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.

Scrap Metal Theft

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do wonder whether gold is really scrap, so I think we are stretching the boundaries. But at least the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has got it on the record and I am sure that he would want us to get back to the subject in hand.

[Mr Allen]

I am sure that the Minister has taken note of this new and innovative branch of the scrap metal business and may well be thinking about introducing legislation as we speak.

I have certainly understood the concern about scrap metal theft over the past week or so, because I have been inundated with individuals and organisations who have become aware of this debate and who have written to me, telephoned me or e-mailed me about how serious the situation is. Changes do need to be made. These are changes that will be welcomed by the vast majority of legitimate scrap metal dealers. They operate within a £5.6 billion industry and employ 8,000 people across the UK. Most of those people will welcome some of the proposals that hon. Members are collectively putting forward.

I welcome what the Government have done to trial and now to expand Operation Tornado to cover the whole country. Operation Tornado makes those selling scrap metal to participating dealers provide proof of their identity and it was an outstanding success when trialled in Durham and Cleveland, sparking a 55% reduction in thefts. I was delighted to see Operation Tornado being adopted by the Nottinghamshire police force a few months ago.

As campaigning Members of Parliament throughout the House realise, much more needs to be done. Many colleagues who are present in the Chamber tonight have put this matter on the record in various ways. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) for what he has done in recent weeks, for his efforts and for his Bill. He should be listened to when legislation on this issue is considered.

I welcome the announcement made by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) that he will dedicate his precious private Member’s Bill to this matter. His initial proposals, which I have had a chance to look at, are very welcome but he knows as well as I do the delicate road he must negotiate under the archaic private Member’s Bill process if he is to get his proposal into law. If he wishes to try, I would be happy to accompany him through that dark and deadly legislative jungle. I hope that the Minister will draw strength from those of us in the Chamber and from many Members who are not so that he is cast in the part of not the silent assassin of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill but the Indiana Jones of scrap metal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

That is a very interesting point to be teased out in a Bill Committee, if the hon. Member for Croydon South is successful in getting his Bill into Committee. It deserves a great deal of attention. Any new licensing scheme should also be flexible locally, so that councils or whoever can adapt the system to the differing circumstances found in different areas.

The Government must focus much more on the role of forensic markings in preventing this crime. Alan Given, until recently the chief executive of Nottinghamshire Police Authority, says that maintaining

“a minimum standard in relation to longevity, retrieval and analysis”

of forensic markings is an extremely useful intervention that the Government can make. Reliable forensic marking can make metal worthless to steal, make trading stolen metal a high-risk activity, and play a key role in ensuring the prosecution of criminals.

The commercial and domestic use of forensic markings is common. Companies such as Network Rail, National Grid, BT Openreach and many others mark their metals with hidden ink. I take this opportunity to congratulate SmartWater on working with the War Memorials Trust to donate a free system to protect every war memorial in the UK by the end of the year.

Last year the city council in Nottingham and our crime and drug partnership started to mark metal street furniture. They have also done outstanding work backing a property marking scheme advertised on the back of buses in the city to ensure that criminals know that metal is being marked. This has even included putting up posters in custody suites.

If the trade does not seize this opportunity for sensible reform, I and no doubt many colleagues will seek to require scrap metal dealers to scan all materials arriving at their premises, but for now any legislation should allow local authorities or others to use the techniques that they consider necessary.

The final key area, as has been mentioned, is the ban on cash payments, which was introduced in Operation Tornado It must go further and include itinerant collectors and vehicle salvagers. That is extremely important.

Parliament is so often seen as irrelevant to ordinary people’s needs and slow to act. Here, on the back of concern that has been given voice by constituency MPs of all parties and an opportunity that has been given by the fluke of the private Member’s Bill ballot and the generosity of the hon. Member for Croydon South, we have a chance to move swiftly. I very much hope that the Minister will grab that chance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Mr Jones, is it correct that you have arranged with the Minister and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) to speak briefly?

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am fine.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In which case I call the Minister.

Home Affairs and Justice

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that the last three speeches have lasted 24 minutes, 22 minutes and 21 minutes. If we carry on at that rate, nobody else will get in. People ought to be a little more restrained. We have eight more speakers to get in and I understand that the Front-Bench spokesmen want half an hour between them. Can we please try to ensure that everybody gets in, because people have been sat in the Chamber for a heck of a long time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the two Ministers on the Government Front Bench to be chatting, laughing and joking between them while one of my hon. Friends is discussing serious cases where people have been killed on our roads?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order, but I am sure that the Ministers were listening. Who knows, they might even have been discussing the case. We should not make judgments about others; otherwise we would end up with such points going around the Chamber. I am sure that everyone takes seriously the views of Members of all parties when they are speaking.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I would like to deal now with the issue of what is legally defined as “dangerous driving”—that is, where a court of law can prove that the driving was extremely negligent, not just bad or careless. Sentences here, too, can also be very short in cases where victims are seriously injured, even to the extent of being paralysed, but not actually killed. The maximum sentence for that crime is also two years, and of course most people are given much shorter sentences. I believe that the current average is about 11 months. Eleven months for wrecking someone’s life through reckless criminal actions? There seems to be to be very little justice in that. Sentences for assault are longer, even when the act is not premeditated. Why should a sentence be so short when the injury was caused by a car rather than a weapon? I sincerely urge the Government to consider tightening the law in that regard. I commend their introduction of new drug-driving laws, but I believe that they must be followed by proper laws to deal with other serious driving crimes. That is what my constituents want, and I hope that the Government will include such measures in their Bill.

I have done all that I can in my speech to be positive about a change in the law that I greatly welcome, for, as we know, it matters precious little whether someone is Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat or a non-voter if that person is mown down by a vehicle steered by someone who is high on drugs. In welcoming that change, however, I must raise a question about the implementation of the policy, and especially about how it will affect areas such as mine in north Wales which are geographically spread out. Laws on paper mean nothing if there are unmanageable cuts involving the people who are needed to enforce them. Our north Wales police force faces 20% budget cuts, which means that by 2015 it will have to lose 179 front-line officers—the very people who will be needed to carry out roadside drug tests.

The cuts will also affect so-called “back-room” officers and other staff. They are not people who are drafted in to make cups of coffee or count paper clips; they are people working in forensics and labs, the very people who will be needed to analyse and process the “drugalyser” results which will be vital to gaining convictions. Without those people, the Government’s own excellent new law is likely to fail in its day-to-day implementation.

Whatever the differences between Members’ ideological and political viewpoints, I believe that Ministers are sincere when they tell us that they believe in localism. I offer a challenge to the Government. If they are prepared to offer referendums to people on whether they want mayors, why on earth are police and crime commissioners being foisted on us whether we want them or not? There have been various estimates of the cost of introducing them, including an estimate of £136 million over 10 years, and it is likely that elected officials overseeing forces in England and Wales outside London will be paid hefty salaries. Given that police forces face cuts of between 14% and 20%, how in heaven’s name does that policy make sense? No wonder Mr Rob Garnham, chairman of the Association of Police Authorities and himself a Conservative councillor, described it as the

“wrong policy at the wrong time”.

I have no doubt that the Government’s new and welcome policy on drug-driving will not be helped one jot by cuts in the number of trained police officers while police commissioners are foisted on us whether we want them or not.

Let me end by making three points. First, let me praise the Government for rightly introducing a new law on drug-driving; secondly, let me request them to consider introducing tougher laws on other driving offences; and thirdly, let me ask them to remember the words of one previous Conservative Prime Minister—I am sure that I need not remind them who it was—who famously said:

“Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”

Today, as we have seen outside and heard in the House, our policemen and policewomen also need the tools and the resources, so that they can get on with their unique and essential task of tackling crime.

Immigration Queues (UK Airports)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

We want secure borders and decent queues. When we turn left on to a long haul plane, it is usually a nice experience. When we turn left at Heathrow terminal 5 or Gatwick, leaving the American, Canadian, Indian or Turkish passenger whom we have been chatting with, to struggle through those queues, it is a very unpleasant welcome.

I welcome what the Minister has said; it is a good idea to have squads who can run around filling in the holes. But every time I have come back to Britain recently—and I come back a lot—it is embarrassing that there are so many empty control points. I really hope that hon. Members—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Hon. Members should be asking short questions, not making speeches. [Interruption.] Mr MacShane, you can throw yourself back on the Bench as much as you want, but it is not going to impress me. I brought you on early to get you in, and I am sorry that you are disgruntled.

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman cannot come back often enough for some of us in the House. I take his point, but the whole purpose of having flexible rostering and flexible use of staff is that when large numbers of people are arriving, more gates will be open. It is not rocket science; that is a sensible way to run an airport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Yes. We do work closely together, but we can always work more closely together. The Home Secretary, the senior management of Border Force and I are absolutely determined to set up systems that make it instinctive for Border Force, the airport operators and the airlines to work together, not only for the mutual benefit of all those organisations but, even more importantly, for the benefit of the hundreds of millions of passengers who use our airports every year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr Pincher.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

More than four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I should inform the House that Lords amendment 145 should refer to line 12 of the title, which is the last but one line.

The Deputy Speaker put the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up the Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 16, 17 and 18;

That James Brokenshire, James Duddridge, Diana Johnson, Mark Tami and Tom Brake be members of the Committee;

That James Brokenshire be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Mr Dunne.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Forensic Science Service

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Howell]

I fear that this is turning into a debate about who has got what television show—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have no more Dr Whos or anything else. We will stick to the subject before us.

[John Howell]

I am grateful for those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intended to head in that direction anyway.

In 1991, we had a major change with the FSS that attracted new entrants to the market, including companies such as LGC Forensics. It ushered in a period of investment and scientific innovation that has driven up quality and ensured that prices and turnaround times have reduced dramatically. That move has resulted in a safer and more secure society together with better value for the police and taxpayers. That is an important combination of factors.

But what confusing signals the previous Government sent to this emerging sector! We had just encouraged the sector to be innovative and to invest, but then, as I mentioned in my intervention, in March 2009, the Labour Administration agreed to a £50 million subsidy to support business transformation. That was a major subsidy for a company that existed in a competitive market, and it sent a very confusing signal. No one in the private sector wanted to see the end of the FSS. Indeed, some of those private companies have said that they wanted the FSS to continue because a healthy competitive market is good for all. However, doing that through this sort of heavy-handed subsidy was not the way to go.

There are good private sector providers, as even Opposition Members agree, and they have a crucial role to play. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) mentioned the Stephen Lawrence case, because it illustrated the importance of the current investment in technology. It was not available at the time, and I do not think we would have had that result otherwise.