Cervical Cancer Screening

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Sadiq Khan

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank all Members who have taken part in today’s debate, especially the Minister and the shadow Minister. As I said to the Backbench Business Committee, Parliament is often accused of debating only issues that stimulate interest in the Westminster bubble and that do not resonate with the wider public. That accusation cannot be levelled at us today. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) have met Sophie’s family, and their contributions today were examples of how moved they have been by this case and reaffirmed my belief that we should do everything we can as parliamentarians to use Parliament as a mechanism to put this issue on the national media agenda.

I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his insightful speech, much of which I agreed with, in particular his excellently made point about the need to focus on outcomes rather than targets. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly highlighted the conflicting advice by some in the medical profession about the dangers of smear tests for young women, and the recent Sasieni research, which calls into question the guidance from 2009.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke about the work of Sir Robin Wales and Newham council, and I pay tribute to both. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for raising the case of her constituent Suzanne Fernando, and for the work that she is doing to support Suzanne’s work. It is a first-class example of how MPs can play their part in raising awareness. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of his support for the HPV vaccination programme.

The purpose of this debate was to put cervical cancer, its symptoms and the anomalies that exist in its detection on the agenda, and I believe that with the support of more than 320,000 signatories, we have achieved that. I am positive that through the dedication of her family and friends that she left behind, this debate will go some way to ensuring that Sophie’s legacy is a life-saving one for many young women in the future, and I hope her family can at least draw some comfort from that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the e-petition relating to the tragic death of Sophie Jones from cervical cancer; believes that the Government should urgently issue guidance stipulating that all women should have the choice of taking a smear test regardless of their age and in consultation with their doctor; and further notes that the best way to combat cervical cancer is by increasing awareness of its symptoms so as to ensure that early diagnosis rates are driven up, doctors and nurses understand that although it is very rare, younger women can develop cervical cancer, and high levels of coverage among young girls of the HPV vaccination programme introduced in 2008 are achieved.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that we on the Labour Benches have on a number of occasions expressed concern about the Government’s policy on legal aid and its consequences. This morning His Honour Judge Leonard QC sitting at Southwark Crown Court stayed proceedings in the Crown v. Crawley and others, a £4.5 million fraud trial, after he heard representations from one of the country’s leading and most respected QCs that the case should not proceed, as a fair trial was not possible because of the consequences of the legal aid changes introduced by the Lord Chancellor.

This case alone has cost the taxpayer tens of thousand of pounds and justice has not been done, but it is extremely serious for the criminal justice system in this country, which has not just been brought into disrepute, but is now rendered ineffective by a Lord Chancellor who is out of his depth. [Interruption.] I understand that there are at least eight other complex criminal cases, including—

Probation Service

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Sadiq Khan

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

We know what will happen: when those offenders cherry-picked by the private sector do better—which they will tend to do, because they will be easier to rehabilitate—the Justice Secretary will say that the public sector is failing because the offenders who will be more difficult to rehabilitate will not be doing as well. We have seen that happen before.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as a bit odd that a Government so hellbent on apparently reducing bureaucracy have come up with a half-baked idea of creating additional bureaucracy by fragmenting the system into two bodies? Does that not create uncertainty in grey areas in which some individuals may get lost in the system?

[Sadiq Khan]

That is what the Justice Secretary’s own risk register says, but he is not willing to publish it so that we can all see for ourselves that he is refusing to follow his own Department’s advice.

The idea that the national probation service and the private companies will work anything like as closely together under the new system as offender management teams work is laughable. The chief inspector of probation has said:

“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector…will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”

The chief executive of Hertfordshire probation trust, Tessa Webb, has said:

“We’re very concerned about separating offenders out between low and high risk. Things don’t work like that. We think there should be a coherent, single organisation.”

Do Members really think that G4S and Serco will hold up their hands if something goes wrong? They did not with electronic tagging or the transfer of prisoners. If anything goes wrong, who will get the blame? The national probation service. There is no risk for the big private companies and no taking of responsibility—just a nice little earner.

There is a risk, however, to the public. As has been said, according to the press, the MOJ’s own risk register raises serious questions about the plans. We would think that the Justice Secretary would want to reassure the public by publishing the risk register, but he is refusing to do so, which in itself raises a number of questions.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Sadiq Khan

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Joint Committee looked into that issue and wanted a first hurdle before a corporation could sue. The Government decided not to accept that recommendation. He raised the example of corporations. The use of defamation laws by corporations has a chilling effect, especially given the inequality of arms. I am sure that that issue will be teased out and clarified in Committee, given the expertise that it will have.

As has been said, clauses 2 to 7 set out the defences that will be available to a claim for defamation. Some simply replace and codify common-law defences, while others provide new defences. I wish to touch on some of those defences.

Clause 4 is intended to address responsible publication of matters of public interest, the so-called Reynolds defence. That is a defence of responsible journalism in the public interest. The clause will abolish Reynolds and codify the factors that a court may consider when judging whether a defendant has acted responsibly.

I am aware that some groups, including the Libel Reform Campaign, are unhappy with the clause, believing that the Government have not gone far enough, that the defence is too time-consuming and expensive, and that it is unreliable because defendants are often required to clear a series of complex hurdles to gain legal protection. They also believe that it will simply freeze the Reynolds defence at the current point in time. There is genuine concern that subsequent case law may develop based on what is in the Bill. Would a “son of Reynolds”, as it were, be in the best interests of our defamation laws? We will need further debate and discussion on that important issue, and I look forward to that in Committee.

As has been said, clause 5 is intended to address defamation involving websites. It creates a new defence for operators of a website when a defamation action is brought against them in respect of a statement posted on that website by a third party.

[Steve Rotheram]

Despite what the Secretary of State said earlier, only a handful of people have been convicted of trolling. It is difficult to prosecute, because of the gaps in the relevant legislation, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Communications Act 2003. Does my right hon. Friend believe that clause 5 will do what it is intended to do and discourage and deter people who post sickening messages on RIP websites?

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving the important and outrageous example of people being trolled. It is worth saying for clarity that the clause deals only with defamation cases. I would not want the public to think that it was a panacea for all sorts of outrageous behaviour that takes place on the internet. He is right to remind us that other legislation, including criminal law, needs to be updated to allow authorities to take action against those who troll against innocent victims. We are all aware of the case of our colleague, the hon. Member who had outrageous words said against her, leading to a successful prosecution. If there is a lacuna, it needs to be filled, but we should be clear that clause 5 deals simply with cases in which a defamation claim is made.