Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

The amendments are intended to enable the Government to conduct a proactive review, which should, indeed, involve looking at what happens on the opposite shore. We all want to tackle the profound consequences of death caused by drivers under the influence, and ensure that they receive the appropriate penalty.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I, too, must make a declaration. I was a criminal barrister who both prosecuted and defended.

As my hon. Friend says, the maximum custodial sentence for a first offence of drinking and driving is six months. It is the same for a second, third and fourth offence. Does he agree that drink-drivers who pose a threat on our roads should receive longer sentences, and that their cases should be sent to the Crown court where there can be multiple convictions?

[Mr Burrowes]

I remember briefing my hon. Friend on many occasions. He was a great advocate in courts in Enfield and Haringey, and he continues that advocacy in the House. He has made an important point. There is a parallel between dealing with drink-driving cases and dealing with, for example, cases of criminal damage. Where there is a succession of criminal damage cases, later cases can receive a higher penalty and can be committed to the Crown court; indeed, there are categories of criminal damage that attract a higher penalty and the attention of the Crown court. The Government should look at whether that principle, which is already in statute, should be applied to drink-drive cases that have the most serious consequences.

We have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of culpability and consequences in death by careless driving and dangerous driving. We have recognised that there needs to be a particular way of dealing with penalties that is aligned to the consequences, rather than looking at culpability alone. My amendments seek to take that a stage further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) would be here in the Chamber supporting me if he were not in a Committee. He has fought a valiant and successful campaign as a result of the tragic case of one of his constituents who died as a result of someone driving carelessly. The issue of impairment must be dealt with properly and that will now happen. He and I share the concern that the new offence of drug-driving needs to address the issue of fatalities, which was where the campaign that led to the new offence began. It would therefore be ironic if we were left with a Bill that does not deal with cases where dangerous driving cannot be proved independently but people who are plainly under the influence of drugs or drink have killed someone, and they can—perhaps through the hard work in years gone by of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and myself as defence solicitors and barristers—get to the point where there is a lesser plea of drink-drive with a six-month penalty.

Sadly, that has already happened. We have heard that 27 people were tried and nil were convicted on this charge. I am concerned that in those cases there was a plea bargain to the lesser charge of drink-drive.

The explanatory notes to the Bill make another important point. It is stated about schedule 18:

“Paragraph 2 amends section 3A of the 1988 Act so that if the person had a controlled drug in the blood or urine in excess of the specified limit for that drug, the person could be charged with the more serious offence in that section of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.”

I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee, and I sought clarity from the Minister about this point, which had been raised in correspondence with the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice dating back to March 2012 and in the campaign I mentioned earlier that sought a higher penalty in cases where it was not possible to prove careless driving. Unfortunately, now, a year after that correspondence began, we are in the final throes of the passage of the Bill.

This point has been made not just by me; this was not just a hobby-horse of mine—it is not about me wanting to make a point and send out a press release. It was made by Chief Superintendent David Snelling, who was an excellent commander of the Met traffic division, and it also came to the fore as a result of the campaigning efforts of my constituents, the Galli-Atkinson family, who lost their daughter as a result of dangerous driving and who saw a gap involving fatalities in drink and drug cases that are not prosecuted as they should be, so we do not end up with the sentences that the dead victims and their families deserve. They make their point based on the practical reality of cases that actually arise, and that is also the basis of my amendments.

The gap is in hit-and-run cases where a driver who is over the limit on drink or drugs crashes into another car or a pedestrian and kills, and then leaves the scene. In situations where fatalities occur, such cases are not infrequent, as—it will not surprise Members to learn—many people who know they are over the limit will do their best to evade prosecution, so they will leave the scene. They get hunted down and arrested, and when they are found to be over the limit the prosecution begins and the investigation continues. A prosecution for a failure to stop carries a limited penalty that does not reflect the gravity of the situation, and I have previously sought amendments to extend the penalties in that regard.

The prosecutor is left with the option of prosecuting for death by careless driving, but the problem is that there is no witness. In these cases, often the only witness is dead; there is nobody left. The steps are then traced back and the scene is marked out. The marks on the road might allow people to come up with a prosecution that shows that careless driving took place, because there are signs of speed, swerving, braking and so on. But it may well be that none of that is available, as perhaps it was a wet day and very little could be shown. Little corroborative evidence may be available beyond the fact that the person has died because of that vehicle and that driver, and all we have left is the fact that the driver was over the limit.

Sadly, all the prosecutor can perhaps do is prosecute for driving with excess alcohol or driving over the prescribed limit for drugs, which carries a maximum sentence of six months. Clearly that is not acceptable, given the gravity of the situation. Over the years, Parliament has recognised that where a death occurs as a result of driving it needs to be dealt with, and quite properly so. So that sets out the gap I am seeking to fill through my proposals.

The issue is whether there can be independent proof of careless driving and whether that must be sought out. In Committee, I asked the Minister what he thought of the situation and asked him for clarification. I said:

“I want it to be made clear…that it will not be necessary for the prosecutor to independently prove careless driving as the standard of driving, and that the effect is that someone’s being over the prescribed limit for drugs or alcohol will be sufficient for the prosecutor to be able to make the decision to charge them with a serious offence.”

He replied:

“My understanding is that it will not be necessary. I hope that I have clarified the point.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2013; c. 394-95.]

I would settle for that and move on. Indeed, I would probably have a press release saying, “I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that drivers who are over the limit and kill will get a higher penalty, which amounts to a maximum 14 years.” I would rest easy that the campaign has been successful, the victim’s voice has been heard, and the chief superintendent and police on the ground have recognised that gap and say, ”That is good. That has been dealt with.”

However, I then received correspondence from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), in what we might term “Yes Minister” language, saying that there “may be confusion”. That is what has led me to table new clause 18 and amendment 120. It was clear in the Bill Committee that we would have confusion, so today the Minister has an opportunity to be brave and to fill the gaps that I have had a go at filling through a couple of options.

One option, new clause 18, would make drink-driving or driving over the prescribed drug limit an either-way offence—one capable of being committed to the Crown court and then attracting a maximum sentence of two years. The other option is amendment 120, whereby those on licence, disqualified drivers and uninsured drivers who kill in this way will face a heavy penalty of two years. That simply adds to the list in respect of drink-driving.

I have to put my lawyer’s hat on, because I appreciate that people may have concerns about new clause 18 opening up all drink-driving cases to a Crown court trial; I recognise the expense and the vagaries of jury trials, and that that is not wholly satisfactory in itself. I am perhaps being generous in how I am presenting new clause 18 and it perhaps needs to be refined. Perhaps it should be simply specified in relation to fatalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham suggests making specific provision about repeat drink-driving offenders. There is certainly a role for making only those high-end cases liable for a committal to Crown court, in a similar way to what happens in the criminal damages cases I referred to earlier.

Another way around that would be to deal with magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers. Perhaps the Government will respond to the calls from the Magistrates Association to extend their powers to a maximum of two years. Youth courts have a two-year custodial sentence power, so perhaps we should have equity for adult courts. That would be much more cost-effective and would avoid cases all going to the Crown court and we lawyers being paid more up there—although we must appreciate the legal aid restrictions in that regard. The issue could then be dealt with in a magistrates court in a proportionate manner. That option is also open to the Government.

I recognise that there are reservations about amendment 120. As a lawyer, I am not keen on extending strict liability cases too readily and the amendment would certainly effectively extend a strict liability scenario to drink and drug-driving-related cases. Nevertheless, my amendment is clean cut. It does not extend the powers of the Crown court to all drink-driving cases but relates specifically to fatalities. It deals with the issues that have motivated my amendments and merely adds to the list of offences. Members of the public might ask what the difference is: if someone takes the risk of driving while uninsured, disqualified or without a licence, they are pretty careless to do that and should accept the consequences, and the same applies to those who are over the prescribed limits. My amendment would retain the statutory defence for drink-drive cases and would therefore have less of a strict liability nature.

The Government need to fill the gap. I am trying my best to do that and have provided two options. There might be more and I have no doubt that the Minister can tell us about any others. I look forward to seeing how the Government will do it as this is a real problem that should not be ignored. The fact that there were 220 deaths in a year but only 27 people were charged with causing death by dangerous driving while impaired in the same period makes the point very clearly. Large numbers of impaired drivers who kill are, for one reason or another, avoiding prosecution for the more serious offence and are probably ending up being charged with the lesser drink-drive offence.

In conclusion, I spoke to Ministers before tabling the amendments. I welcome the commitment from Transport Ministers that if I can provide evidence that proving carelessness is problematic, the Department will review the case for amending legislation. The statistics I have given are evidence and I put the burden of proof on the Government. I ask them to review the issue and seek to prove the point. We are very much in the end game on this Bill. Some might say we should have done that earlier to avoid getting into such a situation, but I urge the Government to recognise that we have a problem and to fix it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that every corner of this great nation pulled together and supported the Olympics in a fantastic way. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), has a committee that looks particularly at sport participation, and the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee, which I chair, is looking at how we can make sure that that participation continues to grow over time in every part of the country. There are also local organisations dealing with this in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the United Kingdom.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

2. What support her Department is giving to women’s sport.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The London 2012 games put women’s sport on the map, and we are committed to maintaining that very important momentum.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the news that Gillingham Anchorians rugby club, which is keen on increasing women’s membership, recently received £50,000 of national lottery funding?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is a very keen sportsman, and I am not surprised that he raises the important role that women play in rugby. I applaud the work in his constituency to make sure that that is happening. He may be aware that as a result of the Olympics and the Paralympics over 600,000 more women have participated regularly in sport. We can see no finer example of the contribution of women in sport than the women’s six nations tournament, which is going on at the moment. I am sure that every Member in this House will be supporting their home team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

We welcome the campaign and the opportunity for the House to debate these issues at greater length later today. Schools are, of course, free to teach about issues such as sexual consent within personal, social and health education or in other lessons, and children can benefit enormously from high-quality education that helps them to make safe and informed decisions and choices. The DFE has conducted a review of PSHE and will publish its outcomes later this year.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify whether there is a cross-departmental, multi-agency strategy for tackling the horrific practice of honour violence? How effective is this strategy?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to this abhorrent crime. He uses the commonly received expression, but I urge everybody to stop using it, as there is nothing honourable at all about this form of criminal activity. It is part of the overall approach that the Government are taking to try to combat violence against women and girls. He will know that the Government have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for a range of tasks of this type, including for the area he has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) gesticulating the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the direction of the Opposition Benches is a triumph, surely, of optimism over reality.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Medway council is being developed as a regional CCTV hub, helping prevent crime and saving other councils money. What is the Minister’s policy on encouraging the development of CCTV hubs?

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point and, equally, how it is possible to pool together resources and systems to make CCTV systems that much more effective. Those are precisely the sorts of approaches that we are seeking to advance through the code of practice, and I am sure that the surveillance camera commissioner will also examine my hon. Friend’s point.

Animal Experiments

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this debate, and on outlining in such depth and detail the case against not animal experimentation per se, but the huge number of unnecessary experiments. He says that we need to get to a situation in which only absolutely essential tests continue. I would very much like one day to see a world in which there was no animal testing, but I accept that, at the moment, we should be lobbying and campaigning for a gradual incremental approach, highlighting the fact that there is so much duplication of unnecessary animal tests and that there are areas in which it is completely unethical to test products on animals.

Cosmetic testing is the one such area in which I think most people would support that kind of lobbying work. Indeed, public opinion polls show that the vast majority are against cosmetic testing on animals, which is one of those things that, if asked, people are very much against, but they struggle as consumers to put that into practice. People like me might spend ages looking at all the labels on everything—the Leaping Bunny logo is useful if people are trying to find a product that has not been tested on animals anywhere through the supply chain—but many others are misled by products such as Herbal Essences. People think that because something has “herbal” or “natural” in its name, all the ingredients must be derived from the plant world with no chemicals. They also extrapolate that those products are humane and not tested on animals, whereas we know that in most cases they are, or at least they are produced by companies that do a lot of animal testing.

It has taken 20 years to get to the stage where the cosmetic testing ban is about to come into force. In 1991, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection set up the European coalition of leading animal protection organisations with the aim of ending the use of animal testing for cosmetics. We now have the ban on the import and sale of animal-tested cosmetic products and ingredients, which comes into force on 11 March.

I am interested to know how that ban will be enforced—I believe that that is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I recently asked a question of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and was told that her Department is working with trading standards to develop guidance for local authority trading standards services on implementing the ban. My concern is that trading standards has many other things on its plate, that it is not well resourced and that it is affected by cuts, as are many other public sector bodies. Will the Minister tell us whether the guidance has already been published? Will there be consultation? What is the timetable for disseminating that guidance to local authority trading standards, and what training will there be on implementing the guidance? What enforcement action are local authority trading standards likely to take?

There needs to be more proactive testing of cosmetics during the import process, rather than waiting to try to catch people in shops and market stalls who are selling products that are still being tested. We ought to be able to stop those products from coming into the UK in the first place. The BUAV suggests that that could involve an inspector checking documentation to ensure that batches are compliant. Not only would that act as a deterrent to companies that might want to chance their arm, but it would uncover anything before it reached the market. When we consider the way in which the recent horsemeat situation came to light, everyone would agree that we should not find out after the event that something such as horsemeat has entered the food chain; we want to stop it coming into the country in the first place. Will the Minister examine the BUAV’s proposal to ensure that the ban is properly implemented?

The pledge to end testing household products on animals was set out in the coalition agreement in 2010. I remember in the run-up to the 2010 general election there was an event in Parliament at which speakers from the three main political parties pledged their support. Obviously, there is political will to do something, and the Government have said that no project licences will be granted for testing household products on animals.

When I recently tabled a parliamentary question asking for the definition of “household product,” the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice answered:

“There is no authoritative definition of ‘household product’ in UK or European legislation.”

He said that new guidelines will apply to

“‘substances used in the household’”,

and that decisions will be made

“on a case by case basis.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 151W.]

Obviously, substances “used in the household” may cover a wide range of things, and I could imagine getting into a dispute about whether something will be covered by those rules.

As the hon. Member for Crawley said, there is no mention of any restriction on testing the ingredients of household products. As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice confirmed, Government figures for 2011 show that the number of tests on finished household products was zero. So implementing a ban on the testing of finished products will not achieve anything; it is the ingredients that are important. When the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who was then a Minister in the Department, was asked about that in 2011, she said that when the ban is introduced, it will

“apply to both finished household products and their ingredients, although in practice mainly the latter are tested.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 80W.]

I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on that. Does the ban apply to ingredients, as well as to finished products? If the ban applies only to finished products, how effective will it be? Or is the ban simply an empty gesture?

A new version of some household products seems to hit the market every few months. One moment we are told that a washing powder is the best ever and that it gets everything 100% white—it is marvellous, wonderful and cutting edge, and nothing could be better. Then, three months later, there is suddenly a new, improved version. That constant drive to get market share, to sell a new product and to present it as something different in some ways buys into the need to test more things that go into the product. Perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned, but we have plenty of household products that are capable of washing our clothes and cleaning our floors and windows. We do not need to introduce any new products or ingredients. We certainly do not need to do so at the expense of animals that have to have ingredients tested on them.

I hosted an event in Parliament on 16 January, which the hon. Member for Crawley attended. At that event, the Dr Hadwen Trust announced that it is funding the first professorial post in animal replacement science at Queen Mary, university of London. The post is an academic position, and another researcher will also be funded as part of the unit. They will be working solely on replacements for, and the reduction of, testing on animals. That means that the UK will be at the forefront of efforts to provide alternatives to animal testing. The new professor will be appointed in the next few months and will be based at the Blizard institute. The professor will particularly look at things such as developing in vitro models using human cells and tissue, and developing three-dimensional models in cutaneous gastroenterology and cancer research, which is a welcome move that provides credibility to the field of animal replacement.

People often think that the debate is just scientists against people who care about cuddly animals and have an emotional response, rather than people who are interested in the most effective scientific methods. At the launch, it was interesting that so many research scientists came up to me saying, “We don’t actually think that testing on animals is an effective way of doing it. We don’t think it gets the right results. Mice are genetically not the right animals to test something that we are developing to treat humans.” The professorial post creates credibility for the search for alternatives to testing on animals, which is important.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome what the hon. Lady is saying. She talked earlier about science and new technology. Does she welcome the fact that, last year, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research established 15 PhDs to consider alternatives to animal experiments? I think it is great to see both more scientists and more funding.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is another welcome development. The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research has done some good work, but more can be done. As we know, the number of animal experiments has gone up, partly because of medical developments, new forms of testing, and so on. I will judge the centre’s success by the reduction in the number of overall animal experiments, rather than success in one area and increased tests elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

We are always open to strong evidence-based research on how to reduce the harm from drugs, but it is worth bringing to the House’s attention the fact that existing illegal drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine have seen a dramatic fall in their use, while there has been quite a big increase in legal drug consumption. It is not automatically the case that making something legal leads to a reduction in its consumption.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Given that the number of legal highs detected in Europe has more than doubled since 2009, what action is the Government taking against those who are supplying these drugs?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this increasing problem, which has been raised with me at the constituency level as being a serious reason to be alarmed. We are obviously making sure that the law is adjusted to take account of the threat to society, but it is a difficult field because it is, of course, evolving very quickly. We need to make sure that we take the necessary measures to protect society. Just because a drug is legal, does not necessarily mean that it is not harmful, especially if taken in the wrong way, so members of the public need to be mindful that this is a potentially hazardous area.

Abu Qatada

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is coming up with innovative ideas to resolve this problem. All I would say to him is that we are making sure that we explore any and every avenue open to us to ensure that we can deport Abu Qatada.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary clarify that stringent bail conditions will be applied similar to those previously used when Abu Qatada was on bail, which meant that he was unable to commit further offences?

Domestic Violence

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Stephenson]

I agree totally with the hon. Lady. Lancashire probation service told me only yesterday that it estimates that an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence occur before a victim contacts anyone—the police or another agency—for help.

East Lancashire has considerable support for victims of domestic violence, and I have had the benefit of visiting some of the centres that offer advice and support to victims. Pendle women’s refuge has been open for 25 years. It is run by Pendle borough council, and extended its facilities six years ago. Sixty families have been accommodated at the refuge in the past year, but there were 178 applications in the same period, with many cases involving problems such as substance misuse and severe mental health issues. Despite the problem of resources, refuge staff try to accommodate as many families as possible.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that we need more centres such as the Family Justice Centre in Croydon, which was the first of its kind in Europe? It provides housing, benefit, doctor and welfare services, and everything that a victim needs to ensure that they can carry on their lives, as well as enabling them to obtain justice. Does he agree that we need more such centres, where victims can access all the services from one point instead of from multiple agencies?

[Andrew Stephenson]

That is a fantastic example of provision in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I thank him for making that point. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will raise good examples from their constituencies that can be replicated throughout the country to help victims, wherever they live.

The Pendle domestic violence initiative is a community project that offers a service to people who have experienced domestic violence, as well as to front-line workers and others who may need help. Bilingual support, free counselling and work in schools are particularly valuable. Sadly, the initiative experienced a 45% increase in referrals for support services compared with the previous year, again underlining the scale of the problem.

Included in that initiative is the Lookout programme, a service aimed at young people affected by domestic abuse and run through local schools. Tragically, the programme is aware of more than 70 cases of children under 11 whom it cannot help. However, it has been able to help around 100 young people affected by a range of complex issues every year.

In addition, Pendle women’s centre opened in February. It serves as an information centre, with high expectations that it will soon deliver education and health programmes. Its services are directed at all women aged 18 and over, and it has been set up with the involvement of the Pendle domestic violence initiative, Pendle housing needs team, Housing Pendle, Help Direct and the NHS.

Pendle women’s centre has links to Styal prison. I understand that that relationship is unique, despite the proven link between women in prison and the victims of domestic violence. According to figures from the Howard League for Penal Reform, about half the women in prison report having experienced violence at home and one third of them report sexual abuse. Equally worrying is the fact that, according to the Youth Justice Board, 40% of girls in custody report suffering violence at home and one in three of them report having been sexually abused. With that in mind, I welcome Pendle women’s centre’s link with the prison service and wonder whether that can be encouraged elsewhere to promote links between prisons, the probation service and support centres in our communities.

I also pay tribute to the Big Lottery Fund, which has put more than £3.7 million into projects that support the victims of domestic violence in the north-west in the past three years. More than £1 million of that has gone directly to Lancashire, so local support in my area has been fantastic.

On national issues, the Government are looking at a range of innovative ideas to improve the situation, and I welcome that. Hon. Members will be aware that in March 2011 the Government published a policy paper, “Call to end violence against women and girls: action plan”. An update on progress towards the recommendations in that action plan would be helpful, especially on attempts at early intervention.

I should be grateful to the Minister if he provided an update on two recent consultations: on the proposals to change the definition of domestic abuse so that it includes coercive control and incorporates victims under the age of 18, as well as the ongoing consultation on Clare’s law. Alongside those consultations, there have been trials of both the domestic violence disclosure scheme and domestic violence protection orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes was especially keen to raise DVPOs today.

Another important move will be the criminalisation of forced marriage—something I have raised several times on the Floor of the House and very much welcome. I also welcome reports in July that domestic violence conviction rates are at their highest ever, with the overall number of prosecutions for violence against women up to 91,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. The key issue with domestic violence is under-reporting. As was mentioned before, many women are subjected to repeated abuse—time and again—before they finally speak to the police or any other agency to seek help. We therefore need to ensure that we deal with under-reporting.

[Rehman Chishti]

Having previously, before coming to Parliament, been a barrister, for both the prosecution and defence, I know that under-reporting is an issue. It was often the case in court that, on the day of the trial, the victim would say that they did not want to go ahead, but under the good provisions in the legislation that we have now, even if a victim does not want to go ahead, the trial can still go ahead, with their witness statements being read. Does my hon. Friend agree that those are excellent provisions?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I agree again with my hon. Friend that that is a very welcome step forward and undoubtedly one reason why conviction rates are improving. I have heard something similar from a friend of mine who is a barrister and has talked to me about how we can improve the legal system to help the victims of domestic violence further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

Forgive me. Many of us consider that the hon. Gentleman is always right and never less than honourable. I congratulate him on his translation into his present position.

To be completely up front, I come from a generation that had the worst possible attitude towards domestic violence. My generation condoned domestic violence. I remember as a boy the number of women who walked into doors every Saturday night, the number of women who appeared in church on Sunday with a chiffon scarf around their neck, hiding finger marks, and the number of children who blanched every time someone lifted a hand. Very little was done about it.

Fortunately, we have moved on from that. It is no longer acceptable to pretend that domestic violence is not a problem. I would like to give particular credit, from my part of the world—west London—to Southall Black Sisters, which has been in existence now for more than 30 years. Many people will have known Hannana Siddiqui for her work on the Kiranjit Ahluwalia case. In that case, not only was the issue of ultimate violence—murder in the family—addressed, but the whole problem within particular communities. It became intensely difficult, and a number of well-meaning liberals such as myself stood back, thinking that we had no right to intrude into such matters. Those days have gone.

[Rehman Chishti]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point that certain domestic violence offences take place in certain communities, does he agree that one particular aspect is honour-based violence? There are more than 2,800 incidents a year. We now need a multi-agency approach to ensure that we get rid of that horrific practice.

[Stephen Pound]

There are few expressions I loathe and despise more than the use of the word “honour” in that context. There is nothing honourable about slaughtering, attacking, murdering, torturing, brutalising and beating women. To somehow imply that there is a shroud of ethnicity that can be spread across the issue and it then becomes acceptable—I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s view, and I know that he is far, far better than that—and to use the word that he used in that context frankly sticks in my throat.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a huge problem in certain societies, and they are not all of one faith, colour, race or nationality. In my own ethnicity, believe you me, we would want to talk to some west London Irish families about their attitudes towards women. We do not have a great deal to be massively proud of. That issue has to be confronted, and it is being confronted. We need the resources to confront and intervene.

[Rehman Chishti]

Let me clarify for the hon. Gentleman. I agree that there is nothing honourable about the vile act. One uses the term “honour” because that is how it is used and labelled at the moment. If he wants to change the terminology and ask the Minister to ensure that we do so, I will push for that with him. I agree completely that there is no honour in that disgraceful act. It was used only because it is the term that is applied throughout the country.

[Stephen Pound]

May I say categorically, on the record, that I have immense respect for the hon. Gentleman? I have enjoyed many conversations with him, and I am grateful that he has joined us in the House. I certainly did not, at any stage, mean to imply any criticism; we are as one here. We look to the Minister’s febrile mind to come up with an alternative wording, in the sure and certain knowledge that he is the person who can achieve that.

Forensic Science Service

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I will demonstrate later that when we saw the next set of FSS accounts, the supposed £2 million a month loss had shrunk by a remarkable degree.

The FSS provided forensic services to police forces across England and Wales and to other agencies, such as the Crown Prosecution Service. It held about a 60% share of the market when the closure decision was made. We were told that the decision was based on commercial and legal grounds. The FSS had been struggling for many years, and it had gone through a series of status changes over the previous two decades, eventually becoming Government-owned.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in 2003 the then Minister said:

“The investment required could never be funded year by year out of surplus”—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 282WH].

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall cover that issue in a moment, because the whole point of the Committee’s investigation is that the FSS is not simply a trading arm; it incorporates a range of other resources, and the Government now agree that it is necessary to protect some of them, such as the archive.

In 2008 the FSS transformation programme, funded by a Government grant, was designed to turn the service into a profitable and sustainable business. The FSS told us that prior to the 2010 closure decision it had been on track—this supports the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) made—to reduce the headcount and to close three of its sites as part of that programme.

One suspects that had successive Governments—to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—placed in a separate account the cost of primary research and the cost of maintaining the archive, the figures would be quite different today. However, the internal financial struggles of the FSS must be seen in the wider context of the changes to the forensic market.

Anyone who has ever run a business will know that, however much they restructure, the profitability and sustainability of their business ultimately depends on the size of the market. The market for forensic services is largely driven by the police customer, and it is worth clarifying that police forensic expenditure splits into “internal”, what they do in-house, and “external”, what they spend on external providers. External spend constitutes the bulk of the forensics market.

The peculiar factor in the Forensic Science Service is that its initial customer is the investigating police officer, but as time goes on the relationship transforms and ultimately the customer is the jury. This rather unusual transformation means that the customer is initially in one Department but finally in another, the Ministry of Justice.

Our inquiry found that between 2005 and 2011, police external forensic expenditure steadily decreased, and unpublished analysis of the forensics market in September 2010 expected the market to decline from £170 million in 2009 to £110 million in 2015. Ignoring the impact of the 2010 spending review, which had yet to bite on police resources, that analysis represented a 35% decrease in the market.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Science and Technology Committee’s seventh report of Session 2010-12 makes it quite clear, on page 67, that on this matter the previous Parliament called Labour’s approach misleading and confusing?

[Andrew Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading from a Government-prepared brief, but he is right. Let me be clear—

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Miller]

No, I will not.

The Committee’s report is not a partisan attack on the Government; it represents a Committee unanimously criticising the actions of a particular Department under both its current stewardship and its previous ownership. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am taking a partisan view.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will cover that point in further detail in the latter part of my contribution, but I will say that the distinction between individual cases and legislating for the generality, and the need to make a clear distinction between the two, was something that the Joint Committee rightly scrutinised in that context. We believe that it is possible to draw the distinction between an individual case with individual circumstances, and legislating on a need to extend pre-charge detention from 14 days to 28 days as a principle. In order to plan for such circumstances, the Government have published, but not introduced, draft emergency legislation that would increase the maximum period from 14 days to 28 days, which has been subject to the scrutiny of the Joint Committee.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I have heard the words “exceptional circumstances” used. Am I right in saying that including those words strikes the right balance between defending civil liberties and protecting the British public?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that is right. In many ways it is why the Government have taken the approach that we have. Ultimately, it would be for the House to decide whether the circumstances justified the introduction of the emergency legislation. That is an important protection, and represents the underlying distinction in the Government’s approach.

Hon. and right hon. Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee will recall that we had extensive debates in Committee on what the maximum period should be, in what circumstances the Government might seek to extend that period, and what kind of contingency mechanism they might employ to extend the maximum period. As I said then, the Government have prepared draft fast-track legislation, which at the time was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee undertaking that scrutiny reported in June, and I am grateful to Lord Armstrong of Illminster and the other members of the Committee for their careful consideration.

National Crime Agency

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

With regard to law and order and tackling crime, does the Home Secretary agree with Phil Collins, who said that Labour do not have a particularly strong position on crime of any kind? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have made this point several times before: statements are about questioning the policy of the Government, not that of the Opposition. I call Mr Stewart Jackson.