All 1 Debates between Natascha Engel and Sam Gyimah

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Debate between Natascha Engel and Sam Gyimah
Friday 21st October 2016

(8 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Gyimah Portrait Mr Gyimah
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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

Natascha Engel Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
- Hansard - -

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 ---
Sam Gyimah Portrait Mr Gyimah
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.]

Natascha Engel Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
- Hansard - -

Order. Enough. Let the Minister finish his speech.