UK-Rwanda Partnership

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

This legislation does not change our relationship with the ECHR.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Some in this House take the view that our proposals are not the way to treat asylum seekers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people we are talking about are arriving in this country from a safe country, France, and are mostly young men in their 20s and 30s who come here as economic migrants and not asylum seekers? It is important that that point is recognised.

[James Cleverly]

This country has always been, and remains, incredibly generous to people who are fleeing persecution and seeking safe haven. We will continue to provide that, but it is also right that many people who attempt to come to this country do so to get a better economic life for themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, we do not criticise people who seek to come to this country for economic reasons, but we make it clear that there are safe and legal routes for them to do so. This is about breaking the business model of evil people smugglers who prey on the people my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) speaks of. We are duty-bound to explore every way of breaking that evil model and that evil trade in human misery to ensure that we protect the people who need protecting by working with countries such as Rwanda that seek to do the right thing on the world stage.

Illegal Migration Bill

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member is just kidding himself if he thinks that any of the Government’s plan is actually going to happen, or if he thinks it is actually going to work.

Clause 9 deals with what happens to all of the people who cannot be returned—the tens of thousands of people who, according to the Government, are expected to arrive after 7 March. It says that the Home Office will provide those people with accommodation and support: in other words, they will go back into asylum accommodation and hotels, but they will never get an asylum decision. Tens of thousands of people will be added to the Home Office backlog every year, only it is going to be a permanent backlog that the Home Office is never even going to try to clear. Those who would have been returned after their asylum claim was refused now will not be, and those who would have been granted sanctuary will be stuck in limbo instead. That is tens of thousands of people just added to the asylum backlog, costing billions of pounds more—up to £25 billion over the next five years.

As for the backlog the Prime Minister promised to clear, it is going to get worse, not better. Effectively, the Government have concluded that the Tory Home Office is so rubbish at taking any asylum decisions on time that they have decided to just stop doing them altogether, and they are hoping that no one will notice. Last week, I said that the Government might have decided not to call this an asylum system any more, but everyone is still going to be in the system nevertheless. Well, I got that wrong, because I have read the Bill’s explanatory notes again, and they say that:

“Subsection (2) amends section 94 of the 1999 Act…so that the term ‘asylum-seeker’ covers those whose asylum claims are inadmissible by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill.”

In other words, the Government are amending the law so that all the people who they are going to exclude from the asylum system are still going to be called asylum seekers after all, and are still going to be in the asylum system.

You could not make it up: more chaos, more people in the asylum system, even fewer decisions taken, more people detained with nowhere to detain them and more people stuck in limbo, with no one credibly believing that anything in the Bill is going to act as any kind of deterrent to any of the criminal gangs. The Government are chasing headlines, but it is all a huge con.

What is the price of that con? What is the price of those empty headlines—of cancelling asylum decisions, rather than getting a grip? The Government are damaging our international standing, our chance of getting new co-operation agreements to tackle the problems, and our commitments to the rule of law. They are saying that Britain, uniquely, will not take asylum decisions, yet are expecting other countries to keep doing so. They are saying that Britain, uniquely, will not follow the refugee convention, the trafficking convention or the European convention on human rights, yet are urging other countries to follow those conventions. Think, too, of the price for the people we promised to help—for the Afghan interpreters who worked for our armed forces but who missed the last flight out of Kabul, and who the Government told to find an alternative route. If those people arrive in the UK now, the Conservatives plan to lock them up, keep them in limbo, and treat them as forever illegal in the country they made huge sacrifices to help.

Think of the Ukrainian family who travelled here via Ireland, as I know some people did in the early days of the conflict, without the right papers. They could have been the family staying with me, or the family staying with the Immigration Minister. I have listened to teenagers talking about how they had 20 minutes to pack before they fled their homes, not knowing whether they would ever return or see friends and family again. Under this law, those teenagers who arrived with the wrong papers would be locked up, denied any chance to ever live or work here lawfully in the future. That is the Tories’ position: in the interests of a plan that is actually a con and will not even work. It will not work to deter the criminal gangs; it will not work to remove people, because the Government do not have the returns agreements in place, and it will make it harder to get those returns agreements. In exchange for that con that makes nothing any better, they believe that no one who arrives in Britain without the right papers in their hands should ever be able to seek protection here or live here, no matter their personal circumstances.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Which parts of France are such that people need to flee from there to seek refuge in this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Member knows, the majority of people who are seeking asylum and arrive in France stay in France, rather than seeking to travel to the UK. However, we believe that we should be seeking to get a returns agreement with France, alongside new arrangements on issues such as family reunion, but at the moment, the Government have so undermined their relationship with France and other European countries that they have totally failed to get any of those agreements in place, and they are making it harder to do so with this Bill. If the hon. Member believes that returns agreements are needed, or if he believes that new, alternative arrangements around family reunion or other issues are needed, he should oppose the Bill, because it will make it harder to get any of those agreements in place. The Bill is undermining the international co-operation and international law that all of those other countries depend on.

Consider what the Bill means for the young Vietnamese woman who has been trafficked into sexual exploitation, repeatedly raped and beaten by the criminal gangs who brought her here and who control and dictate her life. Under the Bill, if the police find her when they bust the brothel, she will not be able to get modern slavery support any more: she will not be able to go to a safe house or get help from the Salvation Army. Instead, she will just be locked up in one of the Home Office detention centres. If she co-operates with the police for a bit, she might get some temporary support, but if that police investigation is closed, her world comes crashing down again. Here is what the Prime Minister tweeted about all of that:

“If you come to the UK illegally…You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections…you will be…DENIED access to the UK’s modern slavery system”.

Think on that. Bringing people into the UK illegally in order to control and exploit them is exactly what trafficking is. Cross-border trafficking is, by definition, a major form of modern slavery, yet this Government are proposing to just wish it away—to exclude it entirely from the modern slavery system, as if the very fact of crossing borders somehow stops it from being slavery at all. The message from the UK Government to the criminal trafficking and slavery gangs is this: “Don’t worry, so long as you bring people into the country illegally, we won’t help them. In fact, we will help you: we will threaten those people with immediate detention and deportation, so that you can increase your control over those trafficking victims.” This Bill is a traffickers’ charter.

The previous Prime Minister but three, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised to end modern slavery, and I respect the work that she did, but this one—the current one—wants to enable it. How low has the Tory party fallen? It is even worse for children. This Bill allows the Home Secretary to lock them up indefinitely, with all safeguards removed. It allows her to remove unaccompanied children without even considering the details of their case and whether they have fled from persecution. Once they hit 18, the Bill requires her to remove them, even if the only family or support they have in the entire world is here in the UK, and even if they have been exploited and abused by criminal gangs. The Bill denies them any protection from modern slavery and makes them forever illegal in the UK.

Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022. 

The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise businesses in the UK to take a long-term view of investment and training in the domestic workforce. It is designed to address historical under-investment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers, and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative.

The charge is paid by employers seeking to sponsor migrants on a skilled worker visa or a global business mobility visa as a senior or specialist worker. The charge is paid up front when the employer sponsors a worker’s visa, and is automatically calculated based on the dates provided by the employer. It applies at a rate of £1,000 per migrant per year for large businesses, with a reduced rate of £364 for small businesses and charities.

In the last fiscal year, the charge raised approximately £349 million. Although the income raised is not additional funding for skills, it helps to maintain the existing skills budgets across the United Kingdom, and is consistent with the Government’s view that immigration must not be seen as a silver bullet to deal with skills needs in our economy. As education and skills are devolved matters, the income raised also helps to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations. It is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett.

Let us turn to the purpose of these technical regulations. Although it remains important that the charge be applied to most employers who use labour from outside the UK to fill their skills needs, there are good reasons to make specific exceptions. For example, workers are exempt if they are entering the UK for under six months, because they are then unlikely to be filling a job arising from a skills shortage.

These regulations will make two new cohorts exempt from the charge. The first of these is scale-up workers. In August this year, we launched the new scale-up visa. This enables UK businesses experiencing sustained high growth to attract top international talent and enhance the wider skills ecosystem. That visa was never intended to be subject to the immigration skills charge, as it focused on facilitating rapid recruitment and reducing the burden for UK businesses undergoing sustained high growth. This route provides workers with highly flexible conditions, including access to the wider labour market without sponsorship after six months. Consequently, the initial sponsoring employer should not be subject to the charge. As things stand, however, the route falls within the scope of the charge due to the wording of the current legislation. Sponsors of scale-up workers currently benefit from a waiver of the charge, but these regulations will codify the position by formally exempting them.

Secondly, I shall deal with the EU intra-company worker exemption. The second cohort to be exempt from the charge is EU workers who are undertaking intra-company assignments under the terms of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. That agreement was ratified by Parliament on 30 December 2020. It secured preferential trading arrangements between the UK and the EU. One such accord was that neither party would apply taxes or charges, of a type such as the immigration skills charge, to workers undertaking intra-company assignments within the terms of the agreement. Both parties committed to dropping such taxes and charges no later than 1 January 2023. This is a legal requirement that is enforceable under international law. Accordingly, these regulations make the appropriate exemption for EU businesses sponsoring such workers.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister assure us that the EU is complying with its obligations?

[Miss Dines]

I understand that there is regular discussion on the issue and we are being afforded the same treatment. It is quite right to look at that, because we must make sure that this agreement is enforced equally, and that the UK and the EU are in equal partnership.

In conclusion, the immigration skills charge plays a valuable role in our immigration system. It encourages UK businesses to use domestic labour where they can, and to invest in skills when they are in short supply, but it is important that we make exemptions to the charge when there are sufficiently good reasons to do so. The regulations will support UK scale-up businesses in competing in the global market for the skills needed to continue their rapid growth. They will ensure that we deliver on an important trade commitment to our partners in the EU, and thereby secure reciprocal treatment for British workers undertaking business assignments throughout Europe. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shailesh Vara]

I note the hon. Lady’s comments about migrants coming to this country. However, does she agree that we must deplore the way that thousands of them come to this country—by using people smugglers, who risk lives?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I did not know that we were allowed to go off on a tangent. This is getting into an argument about how people come to this country. We are talking about migrant workers; asylum seekers are not allowed to work.

[Shailesh Vara]

On a point of order, Ms Fovargue. I was simply taking up an issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East raised. If I am out of order, presumably she is as well.

[The Chair]

Order. We are moving slightly beyond the scope of the regulations. Perhaps you could both get back to the regulations.

[Shailesh Vara]

If the hon. Lady is afraid of answering the question, she should say so, rather than avoiding the issue.

[The Chair]

Order. Can we move back to the discussion, please?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous]

As I have previously said, international co-operation is at the root of dealing with the problems that this Bill will purportedly address.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I will give way one last time, but then I really must make progress.

[Shailesh Vara]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As a point of clarification, the comment was made in the previous intervention that Brexit was a Government policy. Does he agree that the Government were fulfilling the mandate of the British people at a referendum?

[Bambos Charalambous]

We have already had that debate—in the last Parliament. As is proposed in the Dublin III amendment—new clause 49—our safe and legal routes need to be replaced now that we have left the European Union. That is absolutely integral to making sure that we have the measures in place to deal with the problems we face.

Ministers have talked a lot about the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but where are the results? We have been waiting since August for the scheme to be implemented, and it still has not been. People are dying. They do not have four years to wait. It is time for action, not words.

We should be looking after people who put their lives on the line by loyally serving the nation. It is nothing short of outrageous that visas for foreigners who served in the UK armed forces cost £2,389. In 2020, there were 5,110 Commonwealth citizens serving in the armed forces. Each year, about 500 of them choose to leave, and those who choose to stay in the UK are compelled to pay extortionate visa fees. A Government consultation has, as we know, proposed scrapping the fees for those who have completed 12 years’ service in the armed forces. Labour has campaigned long and hard for that change, but we believe the proposed qualification period is far too long, and we call on the Government to right that wrong and change the period of qualification. I am grateful to the two largest veterans charities, the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, for their campaigning work on this issue. They are clear that they believe the current situation is gravely unfair, and it is time the Government started honouring their promise to the armed forces.

Terror Attacks

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

It is essential to ensure that people are aware that the Government’s counter-extremism initiatives, their Prevent initiatives and their initiatives through Channel are focused on all extremism. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked me about Prevent, and I would like to remind people that 25% of the Channel referrals—Channel is the additional part of Prevent that some people are put on—are extreme right wing. In fact, there are some parts of the country where the extreme right wing is the real danger, rather than radical extremist Islamic terrorism. I would like to reassure the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) that we will listen to all parts of the community and to different bodies, to ensure that the counter-extremism commission has the opportunity to gather all the necessary information.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

During the recent terrorist incidents, we all saw images on our TV screens of desperate families and friends going from hospital to hospital clutching pictures of their loved ones and trying to get more information on their whereabouts. I full appreciate that telephone helplines were set up, and I understand that in such instances people can sometimes have injuries that make them unrecognisable. Also, people often do not carry identification with them. Nevertheless, given modern technology, is it possible for the Home Secretary to work with her Government colleagues to establish a central point that families and loved ones can go to, and to which hospitals can provide information, so that people do not have to go from hospital to hospital?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I saw those photographs and pictures as well; it must have been very distressing for the families involved, not knowing what had happened to their loved ones. We have to make sure, despite that, that the safety of the people involved is the first priority when the police and the emergency services arrive to secure the scene. I will certainly take his suggestion back to the counter-terrorism unit.

UK Border Agency

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that any costs incurred in reorganisation will be met from existing budgets.

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that until the shadow Home Secretary apologises for Labour’s shambolic immigration policy when in government, anything that she or her party says on immigration lacks any credibility whatsoever?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is always a most courteous Member, but his question suffers from the notable disadvantage that the Home Secretary has absolutely no responsibility for the matter in question. She is responsible for the Government’s policy but does not have any responsibility for the policy of the Opposition.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Shailesh Vara Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), although, as will become apparent, I disagree with some of the points he raised. I also declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor.

I wish to direct most of my comments to clause 30, which deals with self-defence by householders in their own homes and by business people whose businesses are part of the accommodation in which they also live—principally, shopkeepers.

As far as I am concerned, this is unfinished business. As the Home Secretary said in her speech, I and a couple of other Government colleagues have in the past tried to change the law to make sure that what is proposed by clause 30 is enacted. I promoted a private Member’s Bill in December 2006, as others had done before me. It had cross-party support, including from the present Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), the former Solicitor-General, as well as from distinguished Members on the Labour Benches, particularly the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and—dare I say it?—a very distinguished person in yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. I therefore congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing this measure.

At present, the test for a householder is to use reasonable force in self-defence, which, I contend, is difficult to define and not easy to enforce. A higher test is required that allows the use of force as long as it is not grossly disproportionate. That will benefit not only the general public but the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, because it will provide them with much clearer guidelines within which to operate.

The example given by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd would not exempt a person from being prosecuted. We are talking about individuals acting in the heat of the moment. The test is reasonableness—not with the benefit of hindsight, but as it appears at the time.

[Mr Llwyd]

The example I gave was of three people trying to break into a barn adjacent to a farmer’s house to steal from him. That is the heat of the moment, surely.

[Mr Vara]

To lie in wait with a shotgun is not to act in the heat of the moment; it is premeditated. That is not what clause 30 allows.

The only people whom clause 30 will not benefit are the criminals who break the law in the first place.

In considering the clause, it is important to reflect on some statistics. The crime survey for England and Wales for 2010-11 estimates that there were 745,000 burglaries during that period. In approximately 205,000 of those instances, the victims were at home, were aware that the offence was being committed and saw the offender. In approximately 75,000 cases, force or violence was used against the victim.

Those who support the present test often say that it is for a court—a judge and jury—to decide on the facts. However, it can take up to a year, or possibly longer, for a case to reach the courts. During that time, the individual has to put up with the stress and anxiety, especially those who are subsequently found innocent. It cannot be right that people who are going to be found innocent, along with their families, have to endure that anguish. It is therefore important that the law is clarified for people who act honestly and instinctively in self-defence.

The public should know that the law is on their side. Sometimes, it is right and proper that we speak up for the victims of crime and the general public who are on the receiving end of the violence, the figures for which I have just given. Let there be no doubt that we are talking about victims of crime—law-abiding householders, shopkeepers and military personnel living in barracks, because the clause covers the military as well.

It is not surprising that leading and prominent members of the police force support raising the test. The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Blair, said on his first day in office, when asked about this issue:

“I thought reasonableness was quite a difficult concept at 4 o’clock in the morning in your kitchen, whereas something as stark as gross disproportionality did seem to me to be clearer.”

He was right. At 4 o’clock in the morning, a householder who is confronted by an intruder is frightened—indeed, he is likely to be petrified. His response will be instant and he will have no regard to reasonableness or otherwise.

Lord Blair’s predecessor, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, did not mince his words either, saying that

“householders should be presumed to have acted legally, even if a burglar dies, unless there is contrary evidence”.

The present commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, told the BBC that he agreed that homeowners need better protection than is available at present:

“I think, probably, there’s an argument at the moment for making sure that that bar gets higher, and that the homeowner has better protection, and the burglar is put more on notice that they’re at risk if they choose to burgle someone’s home while they’re in it”.

It is important to note that the higher bar is reflected in the guidance for police when arresting people. The test for individuals who claim to have been acting in self-defence was updated only two months ago:

“The changes are driven by the coalition commitment to protect householders and others from unnecessary arrest when they use force in the belief that they are acting in self-defence. The amended Code…sets out that, in order to establish grounds to suspect a person of committing an offence, officers should consider facts and information which tend to indicate the person’s innocence as well as their guilt.”

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance also uses a higher level:

“You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self defence.”

It goes on to say:

“If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully.”

Given that the guidance for the people who implement the law—the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—refers to a higher test than that laid down in the present law, it makes sense for us to clarify the law and make it easier to implement, rather than for the implementers to rely on guidance.

There is considerable public demand for this measure. When I introduced my private Member’s Bill in 2006, one of my local newspapers, the Cambridge Evening News, conducted a survey that found that more than 90% of the people who responded were in favour of raising the bar of the test. An ICM poll conducted by The Sunday Telegraph in December 2009 found that 79% of those who took part favoured changing the test from reasonable force to grossly disproportionate force.

A change in the law is not only necessary; it will send out a powerful message. It will tell law-abiding citizens that the law is on their side and not on the side of criminals. It will also show that an Englishman’s home is still his castle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I am afraid I will sound rather slow after the previous speaker. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made a speech at great speed; he managed to read it quickly into the record—well done.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) added his support for GPS tagging, which we will explore further in Committee. He made some sensible comments on restorative justice, emphasising the need for consent and full involvement of the victim at all times—something we will also explore deeply in Committee. We are very keen to ensure that the quality of restorative justice is maintained.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) spoke of the tensions between national and local policing, and gave his support, following Norgrove, for the single family court, as did the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn gave a succinct analysis of what is becoming known as the “bash a burglar” clause, and promoted his memoirs. We all look forward to the film of those memoirs. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) suggested that the clause was not actually that great a change; in fact, he said it was not a change at all. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) discussed at some length the complexities and contradictions in the Bill. He highlighted some issues that I think will get a thorough airing in Committee.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) raised concerns about the anxiety of witnesses arising from the televising of court proceedings. We look forward to exploring those concerns fully in Committee. We are keen to ensure the protection of witnesses, victims, jurors and also defendants through the court process.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) mentioned something that I think will be of grave concern to many Members: the right of appeal on family visit visas. There are fears about the serious impact on families. Bearing in mind the high level of errors in decision making, we are keen to discuss that further. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East went on to discuss the welcome changes to drug-driving. We can all commend the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for the work he has done in that area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke with great insight on diversity in the judiciary. We strongly welcome those changes. We are also keen to explore the issues raised by Alan Milburn in his social mobility report on the under-representation of state-educated people in the judiciary.

The hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) spoke of the importance of amending the Public Order Act 1986. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked that the Labour party keep an open mind, and I assure him that we will do just that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) is concerned about whether there will be sufficient resources to fight organised crime, and we share those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) discussed the scandalising of the judiciary, suggesting that it should not just be a right, but perhaps become a duty. He discussed clause 23 and expressed concerns about the practices of bailiffs, and I assure him that we will be exploring those concerns in Committee.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about how the National Crime Agency will operate in Northern Ireland, and the Government will need to respond to his concerns. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) talked about the hotbed of crime that is his constituency, and about the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. We have concerns about child protection and the NCA, which we will explore further. We are happy to give support to much of the Bill and we will not vote against it on Second Reading.

On self-defence, there is agreement across the House that a victim of burglary, who is compelled in traumatic circumstances to use force for their own protection, should be protected in law. Burglary is a terrible and invasive crime. Victims must have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, and know that the law is on their side. The Labour Government changed the law to give that support to victims of burglary. In 2008, Labour gave victims the right to use “reasonable force” to defend their homes. That is not “reasonable force” as decided by a risk assessment; it is force that, as the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers put it, is

“what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment”.

The current law provides a complete defence for those using reasonable force in self-defence or the defence of their loved ones or property, and according to the Director of Public Prosecutions it works very well.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady cites the CPS, but what does she have to say about the fact that at least four Metropolitan Police Commissioners, including the present one, believe that the law should be strengthened and enhanced?

[Jenny Chapman]

As I was about to say, we are ready and willing to engage with the Government on any proposals they have that might further improve the law. We want to see the system work as best it can for victims of crime and, of course, to see justice done in every case. However, concerns have been expressed by many outside this place, and these need answering. The Government need to assure the public that the change does not add confusion and explain exactly how it adds protection. The line between “disproportionate” and “grossly disproportionate” is still unclear.

While we are talking about how people protect themselves during a burglary, we should be just as keen to discuss how we punish a burglary or prevent it in the first place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has uncovered disturbing statistics about some of the sentences being handed to burglars with strings of previous convictions. The Government are introducing a number of measures in the Bill on community sentencing and the use of measures such as tagging. We need to ensure that they are used appropriately. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, it included, at the end of part 2, a rather vague clause that promised the Secretary of State for Justice scope to do what he pleased in the area of community sentencing. It is therefore welcome that, after a wait, we find that what pleases the Secretary of State has been laid out in schedule 15 for debate in this House. We welcome the inclusion of proposals permitting the extended and earlier use of restorative justice. Restorative justice is an effective tool that can do a lot to improve the experience of our justice system and what it offers victims of crime. There are questions that need to be answered on the details, however. How, where, by whom and how uniformly will restorative justice be provided?

There is much that we agree on. In his foreword to the long anticipated response to the Government’s consultation on community sentences, the Secretary of State states that, in order to be both “credible and effective”, community sentences need to strike a balance between punishing an offender for their wrongdoing and rehabilitating them to prevent a repeat offence. He also rightly notes that the public reserve some concerns about community sentences. The ambition of improving public safety and public confidence is strongly welcomed and shared across this House. In order to be “credible and effective”, however, the Secretary of State needs to get this right. The Government say they want all community sentences to include a punitive element, unless there are exceptional circumstances. We support the premise, but two questions arise: what counts as a “punitive element”, and what counts as “exceptional circumstances”? Until we hear the answers to those questions, we will not know whether there is anything new in the Government’s plan or whether the change is nothing more than window dressing.

On the extended use of tagging, we do not want this used inappropriately as a cheap alternative to prison for those who should be behind bars. If the public are to find such sentences credible, they need to be certain that they will be used with great discretion and only when wholly appropriate. I note that in 2011, eight adults convicted of rape and hundreds convicted of serious violent offences were given community sentences. It is also timely to mention the point that the public need to have faith that those supervised in the community rather than in prison are being expertly and safely supervised. This is an area where—amidst cancelled pilots and detail-light plans for managing offenders’ risk—we find some cause for concern. We look forward to exploring that further in Committee. In particular, I look forward to examining in more depth the Government’s intentions on provision in the community for female offenders. The Opposition also strongly support the provisions in schedule 13 that seek to facilitate greater diversity in judicial appointments.

There is much that we agree with in the Bill and we will not vote against it on Second Reading.