Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I understand exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from. That sort of experience is important. However, we must also bring young people into the magistrates service, otherwise there would be no throughput in the system.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

14. How many people have been convicted of human trafficking offences in the last four years.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

That question does not sit within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice; it is a question for the Home Office. However, I can inform the hon. Gentleman that between 2010 and 2013—the latest year for which figures are available in relation to human trafficking offences on an all-offences basis—the number of convictions increased by nearly 66%. The Government are committed to stamping out this abhorrent crime, building on the United Kingdom’s strong track record of supporting victims and fighting the perpetrators.

[Michael Connarty]

I am sorry to learn that the Secretary of State for Justice thinks that convictions for trafficking are not really his responsibility. I should have thought that those at the Ministry of Justice were the very people to deal with them. In Scotland, the Minister for Justice takes responsibility for trafficking convictions there. My criticism of the new Modern Slavery Bill is that all the laws for which it provides are exactly the same as those that have operated up to this moment.

I do not know what “66%” means: 66% of nothing is nothing. We want to know why the Ministry of Justice did not argue for the new laws that Lord Judge and Peter Carter recommended to the Joint Committee that was set up to look into the issue.

[Chris Grayling]

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I can tell him that it is a simple matter of fact in Government that this issue is looked after by the Home Office. As for his second point, I do not believe that any past Government have done more than the present Government to tackle human trafficking. Work is being done across Government and across the public sector to deal with a crime that we all believe is abhorrent, and that we all want to see stamped out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We hear the chuckles from the Labour party, but let us face it: I had the same experience at the Department for Work and Pensions. The reality is that, Labour opened the door to immigration on a scale we had not seen before in this country. They kept absolutely no record of where state money was going. The reality is that they mismanaged things; we are picking up the pieces.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Although it has been mentioned a couple of times, I should like to confirm to the House that we have announced today that disqualified drivers who cause death or serious injuries on the roads will face tougher sentences. Those who cause death will face up to 10 years in prison rather than the current maximum of two years, and we will also take action to address the current gap in the law for disqualified drivers who cause serious injury, by introducing a new offence that will carry a penalty of up to four years’ imprisonment. These much tougher sentences reflect the impact of these very serious offences on victims and their families. We will bring forward legislative proposals to give effect to these important changes as soon as possible. We will also launch a full review of all driving offences and penalties, to ensure that people who endanger lives and public safety are properly punished.

The majority of Members of the House will support the changes. I pay tribute to the determined work of Mandy Stock and her local MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), in bringing this important matter to the public’s attention.

[Michael Connarty]

Mr Speaker, you probably noticed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question, which was about the responsibilities of his Department. It was a statement. If he had outlined his responsibilities, I might have asked him, as I will anyway, why, when I ask him and his Department what his priorities are for provisions to contribute to the Modern Slavery Bill, which is under scrutiny in draft in this House, he transfers the question to the Home Office. When are we going to get an answer from his Department about its responsibilities and its contribution to dealing with the experience of victims of trafficking and abuse and of slavery in this country?

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As my hon. Friend knows, I have a lot of sympathy with his concerns in this area. I have directly seen the way in which the ECJ has amended the rules on social security and left us in a position where we are apparently losing control of what should be a national competency under the treaty. These matters are essential ones for consideration as part of our party’s planned renegotiation of our membership of the European Union.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Although I recognise the good work being done by the present Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in pursuing his own view of where justice should lie in our relationship with the ECJ, I must ask the Lord Chancellor not to whip up hysteria on a question that has already been settled. In a unanimous report by the European Scrutiny Committee at the time, it was accepted, including by the Conservative Members, that the protocol allowed the UK to opt out of the charter of fundamental rights. It is not correct, when we are dealing with such difficult matters, to use this in a cheap political way, which he is doing.

[Chris Grayling]

I do not really recognise the comments of the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we have a protocol that simply restates the legal position that European law and the charter of fundamental rights sit together and the charter does not apply in UK law. However, what we have seen over the past two or three years, in areas such as social security, is what we understood to be the scope of the treaty being extended by court judgments. We have to be immensely wary of that. It has happened in social security, it has happened in a way that causes real concerns across this House and we have to be very careful. I am absolutely clear that the charter should not apply in UK law, and we would take serious action if there were any suggestion that it could do.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who made a considered and reasonable contribution in a mellow way. It is right to say that the royal charter is not a solution to all the problems that occurred in the past, and that it is possibly not a solution for the future if malevolent forces out there wish to break the law and the arrangements in the charter.

I welcome the Leveson-compliant solution—that is the key: it is Leveson-compliant. I did not take part in the earlier debate, although I listened to all the contributions in what one of my constituents phoned to say was a bit of a love-in in the House of Commons, given the amount of self-congratulation across the Chamber. Let us be frank—I am a very frank person as you know, Mr Speaker: my constituents and the general public know that the Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State were cajoled, bullied and harassed into solving the problem with a Leveson-compliant solution. Let us not avoid that. If MPs had not been present in large enough numbers to vote the Government down, there was no possibility that the weak proposal put forward by the Prime Minister would have been amended to what we have now. That must be said so that people know the truth.

I heard the atrocious comments on the radio this morning by the person I now consider to be not the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, but the Minister for spin, about dragging the Labour party along and defending the press from the terrible things that the Labour party was going to do through statute. In fact, however, what those on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches, including the Deputy Prime Minister, sought all along was a Leveson-compliant solution, and that is what we have.

I am worried about the Minister’s approach to the amendments in her speech. She was either incentivising publishers and publications to join up to the charter—I thought that was done in a better and more balanced way by the deputy leader of the Opposition—or it sounded to me that she was trying to assure publishers and publications that if they sign up to the arrangement as amended, they will not find it much more demanding of their own self-discipline than under the discredited Press Complaints Commission. People should read her speech in some detail because lots of signals were put out that I believe were wrong.

This is an opportunity for the press to right the wrongs of the past by signing up to self-discipline through this form of charter. If, however, the system is not more demanding or effective than the Press Complaints Commission, the first time the press create another victim of a new abuse, perhaps of a different sort, Parliament will be brought into serious disrepute. That is what the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister were trying to avoid by putting together a measure that is Leveson-compliant.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I very much hope that the charter will act as a catalyst for good behaviour, as well as everything else. My children were doorstepped in their school when I was in Bosnia and not a public figure, and my mother had her door pushed in and photographs were taken. I hope that the press will try to regulate itself and stop such things so that they never happen and the press never have to come before any regulator.

[Michael Connarty]

I normally lean on the optimistic side—the sun rises every morning; I am glad I am still alive and my heart is still beating. That is two-up for me and I am happy to go on with the day with a positive view. Recently, however, some of my constituents were in Algeria, one of whom was a captive and in the trucks that were bombed. He managed to run away but he had bombs hanging round his neck as he did so. The press insisted on trying to get to that person’s home. I must pay a compliment to MSP colleagues in my constituency, who both happen to be SNP. We agreed that we would not talk to the press or the media, and that we would not give out the names of the people involved. The press still found a way to the family home and tried to get into the house to interview the young people involved, one of whom was still very traumatised by their experience. The press therefore still have a form of approach to the public whereby they see them as another byline without thinking about the consequences of what they do. The charter might help with that. It might not help, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, but I hope it does.

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Michael Connarty]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which (a) universities, (b) colleges of further education and (c) private providers have lost UK Border Agency highly trusted sponsor status since September 2010.

[Official Report, 19 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 868-69W.]

Letter of correction from Damian Green:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on 19 June 2012.

The lists provided included Leicester College and Princes College School of English. Neither of these sponsors had lost their Highly Trusted Sponsor status and therefore should not have been included.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Damian Green]

No universities have lost UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010. There have been 33 further education colleges that have lost their UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010.

These are:

Abingdon and Witney College

Askham Bryan College

Barnet and Southgate College

Blackburn College

Bolton College

Brooklands College

Carshalton College

City College Brighton and Hove

College of North West London

Coulsdon College

Croydon College

Cumbernauld College

Greenwich Community College

King George V College

Kirklees College

Leicester College

Lowestoft College

Motherwell College

Newham College of Further Education

North West Regional College

Oatridge College

Plumpton College

Reid Kerr College

Sandwell College

South Birmingham College

South Nottingham College

South Tyneside College

Southern Regional College

St Vincent College

Stow College

Varndean College

Worcester Sixth Form College

49 private providers have lost UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010.

These are:

A+ English Ltd

Abacus College

Access College London

Azad University (IR) in Oxford

Basil Paterson College

Bedfordshire College

Birmingham International College

Bournemouth Business School International

Cambridge Seminars College

Care in Hand LTD

Christ the Redeemer College

City Banking College Limited

Colchester English Study Centre

ELT-Banbury Ltd

Embassy CES Brighton

English for Everyone Ltd/IH Aberdeen Ltd

English in York

Foyle Language School

Harrow Academy UK

Institute of St Anselm

Lake School of English Oxford

LAL Language Centres (Torbay) Ltd

Language Studies International

Language Studies International, London Central

Le Cordon Bleu Limited

Leicester Commercial College

London Hotel School

London School of Beauty & Make-up

Loxdale English Centre/Swedish Folk High School

Margate Language Centre

Maria Montessori Training Organisation (The)

Midlands Academy of Business & Technology

MM Oxford Study Services

Northumbria School of English

Olivet English Language School

Princes College School of English

Ray Cochrane CIDESCO International Beauty School

Riviera English School

Sassoon Academy

Shane Global Language Centres

Sophies Recruitment Services Ltd

Stafford House School of English

Stanton School of English

Surrey Language Centre

The New School of English Ltd

Twin Towers English College

University of Leicester International Study Centre

University of Wales International Study Centre

Westminster Academy

Some institutions are seeking to reverse these decisions through current representations. However, some institutions will have reapplied for Highly Trusted Status since revocation and some will be able to reapply for Highly Trusted Sponsor Status six months after the decision to remove it.

The correct answer should have been:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Certainly not all of them will, but I am distinctly dubious about the 90% figure. Let me explain why. There are two problems with the scheme as it stands: the policy rationale, which is flawed, and the scheme’s affordability. The policy problem is that the scheme is not currently clear just what a crime of violence is. It allows awards to be paid to people, for example, who have themselves committed violent crimes and to people who, perhaps many months previously, had already recovered from the minor injuries they had received. The Government are clear that in some circumstances where someone has, through no fault of their own, been a victim of a violent crime, it is right to provide financial assistance. That is, I think, something that Governments of all parties have maintained over recent years; we certainly want to do so. We also need to be clear, however, that where people have sustained relatively minor injuries, from which they will recover fairly quickly, small sums are not the best way to help them. Our investment in services, which I set out at the start of my speech, means that quality provision will be available to support victims at the point of need.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On Monday, the all-party group on human trafficking met the chief judge to the tribunal, who said that someone with a broken jaw or a slash to the face that was not considered severe would not be allowed any compensation under the Government’s proposals. How can anyone who has suffered such injuries, particularly a woman in a domestic violence situation, be excluded from compensation under the Minister’s changes?

[Damian Green]

That would not be the case, under circumstances that I shall explain.

We believe that compensation should be focused on those with serious injuries, and that for relatively minor injuries such as sprained wrists or temporary—I emphasise “temporary”—whiplash, small amounts of compensation many months after the event are simply not an effective use of taxpayers’ money. If a victim who has such injuries still needs practical and emotional support, they will be able to access it.

The draft scheme has been debated in a delegated legislation Committee twice. On both occasions, criticism was levelled at the proposed changes, and it was clear that the criticism was based largely on a misunderstanding of the scheme and its purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

As I have explained, the whole point of the hardship fund is precisely to address the problems of those most likely to be affected. Of course, the hon. Lady will know that many other avenues of civil recovery and so on will enable people to obtain compensation.

I began this speech by talking about the context and summarising the package of reforms contained in the consultation. The fact is that difficult decisions have to be made, but these are the right ones. The current scheme is not only unaffordable but illogical. The policy rationale is flawed, with thousands of awards being made for minor injuries that will have minimal lasting effects and thousands of payments being made to convicted criminals.

[Michael Connarty]

The Minister is putting forward his case on minor matters. He did say that people who had suffered sexual assault would still be eligible for compensation. I read that children under the age of 13 would automatically be eligible, but those between 13 and 15 would not have automatic access to criminal compensation and each case would be considered. How can he justify saying that people under the age of 15 should not be eligible automatically for compensation?

[Damian Green]

They are not “not eligible”; each case will be considered. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] Because it is sensible to allow discretion in those periods. [Interruption.] We cannot and will not simply continue pouring out taxpayers’ money to little effect. I must again emphasise that the Government are committed to improving support—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I am no longer responsible for policy, so the right hon. Gentleman will have to ask my colleagues on the Front Bench about what will happen in future. [Interruption.] I am of course the architect of the policy, and I can say what I would have done. We looked at what were reasonable levels of victim surcharge to place on the whole range of offences, including road traffic offences, and the sentences, including community sentences, that followed. Those additional levies amounted to £40 million to £60 million; that was the first estimate we received. I am reasonably confident that the figure will exceed £50 million.

However, that is not the whole story. The Minister mentioned the earnings from the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, which is producing £800,000 this year. We are beginning a very substantial programme of work in prisons that is designed to create an income from having prisoners working in some form of commercial way. The businesses involved will not be paying the prisoners the minimum wage. If my concept is continued by my colleagues who are now in charge of these matters, prisoners will continue to get their prisoner allowance but they will also be working in businesses. Any money that they might earn towards their own future rehabilitation should then be matched by money that goes into victims’ services. If work in prisons can be got to scale, this can amount to a substantial amount of resources, with direct compensation going from offenders, as it should, to services for victims of crime.

[Michael Connarty]

rose—

[Mr Blunt]

I have already spoken for 10 minutes and I do not want to prevent other right hon. and hon. Members from getting in.

The shadow Secretary of State presented this proposal shorn of any context. Of course the statutory instrument is problematic, because we are having to make difficult decisions in order to address the Department’s budget. We had to sort out a scheme that was £750 million in debt on a turnover of £200 million a year. At the same time, we have managed, with rather more imaginative thinking on victim surcharge, duties on compensation and attachment against benefits—we are raising that fivefold—to begin to create a system in which meaningful compensation will go from offenders to victims. That comes within a culture of restorative justice that this Government are implementing. All this will significantly improve the position of victims, hold offenders responsible, and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. Frankly, I cannot understand why the whole concept should not commend itself to all Members of this House.

[Michael Connarty]

The hon. Gentleman is being very candid and straightforward in trying to justify this; the Minister failed to do so. The logic of taking from people who have committed crime money that goes to the victims can probably be supported by everyone in the House. However, if some of that money is taken and put into victim services at the same time as reducing levels of, and access to, compensation for many people, victims will be paying for their own services out of what should be their compensation. The Government should provide the services while the perpetrators provide the compensation.

[Mr Blunt]

Let us be quite clear: tough decisions have to be taken, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

There is a zero-tolerance policy for any violence in prison towards staff, visitors or other prisoners. In addition, one should not underestimate the importance of our proposals on work in prisons. If we can put in place a much more useful prison regime under which far more prisoners are engaged in useful work, it will aid the delivery of discipline in our prisons.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

T4. Could I ask whether the Secretary of State will identify the amount of savings he will make in his planned reductions for legal aid in social welfare law and identify the amount of knock-on cuts to the Scottish budget through the Barnett formula? Could he confirm that, if there are cuts, the Scottish Parliament does not have to follow the savage cuts in welfare law legal aid?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

We debated all this last week. We are still spending £50 million on legal aid for welfare law, even as we have revised and cut it back, and cut out areas where, frankly, legal assistance is not necessary, appropriate or justified. Our proposals affect England and Wales only, and the provision of legal aid in Scotland is not a matter for me.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

As we said in Committee, we are retaining legal aid for most judicial reviews, immigration or otherwise. We accept that an individual’s ability to hold the state to account is an important principle, but when it has been abused, combined with the need to target resources effectively, we think that removing legal aid from those discrete categories of cases is justified, especially with the safeguards that I have set out.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

In the analysis of the evidence of the number of cases that actually had used judicial review to have another review that then turned out to be supported in the courts, does the Minister have actual figures to justify his blanket removal?