Gangs and Serious Youth Violence

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on holding it. I know that, behind the scenes, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has been quietly campaigning in the Tea Room for such a debate because of the concerns in her constituency. It is fantastic to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who has huge experience of these issues and has continually brought them, certainly during my years in Parliament, to the House’s attention.

This is where I start: the issue is not new. In a sense, it is very important not to have this debate as though this is a year zero moment. We have had this problem for several years. Problems with young people getting caught up in crime, particularly in urban and deprived areas, are absolutely not new. Those at home over Christmas who landed on the show “Dickensian”, an adaptation of many of Dickens’s books, and those very familiar with both “Great Expectations” and “Oliver Twist” will know that we had gangs in London. We had groups of young people getting up to criminality in London, and above such gang activity was usually the adult activity running the gangs, so these issues are not new. I was born in the period just after the huge public concern about mods and rockers congregating in different parts—

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Yes.

[Mr Lammy]

I notice that the Front-Bench Opposition spokesman is absolutely aware of that. She is ever so slightly older than me. At that time, there was real concern about gang activity in seaside areas or in urban areas of the country. The debate in this House about young people and crime and about gang activity is not new, so what is new? I think that the level of violence is new, the age profile is worrying and the geographic spread feels out of control.

On the age profile, the Met police says that its matrix—its central way of recording who is caught up in what it describes as gang activity—had a total of 3,459 individuals at the last time of publication in May 2014. There were 500 individuals under the age of 18: two 13-year-olds, 21 14-year-olds, 71 15-year-olds, 138 16-year-olds and 268 17-year-olds. There were also 356 18-year-olds, while 55% of the total were aged 18 to 22. Something is going on, and it is something we should be very worried about.

Any Members with significant housing estates in their constituency will talk about the arrival in this country of a phenomenon, which we often associate with America, of young people—teenagers—running drug activity on behalf of older individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Let me make it clear that I was not around for the mods and rockers, but heard about them from my mum and dad!

A couple of years ago, I was driving home when, around the corner from my home, I saw to my horror the body of a young man curled up on the pavement. Several police officers were with him, and I could hear the sirens of ambulances on their way. That young man was the victim of a stabbing and was clutching a stomach wound that thankfully proved not to be fatal. That incident shook me to the very core; it was so close to my house and it was not even late on a Friday night.

Some in my community live every day with the pain and worry that results from knife crime and gang violence. They worry about their children’s safety and they have been robbed of a basic sense of security. They want—they need—weapons off our streets and they want their children to be safe.

I am therefore disturbed by the recent rise in recorded knife crime—up 9% in England and Wales last year after a long downwards trend. If we look at the numbers in more detail, we find that rapes involving a knife are up by 26%; threats to kill by 20%; and attempted murder by 24%. Gun crime is up by 4%. Those numbers are absolutely chilling.

I know that we need to treat recorded crime numbers with caution. The police should not be discouraged from improving the reporting or the recording of crime, which can explain such fluctuations, but sadly there is evidence that the increase in recorded knife crime simply reflects an increase in criminal activity using knives. For example, data from the London Ambulance Service shows a 9% rise in incidents resulting from assaults involving a knife.

There is some evidence to show that the rise in knife crime is related to an increase in the number of gangs. Recent Home Office research suggests a sharp rise in the number of gangs in the capital, and the number of offences that the Metropolitan police associates with gang activity has increased by 25% in the last three years. There are 225 recognised gangs in London, with around 3,600 gang members. In a large city, that is a relatively small number people, but they still account for 17% of serious violence in the capital.

Given those numbers, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is quite right to draw this issue to our attention and to call for a debate this afternoon. There have been some stonkingly good speeches, and I want to pay tribute to all colleagues who have contributed to such a good debate.

I am aware that a number of police services have chosen to focus significant resources and activity on dealing with the scourge of knife crime. Last week, I visited Bedfordshire police to discover how they had managed to cut knife crime by 21%. Officers from Bedfordshire’s Operation Boson told me that they had adopted best practice from across the country, and tried to attack knife crime relentlessly from every angle. They believe that they have reduced the number of knives on their streets through “secret shopper” inspections and by carefully deployed “surrender bins”, unannounced “knife arches” and the judicious use of stop and search powers. They have also supported diversion schemes in partnership with the likes of Luton Town football club, which are aimed at offering alternative ways in which young people can deploy their abundance of skills and energy.

Bedfordshire’s magnificent performance has been done on a shoestring. The excellent police and crime commissioner Olly Martins told me that balancing all the demands of the service with ever-decreasing funding and resources was like trying to balance spinning plates, always worried that something would come unstuck. It is clearly a testament to his skill and determination and to the commitment and professionalism of serving police officers in Bedfordshire, particularly those in Operation Boson, that Bedfordshire police have been so successful in their assault on knife crime.

However, in the case of much crime, prevention is always better than cure, and I know that some first-class work is already being done throughout the country to try to prevent crimes of this nature from happening. If the House will forgive me, I shall give a parochial plug to the “Carry A Basketball Not A Blade” initiative, which is run by Newham All Star Sports Academy. That charity was started in tragic circumstances by Anthony Okereafor after two of his friends were lost through knife crime. Anthony helps young people by harnessing the power of sport to provide a counter-narrative to the poisonous idea that gang life is in some way glamorous. It is the sort of “peer-to-peer prevention service” that I think works incredibly well, and the Home Affairs Committee thinks that it should be “expanded” and “commissioned more consistently” across the country.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In the context of prevention, may I thank the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, who is in the Chamber today, for all the work she has done in Hackney, where she has comforted so many families who have experienced violent crime?

[Lyn Brown]

Absolutely. People of that kind, with commitment of that kind and programmes of that kind, require our support. They require staff who have expertise and the trust of their communities, but they are also seriously in need of investment. Last month, however, we discovered that the Home Office was pulling the plug on funding for the ending gang and youth violence peer review network, a practical programme that brings together academics, local government officials and the police to develop and share knowledge and best practice with the aim of reducing gang violence. The Government’s last annual report on the network described it as “successful” and

“low cost and high impact”,

so why is its funding being cut?

Two weeks after news of the cut was leaked to The Guardian, we were told by the Minister that the network would be replaced by a new “forum”. The network had the resources that were necessary to establish and share best practice; will the new “forum” be equally well resourced, or will its funding be reduced?

I should be very grateful if the Minister answered some of those questions. I can tell her that Deborah and George Kinsella, the parents of the murdered teenager Ben Kinsella, said:

“We are extremely disappointed to hear that the government is making further cuts to funding to tackle serious youth violence when there are so many of us trying to make things better for others after losing our own children.”

June Addai, the grandmother of 17-year-old Marcel, who was murdered by a gang on a Hoxton housing estate, said:

“The government seem to be cutting everything. Children have nowhere to go, they need clubs to go to rather than hanging out on the streets where they can get into trouble. They get left behind.”

Knife crime is beginning to creep up, and it is an undeniable truth that that is happening after five years of deep cuts in spending on youth clubs and crime prevention. There will be naysayers who will claim that the increase in knife crime has nothing to do with the cuts, and that is why I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham’s call for an all-party commission. We need to get to the bottom of why youth violence is on the increase, so that we can begin to turn the tide. I ask the Minister, who is not a bad woman, “Can we have an all-party commission—please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he wanted to take part in this debate, but he has been involved in an important Bill Committee. I thank him for being here now and for the work that he does in Chelmsford. He is right to suggest that the work of Essex police, supported by the Home Office, has played an important part in tackling the issue of “county lines”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) also raised. [Interruption.] I see the shadow Minister bobbing.

[Lyn Brown]

Seeing as I have been so nice to the Minister today, I would be very grateful if she would extend that courtesy and invite me to the meetings that she is going to have on these issues.

[Karen Bradley]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and—I am probably going to regret this; my officials will certainly regret it—I extend that offer to any Member who wants to come and talk about what is happening in their local area. I am more than happy to spend time with Members to help them build local resilience. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, this is about local solutions. This is not top-down; it is not about the Government imposing anything.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

The local community may want a more efficient service, which could be the case in Hampshire. I accept that Hampshire is particularly good, but that is not the case all over the country. Even when I was in Hampshire, there were people asking me for more collaboration and more work to be done together, and that request came particularly from the front-line operatives, who are probably the most important people in all this.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Given the funding cuts to the police service and the fire and rescue services already budgeted for by this Government, can the Minister guarantee that placing fire and rescue services under PCC control will not lead to further cuts in the number of front-line firefighters?

[Mike Penning]

Thank goodness the Chancellor did not listen to Labour Front-Benchers when we looked at police funding to 2020, because they wanted a 10% cut, and there will be no cut. We must make sure that we have an efficient service—the sort of efficient service I would have liked to have had when I was in the fire service—and that will be going forward.

Riot Compensation Bill

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

If it is okay with you, Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with your kind and apposite remarks about Harry. My sympathies go to his wife Gill and all those who mourn him. My friends on these Benches are in real shock and great sadness at his passing.

I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2 and 3, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I shall also speak to amendment 8, which has been tabled by my excellent right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).

Amendment 1 would ensure that victims of rioting had at least 42 days in which to make a claim for compensation and then a further 90 days in which to submit the necessary evidence. We support that amendment. The Bill is about supporting riot victims, and in order to do that we need to give them adequate time to complete claims for compensation. Can any of us imagine trying to rapidly process a legal claim when our papers have been destroyed, we have no access to our home or business, and our life has been completely and utterly turned upside down? That is exactly the situation in which many riot victims found themselves in 2011. That situation was made all the more difficult by the fact that so many of the victims were unaware that they were entitled to compensation. They needed the time to get their affairs in order.

In 2011, the Home Office appeared to recognise that a short time limit on claims was unfair, and extended the time limit from 14 to 42 days. Amendment 1 gives us certainty that any future victims will be guaranteed at least 42 days in future. That has to be right. The amendment also provides an additional 90 days for victims to gather the necessary evidence to complete their application for compensation. Three months’ breathing room seems entirely appropriate, given the total upheaval that can be wrought to businesses and individuals by the kind of rioting we saw.

My right hon. Friend—the magnificent Member for Tottenham—spoke movingly in Committee about some of the challenges faced by his constituents in 2011. Many had English as a second language, some had their health devastated by the riots, and all had their daily routines completely shattered. They desperately needed more time to put their lives back together before they could deal with compensation claims. I congratulate him on raising the issue of time limits in Committee. If the House accepts amendment 1 today, he will have played a vital role in ensuring that any future victims of rioting are not left in the lurch, as his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) were.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will know, perhaps more than anybody else in this House, the juxtaposition between shopping centres such as Westfield, where there is big business, and small businesses, which in a constituency such as hers are often run by people newly arrived in this country, making the very best of their lives. Her experience in this matter needs to be recorded.

[Lyn Brown]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—the businesses that were affected in my constituency were small businesses along the Barking Road in Canning Town and, indeed, some in Green Street. As he rightly says, they are not like the businesses in Westfield that have massive resources behind them to enable them to make the claims, clean up quickly and get on with their economic lives.

Amendments 2 and 3 would ensure that victims were entitled to compensation for costs incurred as a result of having to seek alternative accommodation. We support those amendments too. Families should not be pushed into severe financial difficulty because their homes have been rendered uninhabitable by circumstances way beyond their control. Some families affected by the 2011 riots were not able to live in their homes for months, and some for years afterwards, putting them in severe financial difficulty. That was particularly the case in the private rented sector, but it also applied to some homeowners. We all know how expensive short-term rented accommodation can be, particularly here in London. It is only right, therefore, that that should be accounted for in the compensation awarded. I therefore urge the House to accept amendments 2 and 3.

Finally, let me turn to amendment 8, which would ensure that any money claimed in compensation for emergency relief in the immediate aftermath of a riot did not lead to a reduction in the amount of compensation a claimant might receive. It is shameful that this sort of deduction was made in 2011. We support the amendment, because people putting money into charity buckets to help their neighbours through the turmoil of rioting do not expect the compensation due to those victims to be reduced as a result of their kindness. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North reports that his constituents were aghast that their donations led to a reduction in the compensation doled out.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham also argued in Committee, I thought convincingly, that we do not want to discourage big businesses from helping out small businesses with which they share a high street. Deducting payments as a result of charitable giving would have precisely that unwelcome and rather unpleasant effect. I urge the House to accept amendment 8 so that, in the unwelcome event of future riots, the police and charities can work together to help communities, rather than treating support as a zero-sum game.

I heard what the hon. Member for Dudley South had to say on that matter, but I now look forward to hearing from the Minister on these issues, because I am sure he is going to make us very happy today.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I, too, want to associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, following the sad loss of Harry Harpham. Members throughout the House can all say that Harry was a dedicated public servant. Although we had the privilege of having him in the House only for a short time, he clearly served with distinction in his community, having sat on Sheffield City Council, and he was dedicated to public service. The fact that as recently as 20 January, Harry was here at Prime Minister’s questions standing up for constituents on an issue he believed in, Sheffield Forgemasters, underlines the sort of person he was, the dedication he showed and the fact that he always wanted to stand up for his constituents. The whole House will wish to pass its condolences, thoughts and prayers to his wife, Gill, his children and his whole family, his friends, colleagues and everyone who knew him and who mourns his loss.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on the manner in which he has sought to advance the Bill. He has clearly reflected on the helpful debates in Committee, to which the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice responded. The Committee worked on themes that were started on Second Reading. I believe that my hon. Friend’s amendments are helpful additions and clarifications to the Bill.

Amendment 1 deals with the time limits, which are set at not less than 42 days and 90 days respectively for lodging claims and producing detailed evidence. That is the right approach to the lodging of an initial claim, and then it is right to allow more time for detailed information to be provided. We support placing those minimum requirements in the Bill.

For clarification and for the further assurance of right hon. and hon. Members, I underline that there might be some exceptional circumstances in which more time is required, perhaps when a claimant falls ill and cannot meet the deadlines, when evidence has been destroyed or cannot be accessed owing to riot damage, or when final cost estimates are contingent on other processes such as planning permission or some other regulatory requirements. We expect the regulations sitting alongside the Bill to provide some flexibility in extenuating circumstances and to allow extensions of time, while recognising the framework and the statutory minimums set out in the Bill.

Amendments 2 and 3 deal with payments for alternative accommodation. They will allow compensation to be paid to uninsured individuals whose home has become uninhabitable as a result of a riot, to cover the cost of alternative accommodation. Amendment 3 makes it clear that regulations may provide for further details of considerations to be taken into account when such claims are made, as well as the length of time for which such costs may be covered.

During the passage of the Bill, Members have highlighted a number of cases in which their constituents had suffered significant hardship following the 2011 riots. We have certainly heard that from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed).

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill strikes a sensible balance between ensuring that the vast majority of individuals and businesses are fully compensated and that the public purse does not have to pay out on high-value claims exceeding £1 million.

[Lyn Brown]

Amendments 4, 5 and 7, and their consequential amendments, have been tabled by my magnificent and right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). All the amendments pertain to the compensation cap. As has been said, the Bill caps the total amount that can be paid out in a single compensation claim to £1 million. Amendment 4 would remove the compensation cap, amendment 5 would increase it and amendment 7 would ensure that it is assessed every three years by Parliament.

The Opposition Front-Bench team have a number of concerns about amendments 4 and 5. We therefore suggested in Committee that, if the cap is raised, the Home Office should be liable for costs greater than £1 million. That would spread risk and ensure that police forces are not made financially vulnerable by circumstances that, by definition, are beyond their immediate control. If the House accepts amendments 4, 5 and 7, the Government might wish seriously to consider that proposal.

Amendment 7 would require Parliament to set the compensation cap, and to assess the level of the cap, every three years. We support the amendment because too low a cap—especially in London—may lead to increased insurance premiums in areas afflicted by rioting. We would not want communities and high streets to be damaged by this legislation, and a regular review would allow us to act on the basis of evidence.

It is important to continue to assess the compensation cap. The Bill needs to balance the interests of the community, the police, the insurance industry and the taxpayer. We must ensure that communities are protected and victims are compensated, while not asking the police to write a blank cheque. The compensation cap goes right to the heart of that task. It is right that the cap is continually assessed and that the House plays a central part in that.

I therefore urge the Minister, who has already done remarkably well this morning, to give us some assurances and some comfort, particularly on amendment 7. You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, he is fast becoming a favourite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was about to move on to. Although the initial three to five-year period provides an important chance to reflect on the early years and to consider whether all the commas are in the right place and all the details are right, it is important that regular reviews take place after that period. I hope the regulations will allow for such reviews. If there is a repeat of anything like what happened in August 2011, it is inconceivable that there would not be a review. That should be a given. Outside of the times of serious riots—which, of course, we hope will last many years or even decades—it is important to have some sort of periodic review, but I do not believe that there is a particular case for this Bill to carry a specific provision for post-legislative scrutiny. As I have said, such a provision could be triggered by a fairly small and limited disturbance, but we must make sure that it does not take another 130 years before we next review whether the legislation is working.

[Lyn Brown]

I completely get where the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) is coming from—frankly, if I were the Minister in charge of his Bill, I would encourage him to say exactly what he has just said—but I am worried about where we are going with this. It has taken us 150 years to revisit the issue and there have been a number of disturbances—nay, riots—in this country during that time, and even when there have been really big riots, the system of dealing with victims has been wholly inadequate. I am concerned that we will find ourselves in 150 years’ time—well, we won’t, because we’ll be dead by then—saying, “Oh, yeah, we didn’t have very effective legislation. We had things for those old-fashioned things called cars, but the hover vehicles we’re driving around in now aren’t covered by this Riot Act.”

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that even minor disturbances can wreck lives. We must make sure that any future Government have not only warm words to say to victims of riots, but effective legislation on the books so that they can help those victims effectively. I gently say to the Minister, who I have got a lot of time for—he has done an excellent job so far this morning—that we need to be more warm in our consideration of this Bill, so that we can ensure that the people who come after us in 150 years do not say the same kinds of things that we have been saying, with a little frustration, over the past few weeks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Minister, follow that!

[James Brokenshire]

We are verging the language used on Second Reading when we discussed how the terms of the existing Riots (Damages) Act 1886 are not fit for the purpose of providing compensation in the event of a riot. The Bill provides good flexibility. It is important to recognise that it enables matters to be dealt with by way of secondary regulation. If certain changes are required, we would not necessarily have to address them through primary legislation, with all that that entails. Indeed, as has been discussed, the Bill enables us to increase the overall cap by negative procedure.

In essence, our debate on amendment 10 is about whether primary legislation should include a mandatory requirement to review. In our judgment, that is not necessary, because of the flexibility given by the Bill, which has been well debated. The scrutiny the House has given it means that it is now fit for purpose for the years ahead, because of the latitude it contains. It enables changes to be made in a relatively straightforward way through the processes and procedures of this House and the other place.

The amendment addresses the question of the regularity of scrutiny and whether a review should be undertaken every time some form of riot takes place. In our judgment, that is bureaucratic and we question whether it would achieve the desired result. It is always open to Government to review legislation, and it is absolutely right and proper that they keep it under close review. That may not necessarily happen on a timed basis, but an event may occur to which the Government will respond—indeed, the House may prevail on the Minister in question to do this—by conducting a review of the legislation, to judge whether it is still appropriate. The Bill does not prevent that flexibility—far from it. It can still happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) has spoken of the general approach to reviewing all legislation within three to five years of the date of Royal Assent. Therefore, in any event, come what may, there will be an assessment of the Bill. Rather than having fixed points, the Bill provides flexibility to make changes. The regulatory framework enables the issue to be contemplated in that way—it provides latitude—and that is the appropriate way to deal with it. Indeed, it is right and proper that, if such events were to happen, the House could say to the Government, “Look at the Bill now. This is the right time to do it,” without that being reflected formally in the Bill. For those reasons, we judge that the amendment is not needed.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will, in due deference, give way to the shadow Minister.

[Lyn Brown]

Very brave. I say gently to the Minister that I was a bit flabbergasted by the length of time that passed before the introduction of such a Bill. There was a period of unrest in the 1980s, during my early childhood, and I can recall being in a restaurant in Leicester Square on my way to a concert during the poll tax riots. I am surprised, therefore, to be debating a Bill on a matter that has not been revisited during that time. Given that these things happen, given that there can be long periods of time between such occurrences and given that our predecessors did not see fit to revisit the legislation despite some fairly appalling riots in our capital city and elsewhere, why does the Minister genuinely believe and take comfort from the fact that the Bill is somehow different, and that 150 years will not pass before it is revisited?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am sure that anyone who has been caught up in a riot, and who has suffered loss or damage as a consequence, feels that hugely keenly. We are talking not just about the immediacy of the situation and the fear that it creates, but about what that means in restoring a life, putting property back into place and dealing with adverse effects on a business. That has been at the heart of our debates on the Bill, and that is why I welcome and strongly endorse the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South in bringing forward the Bill and seeking to address the problem.

There are a couple of points that I would make. First, the Bill has been drafted in a manner that allows greater latitude than the Victorian legislation. I return to the point about not requiring primary legislation. Dealing with things in secondary legislation gives greater latitude and flexibility to make changes to the regulatory framework more swiftly. That reflects the fact that other items may need to be covered, or the cap may no longer be appropriate. The Bill provides a real benefit in offering that level of flexibility.

Secondly, the hon. Lady made a point about individual occurrences and events, and she pointed to some serious incidents that might have made a review appropriate. The latitude provided by the Bill lends itself well to that, because it will not be necessary completely to recast primary legislation. Some riotous disturbances may not lead to a significant number of claims, so it might not be appropriate to trigger a formal procedure such as that proposed in the amendment. The student riots in 2010, for example, involved significant policing challenges but attracted fewer than five compensation claims. We have the ability to carry out such a review, but we do not need anything with quite such a rigid structure. I suggest to the House that the Bill gives the Government the flexibility and the latitude that they need. In that context, I hope that the right hon. Member for Tottenham will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

The Opposition will support the Bill this morning, as we have throughout the legislative process.

The 2011 riots were a traumatic event for London and for other cities and towns up and down the country. More than 5,000 crimes were committed in a few short days, five people lost their lives, and it is estimated that the material cost of the London riots alone was over half a billion pounds. They were truly devastating. The unfortunate truth is that when those wounded communities needed help to get back on their feet, the help that was available proved utterly inadequate.

My magnificent right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has demonstrated to the House yet again this morning his true understanding of and commitment to his constituents. His passionate and well-spoken words showed that he understands the devastating impact the riots have had on the wider community. Frankly, it was not possible for the Government to respond as quickly as was needed to that impact.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) for his work on this issue. His constituency was hit hard by the 2011 riots and he has worked tirelessly to highlight the difficulty that his constituents have had in receiving the compensation to which they should have been entitled. He used the Freedom of Information Act to show that three years after the riots, 133 victims in London were yet to receive a penny in compensation. Just 16% of the requested compensation had been paid out at that point.

Those victims of rioting must have felt really let down, especially considering the Prime Minister’s promise that they would not be left out of pocket by those unprecedented actions. Without the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), I doubt that the Bill would be before the House today, but it is and that is to be celebrated.

To be fair to the Government, they recognised the problems that people had had in receiving compensation and commissioned an independent review. The Kinghan review was published in 2013 and, as we have heard, the Bill before us has the support of the Government and takes up many of the review’s recommendations.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on making such an important contribution so early in his parliamentary career. I hope his father forgives him for the horse story, which I remember well. How amazing it is that an Act will be published in his name. I hope that he celebrates this momentous event suitably over the weekend. I know that he has had a lot of support from the Government, which makes these things a lot easier and gives a Bill a fair passage. None the less, it takes a lot of work and commitment to get a Bill through, and I congratulate him on being equal to that task—congratulations!

I have to thank the Minister for being so accommodating, unlike some other Ministers. I look forward to seeing him opposite me when we consider further Bills, because he has been really quite good.

I thank my Labour colleagues who have worked on the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who led scrutiny of the Bill in Committee, and my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton, for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Croydon North, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who also sat on the Committee. They have all helped to improve the Bill.

The amendment that the House accepted today to give riot victims a guaranteed time in which to claim compensation was the result of probing by the Opposition in Committee, so we are grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley South and the Government for accepting it. The Bill is better for it.

We are happy to support this legislation. Like the hon. Member for Dudley South, I hope and pray that it is rarely, if ever, used because even the most effective legislation for riot compensation can but lessen the terrible pain that is inflicted on communities by looting, violence and wanton damage.

Riot Compensation Bill

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was sat quite comfortably, waiting for the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) to perform his usual tour de force to the Chamber, and thought I had more time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on bringing the Bill before the House. I was saddened to hear that his popularity has declined. I hope that it does not spoil his Christmas. I was rather worried to hear the story about the rogue squirrel. As a city girl who has only just started to experience these creatures in her back garden, it has made me a little more wary of coming into contact with them.

The riots that blighted many of our cities and towns in August 2011 were a truly destructive event. More than 5,000 crimes were recorded in just a few days, five people lost their lives and it has been estimated that the material cost of the London riots alone was over half a billion pounds. That material cost has fallen on the public, local businesses, the police and the taxpayer during a period of harsh economic conditions.

As we have heard today, the existing legal framework for compensating the victims of riots has proven to be inadequate. It is therefore right that we consider carefully how the financial burden of any future riot events should be shouldered.

The House has heard that there is an established principle that the police are liable for damage incurred during riots. There is an implied contract between the public and the police: the public will respect the authority of the police and, in return, the police will secure law and order for the public. It has been contended that when riots break out and property is damaged, the police have failed to keep their end of the bargain and are therefore strictly liable for damages incurred.

As we have heard a number of times today, that principle is enforced through the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. It was perhaps inevitable that a 130-year-old piece of legislation did not prove to be up to the task of handling the aftermath of the 2011 riots, which were as widespread and destructive as any we have seen for a generation. The language of the Act, as Members have said, is archaic, defining riots as

“persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together”.

That sounds like a decent football match.

[Mr Lammy]

Only West Ham.

[Lyn Brown]

That’s when we’re happy.

[Mr Lammy]

Which is not very often.

[Lyn Brown]

No, we are doing quite well.

The 1886 Act pays no consideration to what are now important questions for any legislation dealing with insurance and compensation. For understandable reasons, there is no mention of motor vehicles. There is no consideration of interim compensations for victims while claims are being processed or of the new-for-old replacement of damaged goods, and there are no powers for the police to delegate administering the compensation process to experts in legal claims. As a result, in 2014, three years after the 2011 riots, victims were still waiting for over £40 million of compensation to be paid out. This is an inordinately long wait for compensation. The existing legislation has therefore been shown to be not fit for purpose, and so the hon. Member for Dudley South is doing the House a favour today.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) for his work on this issue. His constituency was hit as hard by the 2011 riots as many others, and he has worked tirelessly highlighting the difficulty that locals have had in receiving the compensation that they should be entitled to. He used the Freedom of Information Act to show that three years after the riots, 133 victims in London had yet to receive a penny in compensation from the police. Just 16% of the requested compensation had been paid out at that point. These victims of rioting must feel badly let down considering that the Prime Minister had promised they would not be left out of pocket. Without his tireless work and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I gently say that I doubt this Bill would have been before the House today.

To be fair to the Government, being even-handed on a Friday, they have recognised the problems that people have had in receiving compensation. They commissioned an independent review of existing legislation chaired by Neil Kinghan. The Kinghan review was published in September 2013, and it made a series of recommendations. It recommended that the principle that the police are strictly liable for damages incurred during riots ought to be maintained; that legislation ought to protect insurers so as not to deter people from taking out insurance policies, or to inflate the cost of insurance; and that payments to insurance firms should be limited to businesses insured with an annual turnover of less than £2 million. It suggested that legislation should allow the police to delegate the administering of claims to a body made up of insurance professionals rather than the police having to take on that complex administrative task themselves. A further important recommendation was that allowance be made for compensating at the cost of replacement goods—old for new—as is the case in most modern insurance practice. The review judged that new legislation replacing the 1886 Act would be necessary.

The Government ran a consultation exercise after the publication of the Kinghan review, and the Bill before us, as we have heard, has the support of the Government and takes up many of the review’s recommendations. This includes a number of provisions that are uncontentious but nevertheless important, such as including cars within the scope of compensation and providing for interim payments. Given the clear need to update the legislation that governs riot compensation, we welcome this Bill and believe that it ought to move forward to Committee, where it can receive further scrutiny.

While we support the principle that the police ought to be strictly liable for damages incurred during the course of a riot, it is important that our police forces are not asked to promise a blank cheque. It is impossible for police forces to plan and budget for the possibility of having to compensate victims of riots without some understanding of the likely costs to be involved. This is particularly true when our police forces are still absorbing the 17,000 police officer cuts from the previous Parliament. It might be Friday but this is not politics-free.

To deal with this problem, the Kinghan review originally proposed that insurers would be able to claim only for businesses with an annual turnover lower than £2 million. The Bill instead places a £1 million cap on the total claim that can be made, and removes any reference to company turnover. The Association of British Insurers estimates that 99% of commercial property claims for material damage from the August 2011 riots would have been fully covered by this new £1 million limit. The Home Office makes similar estimates, and the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill suggests that just 19 of 1,988 impacted businesses would wish to claim over £1 million in the case of large-scale rioting. This appears to be a significant improvement on the turnover-based model suggested by Kinghan. According to the ABI, only 33% of commercial property claims for material damage during the August 2011 riots came from businesses with a turnover of less than £2 million. There were serious fears that the £2 million turnover limit would have therefore created a disincentive for large businesses to set up in areas that they would possibly consider to be susceptible to rioting, and that some businesses would be left unfairly out of pocket. These details need to be looked at very closely as the Bill moves through Committee, particularly as the £1 million limit represents a departure from the recommendations by the Kinghan review and may have an impact on insurance premiums. I want to ensure that the Government are taking seriously the competing interests of the insurance industry, businesses, the police, and the public finances.

Another area of concern that we will pursue in Committee is what constitutes a riot and who decides when a riot has taken place. At present, the Bill empowers police and crime commissioners to determine whether there has or has not been a riot, which they must do in accordance with the definition of a riot provided by the Public Order Act 1986. It is the budgets of police and crime commissioners that will ultimately be hurt if they do judge that there has been a riot, so we might, in effect, be allowing the police to mark their own homework. This was raised by Mark Shepherd of the ABI, who has called for

“a more independent determination of when a disturbance is a riot”.

That might be appropriate given the quasi-judicial nature of the decision.

My final area of concern is that the Bill does not cover loss of trade for businesses, loss of rent for landlords, or the cost of alternative accommodation needed in the wake of a riot. These are all instances of what insurers call consequential loss. Many of those most severely impacted by the 2011 riots would therefore not have been be fully compensated through the provisions in this Bill. That is particularly true of businesses with small capital holdings who rely on trade that has been disrupted by rioting. This needs to be carefully looked at during the next stages of the legislative process so that we can provide the most equitable deal possible between the police and the community in the unwelcome event of future riots.

The current arrangements for dealing with compensation after riots is clearly inadequate, and a new framework is required. I look forward to going through the details of the Bill to make sure that we can have a system that commands the support of the public, business, and the police alike. That will mean looking carefully at the caps on compensation, the process of determining when a riot has taken place, and the clauses setting out which losses are, and which are not, eligible for compensation. We must make sure that we try to minimise the numbers of people who fall victims of future riots, as, unfortunately, so many did in 2011.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be aware of the launch of the counter-extremism strategy. We have also committed to a new, cross-Government hate crime action plan to make sure that we tackle this crime at source, and prevent it.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

But it is about resources. The Merseyside police and crime commissioner has said that proposed cuts

“will affect the teams which fight serious and organised crime, investigate rape and sexual violence and tackle hate crime.”

The chief constable of that service asks if he should take resources out of teams dealing with child abuse, gun crime, hate crime, or online fraud. What is the Minister’s answer?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady, who was a member of a Government who saw increases in crime, should congratulate this Government on reductions in crime, and on the fact that hate crime is going down. That is down to the excellent work of our police, and we should commend them for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

As I just said, we are looking to introduce a new hate crime action plan and we are looking at all the ways we can support those local communities who want to work actively to promote community cohesion and our shared values.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The Government want universities to ban speakers who say things that do not break the law but which do promote hatred or violence. Can the Minister give one clear example of a statement made in a UK university which should now be banned?

[Karen Bradley]

I welcome the shadow Minister to her place and look forward to working with her. I think she will agree that this is about how we protect our shared values and how we make sure we work together and keep our citizens safe. I hope she will work with the Government to make sure we do that.

Extremism

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right in that this issue is one where we would hope that people would work across the House to ensure that we provide the support that communities need to carry out the necessary work referred to by a number of Members today. This is an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will make that clear in the statement he is about to give. This Government take seriously the issues about what has been happening in Birmingham schools, just as they take seriously issues relating to extremism in any form wherever it appears.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Given the Home Secretary’s very punchy response about this Government’s commitment to combating radicalism, engaging with communities and supporting and integrating our communities so that they can tackle extremism in their midst, will she confirm, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), that she has only £1 million left from the £17 million budget to do that?

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that the Opposition’s assumption that they can look at figures relating to the Prevent strategy, which has been split, and quote them as somehow indicating what this Government are doing wrong is a path that she should not be going down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on implementing the recommendations of the joint royal colleges’ report “Tackling FGM in the UK” published in November 2013.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

10. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on implementing the recommendations of the joint royal colleges’ report “Tackling FGM in the UK” published in November 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I have certainly been in correspondence with the Education Secretary, and I have met on more than one occasion the relevant Education Minister. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Education Secretary has now written to schools, which is a very helpful development.

[Lyn Brown]

I am a little concerned to hear that answer, given that the Minister talked about good co-operation across all Departments. Given that the survey quoted by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that one in six teachers is unaware that FGM is a crime and that 68% are unaware of any guidance from the Government on what to do if they suspect a pupil is at risk, can the Minister assure the House that he will meet the Secretary of State for Education, discuss this very important issue and report back to the House on what agreements they make on how to tackle this despicable crime?

[Norman Baker]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a despicable crime. That is why we take it so seriously not just in the Home Office but across Government. I refer her to the cross-government agreement I mentioned in my original answer, which has been signed by eight Departments, including by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on behalf of the Department for Education. We are in regular contact on these matters across Departments and will continue to be so.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I want first to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing the debate and to welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State for International Development over the weekend. Both sides of the House will unite on female genital mutilation to ensure that we prosecute those responsible for inflicting such a brutal practice on girls and women, and that we eliminate it once and for all.

Shockingly, an NSPCC survey of teachers reported that one in six are unaware that female genital mutilation is a crime, and that 68% of teachers are unaware of any Government guidance on what to do if they believe that a girl whom they teach is at risk. It is clear from what we have heard over the past weeks and months that we need to increase awareness of the practice among all professionals, such as GPs, midwives, teachers and health care and social workers. To do so, however, we must be more open as a society about discussing women’s bodies and be more comfortable with the language. Open and honest dialogue with boys, girls, men and women about women’s bodies will help to raise awareness and to break down the barriers that cause ignorance and embarrassment. We need to use words such as vagina and clitoris, because the more that we say them, the more comfortable we will become with initiating and engaging in such discussions.

Some hon. Members present will recall that I spoke in the Chamber during the Adjournment debate before Christmas about a procedure called a hysteroscopy, which looks inside a woman’s uterus and is often used to investigate symptoms such as pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding and infertility. I must admit that I found it difficult to use words such vagina, uterus and cervix in the Chamber.

[Bob Stewart]

You did it very well.

[Lorely Burt]

Well done.

[Lyn Brown]

Thank you.

If I find it hard to use such language, goodness knows how difficult it must be for a young girl or woman if she needs to talk to someone.

According to my local borough of Newham’s children safeguarding data, there were six recorded cases of female genital mutilation in 2013, and only five cases were reported to the police. In 2007, however, the Foundation for Women’s Health and Development, in collaboration with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, estimated that the number of maternities to women who had been genitally mutilated in Newham from 2001 to 2004 was between 6.7% and 7.2% a year. Using that as a calculation—rough and open to criticism though it might be—we can estimate that there were between 436 and 467 births in Newham to women who have been mutilated. Evidence shows that the children of women who have been mutilated are at greater risk of mutilation. It is therefore clear that there could be a large disparity between what is reported and what is actually happening in the community. The probable discrepancy in data highlights the need to work with at-risk communities—I hate to use that phrase—to ensure a greater understanding among the professionals charged with supporting victims of genital mutilation.

In response, Newham council has commissioned a female genital mutilation prevention service, which, to my knowledge, is the first of its kind in the country. The service is one of many that sit within the one-stop shop that supports victims of violence against women and girls and was commissioned to intervene when health professionals first become aware that an expectant mother has been genitally mutilated, which normally occurs during routine pregnancy examinations.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. I was there when she spoke in the Chamber and thought that she did tremendously well. Is the unit to which the hon. Lady refers able to visit schools in her constituency to educate both teachers and children to try to stop this abhorrent crime?

[Lyn Brown]

The unit is in its infancy and is currently developing how it will work within the community. I will go on to discuss what the unit expects to do in the next bit of my speech.

When a maternity professional becomes aware of a mother who has been the victim of genital mutilation, they are required to make a referral to safeguarding officials for child protection reasons and to invite the woman to access the genital mutilation prevention service. The service is geared up to support the victims of female genital mutilation to empower them to understand the negative consequences of mutilation and to enable them to become an advocate against the female genital mutilation of their own daughters. The service will provide advocacy for victims, involving extended family and spouses where appropriate, and thereby support women in their own environment to take a stand against the practice.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, Newham council is training community-based female genital mutilation champions and is supporting victims to report domestic sexual violence to the police. So it is working with women in the community to work with women in the community in order to raise awareness of the act’s illegality.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my hon. Friend for her eloquent speech. I am pleased to hear about what Newham council is doing, which is no doubt a result of her prompting and campaigning. Will the people involved in the unit also be members of the community? Units that are set up sometimes do not reflect the clients and diasporas involved. Is she confident that the unit will reach the roots of the community?

[Lyn Brown]

I am supportive of the action that Newham is taking to try to address the issues that may exist in the community, but I will not take the credit. Councillor Robinson and Councillor Paul have been active in action tackling violence against women and girls in our community, and it is their work that effectively led to the unit’s creation.

I am told that the unit will be highly sensitive. It is being commissioned in the grass roots of the communities themselves and will not be a council office. The service will seek to educate local health visitors, GPs, educational professionals, children’s services and police professionals and to support them in making relevant referrals. The council is also intent on gathering evidence on trends and issues concerning female genital mutilation in the borough, and I hope that that will help to inform the work not only of Newham council but other councils and communities that are affected. I am encouraged that the CPS thinks a prosecution for female genital mutilation is closer, because that would raise the issue higher in the mind of the community. Unless we start to prosecute those responsible, to raise awareness and reduce stigma, I am not sure we will ever begin to eliminate the awful practice in question. That is why the debate is so important, and why I am delighted to speak in it.

I urge all Members of the House, and indeed communities across the country, to continue to highlight the issue and campaign for appropriate resources to tackle a brutal practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I endorse the broad thrust of what the hon. Lady says, but that is part of a package of measures. Let us not be blind to what we all acknowledge: there is no one single thing that will change the existing climate, the cultural approach, or the likelihood of a criminal prosecution. There are several different matters, and that is why I welcome the fact that the Home Affairs Committee will consider the matter and make recommendations, just as I welcome today’s debate.

The first issue I wanted to talk about is international prevention. I welcome the fact that the Government, following on the good work of previous Governments, are making international aid money available; the Secretary of State for International Development is committing several million pounds to education around the world, continuing processes established by her predecessors. Surely that must be the start, and there are lessons to learn from countries such as France, which has grasped the issue of the horrendous crime in question. Its approach is robust and no-nonsense, and all credit is due to it.

[Lyn Brown]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the French approach has much to do with the French separation of church and state? We do not have the same culture here; is there a misguided liberalism around the issue, and is that something we need to understand?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point and I can only quote the words of Isabelle Gillette-Faye about Great Britain:

“You have a tradition of multiculturalism, but you cannot accept everything in the name of tolerance, and certainly not the abuse of girls through mutilation and forced marriage…You have to tell parents cutting is not acceptable and if they don’t listen you threaten them with prosecution and jail.”

She finishes with two simple words:

“It works.”

We must be blunt. There is no point beating about the bush. The problem comes from certain countries, and it will be necessary to engage with those communities. There is no question that in such countries as Burkina Faso and Mali the cultural tradition in question goes on—and, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, in some respects it is a normal cultural tradition in those places. That needs to be addressed, and the focus of the international aid money should be on the countries where it is prevalent.

We all welcome and support the campaigner Fahma Mohamed. We also welcome and support what The Guardian has done, and the changes brought about through the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to write to all the schools in the country, because of the campaign. It can only be a good thing for local prevention that several different Departments are engaged in the issue, as evidenced by the recent announcement from the Department for Education, the money allocated by the Home Office, and the actions of the Department of Health. It is right and proper to record the campaigning work done by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). She was raising the issue for some time before her promotion, and making it a priority was part of her brief at the Department of Health.

Clearly there is a need for extreme sensitivity about the religion and culture of the communities affected. However, there is also a need for a robust approach. It is unacceptable that after successive Governments have abhorred the practice, it is almost impossible to get a witness to give evidence against their parents or relatives. That is the harsh reality. My first question to the right hon. Member for Leicester East was about the comparison with the situation in the late 1980s and the 1990s, when there were child abuse and sex abuse allegations, and prosecutors encouraged children to give evidence against their relatives of that abhorrent crime. The issue we are debating is child abuse and sexual abuse just as much as that was. There is no difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

The DPP is looking at those sorts of issues as part of her work on the matter. That is why a training event was held to look at cases and work through scenarios to see what the problems were. In answer to the shadow Minister’s suggestion that there should be legislation on offences preparatory to FGM, we are open-minded about the matter and we will look at sensible suggestions that may help the situation. I simply made the point that we should not fall into the trap of assuming that a law will do our work for us when it has not done so in 28 years.

[Lyn Brown]

That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: the law has not worked so far, because nobody has been prosecuted. Perhaps the House needs to make a different law or amend the existing law to enable prosecution. It is not good enough to say that Members have a knee-jerk reaction of thinking that a law will make a difference. The existing law has made no difference, so let us amend it.

[Norman Baker]

We have to be clear about whether the law is faulty, whether there is a reluctance to use it or whether other obstacles are preventing it from being used successfully. I am not ruling out looking at the law; I am merely saying that we have to look at all possible avenues to find out exactly what the problem is. The DPP is doing that through her work with the police, and I am sure that the Home Affairs Committee will do the same in its investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

indicated dissent.

[Lyn Brown]

Hardly!

[Norman Baker]

With respect, the hon. Lady has not yet seen what will be in it.

[Lyn Brown]

Even the Daily Mail has noticed.

[Norman Baker]

Members who are making comments from sedentary positions have not yet seen what will be in the next Session. It also ends before the general election in May 2015, so there is limited time for legislation, but we will look at suggestions. Given the fact that there is unanimity across all three parties on trying to deal with FGM, if legislative change is necessary, whatever the result of the general election, I am confident that whatever Government we have will try to move the issue forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I do not think any corroboration is needed to prove that FGM has occurred, but we might need corroboration to demonstrate who was responsible in law. That is a different matter entirely.

[Lyn Brown]

But if a child’s vagina is sewn up, the responsibility of who actually did the cutting is subsidiary to the fact that her parents allowed it to happen—the parents who have care of the child—so there is de facto an offence that has occurred that can be prosecuted.

[Norman Baker]

If it were as simple as that, we would have seen prosecutions over the past 28 years. It is not a case of whether it is the mother, the father or the grandparents. It is not as simple as that. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is rightly frustrated by the fact that there have been no prosecutions. So am I. I do not want to stand here today defending the fact that for 28 years there have been no prosecutions. It is not defensible. However, I can assure the hon. Lady, as I have assured others, that the Home Office takes the matter seriously. The CPS and the police are taking it seriously. At the moment, 11 cases are being considered. I agree that if we can get a successful prosecution, that would be helpful as part of the strategy to try to minimise and hopefully end FGM in this country.

In conclusion, the Government takes FGM very seriously and it is high on our list of priorities, particularly mine. The Home Office co-ordinates and leads the work on FGM, but we recognise that tackling FGM and all forms of violence against women and girls needs a robust, sustained and dynamic cross-Government approach in which every Government Department—criminal justice, education, health and international development—works with the others to identify, protect and support victims and bring those responsible to justice. We believe that by implementing this approach and working together, we can end FGM and all forms of violence against women and girls. That is our aim.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today for the cross-party commitment. I look forward to working with others in other parties to drive the matter forward.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Baroness Brown of Silvertown Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will repeat precisely what I said a few minutes ago, which is that what the right hon. Lady never tells this House is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases. The point is that she and others speak about relocation in this House as if it was never queried, but it was; in four cases it was struck down.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary clarify whether the principle was objected to by the courts?

[Mrs May]

What I have made clear is that the courts struck down forced relocation in a number of cases. That is a fact that the shadow Front-Bench team never put before this House.

The Opposition’s motion also raises a number of other issues, as the right hon. Lady did in her speech, so let me start by addressing the issue of the two-year time limit. Again, the Opposition do not tell us the whole story. If the police or Security Service observe any of those individuals engaging in new terrorism-related activity, they can apply to have a new TPIM placed on that subject. That is something that is entirely open to them. Besides, people coming off restrictions is nothing new. Convicted prisoners serve their sentences and are released every day. Opposition Members can say what they like, but that also includes people convicted under the Terrorism Acts.