Prisons and Courts Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. To be helpful to Members, let me say that 19 Members wish to speak. We have roughly worked out that if you restrict yourselves to about 10 minutes, it should not be necessary to put on any time limit.

Prisons

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I give a warning that I mean to drop the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker. I call Toby Perkins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Like many Members today, I wish to pay tribute to the people who work in the Prison Service. They take on an incredibly difficult task and we are very grateful to them. What they do was brought home to me when I took up what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, in advance of it being made a challenge, about visiting a prison. I visited Nottingham prison, and I encourage others to do the same. Any MP who is voting in this debate but who has not been around a prison are doing so from a position of ignorance.

There was much in the Secretary of State’s rhetoric that I support. We all agree with much of what she said about the issues and challenges facing the Prison Service, but her vision of what is going on and the policies of this Government bear little relationship to prison officers’ actual experience.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) criticised the motion. Although we recognise that, of course, there are many more aspects to prison than those contained in the motion, it seems to me that there is little to disagree with in it.

Four of my friends were recently employed at Moorland prison in Doncaster. Two have been recently retired on medical grounds and one is off sick at the moment. This debate rightly refers to the overall reduction in prison officers, but what is not so much focused on is the deliberate strategy of replacing experienced prison officers with cheap replacements and people right at the start of their career. That is an extremely dangerous policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) spoke about private prisons, but such practice is also happening in the Government estate.

One of my friends who worked at Moorland recently left the service. He was assaulted three times in a six-month period—once very seriously indeed. On the first occasion, he was encouraged to phone the staff welfare hotline. The third time he phoned it, he was told that he had used the hotline too many times and, although he had been seriously assaulted, he was not allowed to take time to get any support.

Another friend in the service needs knee surgery, but he has had to cancel the operation because he believes that if he takes time off to get his knee repaired he will be sacked on capability grounds. He specifically asked me why experienced prison officers should feel too intimidated to get the medical treatment they need.

Another friend who worked in the service for 25 years left last year. He said that when he started at Moorland there were 12 prison officers to a landing containing 90 prisoners; now, just three prison officers are there. He said that three prison officers are adequate when things are quiet and everything is going okay, but it leaves them with little capacity to engage with prisoners and carry out rehabilitation work, as they want. When a prisoner takes a phone call at 7.55 am, telling him that his wife has left him or that his children have been taken away by social services, he needs support. Prison officers have to step in and do an incredibly important job. When those resources are not there—whether it be for a moment of crisis in a prisoner’s life, to prevent fights, or simply to support prisoners and advise them on what courses to take on their path to rehabilitation—a vital chance is lost to help a prisoner back on to the right path.

Prison officers no longer feel that their role, which is incredibly important in our society, is as fulfilling as it once was, and that should concern us all. When prisoners start to think that no one is interested in them, we see the violent episodes that have taken place recently. Not enough is being done to prevent reoffending.

Experienced prison officers are crucial to the development of new staff. Managers in prisons now are much less experienced than once they were. What chance do the new £19,000 prison apprentices have if they are put into overcrowded prisons with disillusioned and inexperienced prison officers and if the mentoring that would once have been available for new staff is no longer there? Are we just setting them up to fail?

I support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but I go further and say that, unless the Government recognise why the riots are happening, stop their deliberate attempt to chuck experienced officers out of the system to save money, and implement their strategy to retain experienced staff and see them as central to the success of the recruitment of the new generation of prison officers, not only will the problems continue to escalate but our prisons and our society will pay a very heavy price for that failure in years to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call—Simon Hoare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Peter Heaton-Harris.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am terribly sorry, you have conflated two hon. Members. I am very closely related to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), but I am not he. Is it me you intend to call?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is you—Peter Heaton-Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

If the hon. Lady had been in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, she would know that that question was asked by another Member; I think it was the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). On the first point, you are the Government—[Interruption]—and it is for you to deal with the crisis of the—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Lady will resume her seat while the Chair is standing. May I just remind her that there is a reason why we do not address people directly in the second person? It is because things can get very heated. The hon. Lady should address her remarks through the Chair.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

They are the Government. They have been in power for the past seven years, and prisons have been under their control. It is under their watch that 6,000 staff have been cut.

--- Later in debate ---

That this House welcomes the Government’s comprehensive proposals for major reform of the prison system set out in the White Paper; further welcomes plans for an extra 2,500 prison officers, to professionalise the prison service further and to attract new talent by recruiting prison officer apprentices, graduates and former armed service personnel; notes new security measures being introduced to tackle the illegal use of drones, phones and drugs which are undermining the stability of the prison system; welcomes the commitment to give governors in all prisons more powers and more responsibility to deliver reform whilst holding them to account for the progress prisoners make; and welcomes the Government’s proposals to set out for the first time the purpose of prisons in statute.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to financial services. The Ayes were 292 and the Noes were 191, so the question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Williams]

Of course I welcome that, and I hope that the United Kingdom as well as Scotland is seen in that vein around the world, and in respect of every community. I have pleasure in acknowledging Scotland’s achievement, but when you have been in government a while, as the SNP have in Scotland, you have to prove things with actions as well as words. You cannot just look to awards that you have been presented; you will be judged according to the legislation you put through and what has happened. [Interruption.] The fact that hon. Members are quoting political slogans—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. While the debate had a nicer tone, I allowed the “yous” to go unchecked. Will the hon. Gentleman remember that when he says “you”, he is referring to the Chair?

[Craig Williams]

I apologise unreservedly, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am being stoked by my SNP colleagues while trying to agree with them on a lot of things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I will take your interventions in a moment, but may I first develop my argument?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I remind the Minister that when he says “you”, he is referring to the Chair. In these sorts of heated debates, things can get quite direct. It is important to remember that rule, especially when it gets a bit heated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady has had her time. The process allows people to move on with their lives in a meaningful way.

A disregard is a much more powerful and useful remedy for someone living than just a pardon. We recognise the force of the symbol of being pardoned, which is why we propose to pardon all of those who are living and were convicted of relevant offences once they have received a disregard. I would urge any individuals who believe that they are eligible for the disregard process to apply through the Home Office to have their records properly assessed. I hope that today’s debate has helped to raise the profile of this process so that those who are not aware can take steps to secure the justice that they deserve.

Of course, I support the intentions behind the Bill; the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire and I share the same objectives. The proposed blanket pardon would not provide for robust checks to ensure that only those who clearly meet the criteria can claim to be pardoned. It could lead in some cases to people claiming to be cleared of offences that are still crimes—including sex with a minor and non-consensual sexual activity. Under the disregard process, for example, the Home Office has rejected several applications where the activity was non-consensual and others where the other party was under 16 years old. Those offences were captured under offences such as “gross indecency” at the time, but are still crimes today. It is important that a pardon for the living takes place only after due process to verify—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Enough. Let the Minister finish his speech.

[Mr Gyimah]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Debate to be resumed what day?

[John Nicolson]

I suspect that there is little point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been told to continue this farce. What I am meant to say is 16 December.

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 16 December.

Registration of Marriage Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Domestic Abuse Victims in Family Law Courts

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I just say that I do not want to put a time limit on this debate, but we do want to bring in the next debate at about 3.30? If everybody, including those on the Front Bench, have 10 minutes including interventions, we will easily get everyone in.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I shall focus on three key points that are essential to this debate—the fundamental principle of access to justice, the clear fact that the introduction of fees is a barrier for women who are pregnant or experiencing maternity discrimination, and the post-implementation review of the introduction of tribunal fees. I am sure the Minister will pay close attention.

Employment tribunal fees have been mentioned by many hon. Members primarily because 54,000 women are forced out of their workplace every day by discrimination. If there was a need for evidence that the tribunal fees system is not working, that is it. Since the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2013, there has been a 76% decline in the number of tribunal fee claims.

I will dispense with statistics for now and highlight some of the reasons employment tribunals exist. They are intended to assist not just women, but any worker who faces unfair dismissal or discrimination in their workplace. Such pressures are compounded by the fact that those people are often the most vulnerable in society. Despite many calls from across the Opposition Benches, I suspect that the Minister is not listening to any of the arguments that have been made thus far about employment tribunal fees being tantamount to a barrier to access to justice. They compound discrimination against women, in particular in maternity discrimination cases, but they can affect all workers.

We have heard from trade unions about when these issues compound the experiences faced by many workers. The trade unions have focused particularly on those on zero-hours contracts, who are offered little or no job security. If they bring a challenge against their employer, they may have no further work and no further hours, so they will not be able to put food on the table to feed their families. Unfair dismissal therefore affects not just women but many workers across the spectrum.

ACAS—the institution the Government proudly highlight as the main arbitrator in this—has indicated that 26% of people simply did not progress a claim, because the tribunal fees put them off. If their own statistics are not enough to tell Ministers the system is not working, I do not know what is.

Working Families has highlighted that there is a growing category of rogue employers—something the Government have not seen fit to address. Siobhan Endean, from the Unite trade union, has indicated that employers are confident that claims will not go to a tribunal, because people cannot afford the basic £1,200 fee that would be imposed on them to implement proceedings in the first place.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has rightly highlighted the severe impact on women. Its review was done in conjunction with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so the Ministers have further statistical evidence that their tribunal fees system is not working.

Some 77% of people have experienced negative or potentially discriminatory practices in their workplace. There has been a 76% decrease in the number of people who have gone to tribunals. As one of my colleagues said earlier, that cannot be attributed merely to vexatious or unmeritorious claims—it is clearly because the fees are a barrier. I cannot emphasise that enough.

The Women and Equalities Committee conducted a review of pregnancy and maternity discrimination issues, and one of our key findings was that the three-month time limit is insufficient. It is probably the furthest thing from a pregnant woman’s mind to start filing a claim against her employer. However, even if the time limit were extended to six months, the bottom line is that it would be completely impractical for any woman who has just had a child or who is pregnant to go through this procedure.

Joeli Brearley, from Pregnant Then Screwed, said she was unable to pursue justice, because she was pregnant and was informed that going ahead would be stressful and have a negative impact on the birth of her child. That is the reality for many women. Why will the Government not understand the simple fact that three months is insufficient for women who are pregnant and who have experienced discrimination in the workplace? They simply cannot access the justice they deserve. I hope the Minister will give that point about the time limits due consideration, because it is absolutely pertinent.

When the Committee visited Portsmouth, women told us they are subject to harassment and bullying and are refused time off for antenatal classes. Maternity Action highlighted the fact that the overwhelming majority of women simply cannot afford tribunal fees. Aside from fully abolishing or hugely reducing fees—I understand that the Justice Committee reports suggests that—simply increasing the time limit would make a sizeable difference to the number of women who can progress claims. I sincerely hope that Ministers will bear that in mind.

The fact is that less than 1% of maternity discrimination claims proceed to tribunal. That means that 99 out of every 100 women who experience discrimination have no legal redress whatever. With the greatest respect, therefore, I am going to quote the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). A few months ago, I asked him whether he would continue to defend the introduction of tribunal fees—I suspect they are a means to eliminate the budget deficit, but they also fail to address the fundamental principle of access to justice. You said we require “a responsible approach” to funding services, so I am going to ask him a few questions. Is it responsible to allow people to be put out of work? Is it responsible to allow rogue employers to act as they wish, regardless of employment law? Does the knock-on impact on economic growth really help to redress or reduce the budget deficit?

I think I have clearly made my three points. One was about the fundamental principle of access to justice. One was about the time limit, and the potential to increase it from three months to six months, as recommended by the Maternity Action Group, Pregnant Then Screwed and many other organisations. I have also outlined to you—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I have let this go a few times. When the hon. Lady says “you”, she is addressing the Chair. Could she refer to “the Minister” or “the hon. Gentleman”?

[Angela Crawley]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister addressed each of those points in turn, I would be eternally grateful.

The conclusion I would like to draw is that the introduction of fees is a fundamental barrier to access to justice for not only women but all workers. The simple fact is that the time limit could be extended, and that should readily be considered. I hope the Government will do that. Ultimately, I would call for the outright abolition of tribunal fees, because there is no statistical evidence to suggest that they have decreased the number of vexatious or unmeritorious claims; all they have done is limit the number of women, in particular, who can bring claims. If the Government will not commit to abolishing fees, will they at the very least consider the Justice Committee’s recommendation of a significant reduction? However, I and my SNP colleagues would call for them to consider outright abolition. The First Minister said that when this area of law is devolved to Scotland, we will abolish tribunal fees if it is possible to do so. Will this Government make the same commitment for workers across the UK?

Policing and Crime Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank the Minister for coming partly towards the position that we believe should be taken, but can we clarify one point? We are talking about serious wrongdoing—malfeasance and gross misconduct —by police officers. We have mentioned Hillsborough, so many people will spin that with regard to the conduct of officers—ordinary officers—at that disaster in 1989. There are no accusations against many of the ordinary officers, who performed heroically: it was the senior officers who let people down, and then, in some cases, took the opportunity to get away scot free through the cop-out of using ill health—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, he can stand up to indicate when he wishes to do so, but this an intervention, and interventions must be a little shorter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. We have about an hour and a half before the winding-up speeches start, and there are eight Members wishing to speak. If we can keep to about 10 or so minutes, everyone should be able to contribute.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I would not criticise for a moment the shadow Home Secretary for speaking for 45 minutes. He had a lot to say and spoke with great passion. He knows a lot about the bereaved Hillsborough families and all the associated issues, so I do not want to criticise him. If I may, however, before coming on to talk about new clause 23, I would like to say something gently to the right hon. Gentleman.

I do not know the Silk—I have never met him—to whom he twice referred and accused of unattractive conduct. That Silk was speaking on instructions, and I assume that, in line with the traditions and professional standards of the Bar, he did not set out deliberately to attack people. He was acting for the two relevant public authorities on the two separate occasions. It was his duty to put the cases for those clients. The cases might well have been unattractive and might well have come across as deeply upsetting to the people who were cross-examined, but it was his professional duty to act in that way. Another barrister might have done it differently or another client might have given different instructions, but it is a bit mean, if I may say so, to call out a particular barrister here in the House of Commons.

Policing and Crime Bill

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 32—Police volunteers: inspection.

Amendment 11, in clause 35, page 57, line 39, leave out subsection (1A).

This amendment removes the ability for volunteers to be given the powers of a Constable or Police and Community Support Officer.

Amendment 12, page 58, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) The chief officer of any police force may not place a volunteer in any role which requires the use of force or restraint.’.

This amendment would prevent volunteers being placed in roles which may require the use of force or restraint which should only be performed by officers and members of police staff.

Amendment 13, page 59, line 1, leave out subsection (9B).

This amendment removes the provision for volunteer PCSOs to be issued with CS spray and PAVA spray.

Amendment 10,  page 59, line 31, at end insert—

‘(12) This section cannot come into force until the House of Commons approves a report under subsection 46(6) of the Police Act 1996 which guarantees no annual reduction in funding in real terms to local policing bodies in each financial year until 2020.’.

This amendment would guarantee that police funding would be protected in a police grant settlement approved by Parliament before proposals to grant additional police powers to volunteers can be brought forward.

New clause 1—Sale of knives and certain articles with blade or point to persons under eighteen: due diligence checks—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 141A, after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Due diligence serving to confirm the material facts in relation to a sale over the internet of with respect to the age of a purchaser must include, but is not limited to—

(a) age verification on delivery,

(b) online age verification, and

(c) offline follow up checks.

(4B) The Secretary of State must publish guidance, which the Secretary of State may revise from time to time, on how due diligence verification and checks under section (4A) are to be carried out.’.

This new clause provides a triple lock to ensure that knives are not illegally sold over the Internet to under-18s.

New clause 7—Amendments to the Firearms Act 1968—

‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit section 5(1A)(f).

(3) Omit sections 5A(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8).

(4) Omit section 7(1) and insert—

“(1) A person who has obtained from the chief officer of police for the area in which he resides a permit for the purpose in the prescribed form may, without holding a certificate or authority under this Act, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition in accordance with the terms of the permit.”

(5) At the end of section 28A add—

“(8) Where an individual has applied for the renewal of a certificate before its expiry but the chief constable has not, as at the date of its expiry, determined whether or not to grant the renewal, the certificate is to continue to have effect until the application is determined.”’.

The new clause seeks to make a number of technical changes to the 1968 Firearms Act covering expanding ammunition, section 7 temporary permits and the renewal of firearms certificates in order to clarify the law and reduce the administrative burden on the police and shooting community.

New clause 8—Amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988—

‘(1) The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 15(1) (Approved rifle clubs and muzzle-loading pistol clubs) omit the first “rifle” and for the second “rifle” substitute “firearm”.

(3) Omit section 15(2) and insert—

“(2) Any club may apply for approval, whether or not it is intended that any club members will, by virtue of subsection (1) above, have firearms subject to section 1 or ammunition in their possession without holding firearm certificates.”

(4) Omit section 15(4) and insert—

“(4) The application of subsection (1) above to members of an approved club may—

(a) be excluded in relation to the club, or

(b) be restricted to target shooting with specified types of firearm, by limitations contained in the approval.”

(5) In section 15(7) omit “rifle”.

(6) In section 15(10) omit the first “rifle”.

(7) Omit sections 15(11) and (12).’.

The new clause allows a club to be approved for any type of Section 1 firearm so that if a person using a shotgun or long-barrelled pistol is taken ill, or the firearm malfunctions, another authorised person can legally ‘possess’ (handle) that firearm to assist and/or make it safe.

New clause 9—Authorised persons permitted to lend firearms—

‘(1) In the Firearms Act 1968, omit section 11(5) and insert—

“(5) A person may, without holding a shot gun certificate, borrow a shot gun from the owner or occupier of private premises or a person authorised by the owner or occupier and use it on those premises in the presence of the owner, occupier or authorised person.”

(2) In the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, omit section 16(1) and insert—

(a) the owner, occupier or authorised person in whose presence it is used holds a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle; and

(b) the borrower’s possession and use of it complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate; and

(c) where the borrower is of the age of 17, the owner, occupier or authorised person in whose presence the rifle is used is of or over the age of 18.”’.

The new clause would clarify the law as regards who can lend a shotgun or rifle to another person. This addresses the uncertainty currently caused by the term ‘occupier’ in relation to the borrowing of a shotgun or a rifle by a person without a certificate.

New clause 19—Events, festivals and gatherings: control of flares and fireworks etc.—

‘(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has an article or substance to which this section applies in his possession—

(a) at any time during the period of a qualifying event, festival or gathering when he is within the venue or in any area from which the event, festival or gathering may be directly viewed or physically accessed, or

(b) while entering or trying to enter a venue or area defined in paragraph (1)(a) at any time during the period of the qualifying event, festival or gathering, or

(c) while travelling by any means towards a qualifying event, festival or gathering with the intent to enter a venue or area as defined under paragraph (1)(a).

(2) It is a defence for the accused to prove that possession is with lawful authority.

(3) This section applies to any article or substance whose main purpose is the emission of a flare whether for entertaining, illuminating or signalling (as opposed to igniting or heating) or the emission of smoke or a visible gas or a noise intended to simulate an explosion; and in particular it applies to fireworks, distress flares, fog signals, and pellets and capsules intended to be used as fumigators or for testing pipes, but not to matches, cigarette lighters or heaters.

(4) The Secretary of State may be regulations define or amend—

(a) a “qualifying event, festival or gathering”,

(b) a “period of an event, festival or gathering”,

(c) a “venue or area from which the event, festival or gathering may be directly viewed or physically accessed”, and

(d) articles and substances falling under subsection (3).

(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument but such an instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of an offence under subsection 1(a) or (b) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, and

(b) in the case of an offence under subsection 1(c) to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(7) Nothing in this section shall apply to persons, articles or substances that are lawfully present at, entering, travelling to, or being transported towards, a qualifying event, festival or gathering by virtue of being a planned part of the event, festival or gathering under the responsibility, regulation and control of the organisers.’.

New clause 21—Firearms: Full recovery of the licence costs—

‘(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 53 insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must set the sum payable at the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”’.

This new clause would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 7, in clause 106, page 115, line 22, leave out “the amount of any fee that may be charged” and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”

This amendment would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 8,  page 115, line 41, leave out

“the amount of any fee that may be charged”

and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.

This amendment would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 9,  page 116, line 19, leave out

“the amount of any fee that may be charged”

and insert

“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.

This amendment would help to ensure full costs recovery of the licencing of guns.

Amendment 1, in clause 107, page 117, line 14, at end insert

“and

(c) other relevant stakeholders.”.

This amendment would require other relevant stakeholders to be consulted in drawing up statutory guidance to the police. The current non-statutory guidance involves consultation between the Home Office, police, shooting organisations and others and all existing parties, not just the police, should be accommodated within the new statutory framework.

Government amendment 62.

New clause 17—Alcohol abstinence and monitoring: cost recovery—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 212A, insert at the end of subsection 7(b)—

“(c) arrangements for recovering the cost of testing from the offender by the police.”’.

This would allow the Secretary of State to include to make provision for the police to charge an offender subject to an alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement for the costs of testing their compliance with such a requirement.

[Karen Bradley]

At this stage I will speak to the Government new clauses and amendment, and I will respond later to the points that are made about other amendments.

Chapter 1 of part 3 will enable chief officers to designate police staff with a wider range of police powers. They will also be able to confer police powers, other than the core powers reserved for warranted officers, on volunteers. The intention is that the powers that can be conferred on employed staff and designated volunteers are the same. This includes the power to carry and use defensive sprays, such as CS gas and PAVA spray, where the chief officer considers that there is an operational case for this. It is already the case that chief officers can equip police community support officers with defensive sprays, and to that extent the Bill codifies the existing position.

New clause 31 makes necessary consequential amendments to the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that police volunteers are civilian officers for the purposes of that Act. The effect is that they do not then need a certificate or authorisation under section 1 or 5 of the 1968 Act in order to carry a defensive spray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I call Kit Malthouse.

[Kit Malthouse]

What an honour it is to be called before all these august Members!

In respect of amendments 11, 12, 13 and 10, I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on manfully—or indeed womanfully—arguing what seems to be a lost cause; Conservative Members eloquently made the case that the proposals are nonsense.

Fundamentally, the hon. Gentleman is saying through his amendments that he does not trust a chief police officer to get right the architecture around volunteers used in their organisation. He is saying that a chief constable cannot be trusted to organise and train volunteers correctly—but if they cannot be trusted to do that relatively simple task, how can they be trusted to handle some of the risks that they face on a daily basis, even with their warranted force? As he considers these matters over the next couple of hours, I urge him to think about withdrawing his amendments and simply to vote against the Government’s amendments if he believes that to be right. His would be Heath Robinson legislation, as I said, and the House has a duty to keep things simple.

I am extremely supportive of new clause 1. As the hon. Gentleman said, the proliferation of knives, particularly these unpleasant zombie knives, has caused a huge problem, particularly in urban areas and especially in London. We have seen some tragic cases over the last two or three years. A while ago, as people will remember, there was some alarm about air rifles and air-powered weapons; as a result, the legislation on purchasing air rifles was changed so that they could not be bought other than face to face. Now, when someone buys an air rifle online, it has to be delivered by the firearms dealer, who has to verify, face to face on the doorstep, that the person is who they say they are and of the correct age, and that the weapon can be sold to them lawfully. Alternatively, there is a mutual network of firearms dealers operating in such a way that someone can buy from one and pick up from another, who will verify that person’s identity and age.

I am 6 feet 2 inches—nearly—and quite a big chap. I am much more frightened of zombie knives than of air rifles, so I urge the Government to look carefully at new clause 1. It would be a valuable addition to our armoury as we try to keep these weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. Having said that, I do not think it would be a silver bullet—not much we do in the House is; many of these knives are bought on the dark web, where things are a little more amorphous, identities more difficult to find and things are often posted illegally. Many firearms are bought on the dark web and sent to the UK through the normal post, but the police are becoming quite sophisticated at picking them up, and the same could be true of knives. I therefore urge the Government to adopt the new clause.

I am similarly supportive of new clause 19, on flares at public events. They are not allowed at football matches any more, but elsewhere they often cause injury and terror—people, particularly children, are frightened of them—so it would be sensible to outlaw their use in those circumstances.

Finally, I will speak briefly—we are pressed for time—to new clause 17, which stands in my name. This is a probing amendment, as they say, and I have no intention, at this stage, of putting it to a vote, but I will give Members the back story because it might well appear in the other place.

Members might remember that three or four years ago City Hall ran a big campaign to get a disposal on to the books called “compulsory sobriety”, which manifested itself as alcohol abstinence monitoring orders made against people who have committed a crime where alcohol was a contributory factor. Essentially, an offender, rather than going to prison, which would mean losing their job and contact with their family, is sentenced to wear an alcohol-testing tag or bracelet that, for three, four or six months, tests their skin every 30 seconds to make sure they are not drinking. If they drink and the tag detects it, a signal is sent, the police apprehend them and they go back into the criminal justice system and might well get a custodial sentence. Effectively, the offender is in charge of their own custody.

These orders have been hugely successful in the United States. In South Dakota, where they started, there has been massive compliance and a drop in the number of people arrested for drink-driving and dying on the roads. I learned this morning that there has also been an increase in life span because there is less drinking. South Dakota is a big, flat state; there is not much to do except drink a lot and beat each other up, as in parts of this country. That was happening an awful lot, until these orders were introduced by the now famous prosecutor, Larry Long. They have changed the alcohol environment there entirely.

We managed to get the orders on the statute book here, and a pilot in Croydon over the last couple of years has resulted in a 93% compliance rate among offenders fitted with a tag and an extremely good reoffending rate—once someone has had three to six months off the booze, they do not tend to go back but instead learn the error of their ways. However, there is one aspect of the scheme in the states that we did not adopt but which they think is critical to its success: the ability to charge offenders for their own testing.

In the United States, when somebody is put on this disposal and they go to be tested, more often than not they appear twice a day at the police station, blow into a breathalyser and pay a buck, or a dollar, a test. Effectively, that is money that they would otherwise have spent on booze. From the point of view of the criminal justice system, that makes the scheme self-financing.

International Women’s Day 2016

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had a very powerful, thought-provoking and emotional debate, thanks to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and many other Members who have contributed this afternoon. By my reckoning, 38 right hon. and hon. Members contributed to the debate, and not everybody was able to get in. What advice can you give me about talking to the relevant authorities to ensure that, in the future, we are able to secure an even longer debate? We are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for supporting today’s debate, but I think that there is a great case to be made for having even longer to discuss an issue that is relevant to every single Member of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I think that the right hon. Lady has just made that point to the relevant authorities, and I think they have heard it. Just for confirmation, 38 Members spoke, and everybody who wanted to get in did get in. It was very tight at the end, and I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping to such a tight limit, but everybody did get in. I thank you all very much, and I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

As I have said, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not got the message yet, and that she does not appreciate that the time was shortened by six months—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. There is a lot of shouting out now. If the Minister wants to take an intervention, he will, but if we could stop shouting it would help us proceed with the debate.

[Mr Vara]

Another reason that some have called for the legislation to be revisited is that they felt that notification needs to be reconsidered. I simply do not accept that the Government have failed to make every effort to notify the women affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for at long last allowing me to intervene. In response to an earlier intervention by a Conservative Member who has now left the Chamber, the Minister replied that Ministers are always happy to meet party colleagues to discuss difficult cases. Unlike the Minister for Pensions, who sits in the other place, this Minister has refused to come to Northern Ireland and meet women who were born in the 1950s and who are adversely affected by this change. Will he please have the good grace to agree to come to Northern Ireland and meet my constituents in North Down, and other women affected by this issue, and explain why the Government will not introduce transitional measures?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before the Minister replies, 25 Members wish to catch my eye and we are hoping to have a Division at about 4:50 pm. We still have another Front-Bench opening speech, and we are getting tight on time. Interventions have been very long, but if the Minister could start concluding his remarks, we might be able to get everybody in.

[Mr Vara]

I take on board what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am coming to a conclusion. I am more than happy to meet colleagues, but I am afraid the venue would have to be negotiated. It is not every day that I go to Northern Ireland, but if the hon. Lady wants a meeting with me I am more than happy to meet her here in London.

We have ensured that more people are saving for their retirement by requiring employers to enrol their staff on to a pension with our auto-enrolment scheme. In addition to those reforms, we have continued to protect and build on a range of other pensioner benefits, including a permanent increase to cold weather payments, protection of winter fuel payments, and protection of free bus passes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the SNP spokesperson, I will impose a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. If too many interventions go on for too long, I will have to bring that down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not give way earlier. I needed to correct him on a point of fact. The evidence given to the Work and Pensions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) can give way if he wants to, but he does not have to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the House of the rules about Members making contributions when they were not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

The hon. Gentleman has been in and out of the Chamber. He was here at the beginning of the debate. May I use this opportunity to calm things a little bit, so we can move on? A very large number of Members want to speak. If Members make interventions, please keep them short. May I also remind Members that they are speaking through the Chair? When they say “you” they are addressing the Chair, not hon. Members.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who makes very good points. It is all about unfairness to women who are really struggling, women with ill health and women who cannot work; and it is about the Government accepting their responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

To defend what the Government are doing is to defend the indefensible. It is wrong; it is mean-spirited. Conservative Members should not just troop through the Lobbies without reflecting on the situation of women who in some cases are losing tens of thousands of pounds of their entitlement.

I have talked so far about women born up to 1954. A woman born in 1955 will not retire until 10 February 2021, aged 66 years. That cannot be right. It is far too steep an increase over a short period, and the Government must put mitigation in place. You Government Members should examine your consciences. You will have women from the WASPI campaign coming to see you—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking through the Chair. When he says “you”, he is speaking to me, but I am not directly participating in the debate. I would be grateful if he would address his comments in the third person.

[Ian Blackford]

I apologise most sincerely for my oversight, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will make sure it does not happen again.

Conservative Members will have women from the WASPI campaign coming to their surgeries. Let us look at what some of the woman affected have said about their real- life experiences of these changes. Here is one example:

“My husband and I got married in 1974, he is 12 years older than me. I like to think we planned life in the right way. The pension law has put all our plans out the window. I had been planning all my available options, when my husband retired, and in 2011, I requested my state pension forecast. It stated that if I deferred till 2020 I should receive a £14,621 lump sum. I thought this may allow me the option to work two days and still enjoy my family, but thanks to the changes I will no longer receive this. Also, I hadn’t anticipated that my age might make me a prime candidate for redundancy. Losing my job in 2014, was a massive blow. The government may have changed the law, but it turns out many industries don’t want 60+ women. They are effectively retiring us, and forcing us to use our lifetime savings on daily living costs, as no one wants to hire us!”

There are so many points to dwell on there, but most importantly, it speaks of the crushing of so many hopes and dreams.

It is also the case that many women are being forced to work on beyond their expected retirement date, and this brings its own challenges in terms of the availability of suitable employment, and many are sadly experiencing ill health. What has been the response of the Government? It is that other benefits are available. What a response! You have worked hard, paid your dues to society, met your side of the bargain in paying national insurance and expected to receive a pension, yet this callous, heartless Government are ripping that contract up and telling folk to claim benefits. Is that really the answer? You can get means-tested benefits, which will cost the Exchequer, but you are being denied what is rightfully yours. Welcome to “Osborne’s Britain”—callous, cold and undignified.

Social Security

Natascha Engel Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That the draft State Pension (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 18 January, be approved.

[Mr Vara]

The order and regulations before us have been laid previously in the House. It is my understanding that there is general agreement on both sides of the House on their contents. I do not, therefore, propose to detain the House any longer than is necessary.