicial Studies Board and others? He has made it abundantly clear that in his opinion the judiciary, including the senior judiciary, have given far too much attention to the Strasbourg precedents and not enough to what he describes as the “golden thread” of the English common law. He says that it is therefore essential that we get this right and do not engage in generalised waffle about the question—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had two interventions that have taken up speaking time. I am sure he would not want to do that, in case he wants to catch my eye later.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was accusing me or the Home Secretary of “generalised waffle”. Given his record, I fear that it could have been either of us. It was probably both.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have read considerably more of the judicial pronouncements on this subject than I have, but the House is being challenged to send a clear signal to the courts, and we are not being clear about what we are doing in the motion. The status of the motion remains unclear because it is neither primary nor secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In her speech, the Home Secretary referred extensively to rules laid before the House but not prayed against and therefore not debated. Is it in order for us to discuss the contents of those proposed rules, because that is exactly what she did throughout her opening speech?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Yes.