Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We of course expect Qatar and FIFA to ensure that the rights of all migrant workers are upheld and respected.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

5. If his Department will commission research on methods of improving mobile telephone coverage; and if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I am sorry that I could not attend the event—I wanted to but I had a clash. I believe a Conservative won the event, and that is always welcome. As she well knows, sports governing bodies, including that for basketball, have received large amounts of public money—taxpayers’ money. It is certainly no gravy train and if sports cannot deliver increasing participation, it is absolutely right that the money should be diverted to those that can do so. I do not believe that doors are ever closed for ever and I would be happy to have a chat with her about the proposal she makes.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T6. Many private sector companies are big supporters of the arts in Britain. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how important he believes that support to be?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am certainly very happy to take up the matter that the hon. Lady raises. Increasing participation in sport for disabled people is a key priority for this Government and for Sport England. There is still an unacceptable gap between the numbers of disabled and non-disabled people doing sport, and we need to make sure that the gap closes.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that skiers such as Kelly Gallagher and our Paralympians are a fine example of what everyone can achieve in this country?

[Mrs Grant]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Jade Etherington and Kelly Gallagher, and their guides, Caroline Powell and Charlotte Evans, are glowing examples of what can be achieved by sportswomen in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am appalled to hear of the physical assaults against those two referees, who have no doubt done excellent work in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The FA and Sport England have invested £60 million in the programme on raising standards. I would also welcome the full protection of the law for officials wherever attacks take place to ensure that community football is safe and enjoyable.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the benefits of broadband to the rural economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

3. How much funding the Government provided for the Equality and Diversity Forum in 2012-13; and for what reasons this money was allocated.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Equality and Diversity Forum is an independent network of equality and human rights organisations. The Government did not fund any of its activities in 2012-13.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Is the Minister aware that some of the forum’s political activities could breach the Charity Commission’s rules on campaigning and political activity?

[Mrs Grant]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It would be absolutely unacceptable for any charity to behave in a way that breached its regulatory requirements. The Government would not accept any behaviour of that sort or condone such activity. If he remains concerned, I advise him to take the issue up with the forum, the Charity Commission or both.

International Women’s Day

Debate between Helen Grant and Charlie Elphicke

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Since the introduction of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, there have been 257 forced marriage protection orders, five recorded breaches and one person sent to prison, and in 2010 alone 1,735 people were supported by the Government’s forced marriage unit. The youngest victim was 12 and the oldest 73. In just a few short years, that legislation has made a positive impact, and demand for orders continues to rise. However, there are still major problems with education, discovery and implementation. Not enough is being done on prevention, and ongoing scepticism greets women and children when they report forced marriage.

Consideration is now being given to how to make the breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence, and, going even further, to whether forced marriage should be a criminal offence. Criminalisation might seem to colleagues a popular and reasonable option, showing the public a tough approach against an alien and wicked practice, but I urge caution.

My 23 years as a family lawyer leave me with some doubt that criminalisation would improve matters for victims. Indeed, it could be a backward step. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 criminalised the breaching of a non-molestation injunction order. There were very good intentions behind that, but there were many unforeseen consequences. Important comparisons can be made between that legislation and what is being contemplated now in relation to forced marriage.

I was a busy domestic violence practitioner at the time, and I made three principal observations. First, the police were often slow and reluctant to pursue breaches because of perceived more serious crimes such as robbery and burglary. The Crown Prosecution Service was also slow or reluctant to do so because of the need to satisfy the high criminal burden of proof, namely “beyond reasonable doubt”, and because of the evidential difficulties of crimes that often happen behind closed doors.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I will take a very quick intervention.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for—

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There are many loving relationships, and there has been a revolution meaning that there are more women in the workplace than ever before, and also in relationships in which the children are cared for and deeply loved. Men even change nappies, as I did. Should we not celebrate the good things about men and women, and about women in the workplace?

[Mrs Grant]

Of course we should. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

In consequence of the authorities’ reluctance to pursue breaches of injunction orders, victims were again and again left thinking, “Why did I bother getting my injunction order?” Perpetrators were left thinking, “I got away with it”.

My second observation was that pursuing a civil action required the victim to be in the driving seat, which could be a completely empowering experience. She made the decisions and provided the instructions, supported by her own legal team. In contrast, in criminal cases the victim is merely a witness for the prosecution. She has no control over the proceedings, she is given very little information and she has no legal team to support her. In fact, being a prime witness for the prosecution is an isolating experience and frequently leads to the withdrawal of evidence and the collapse of prosecution cases.

My third observation was that domestic violence, like forced marriage, could involve close family members—mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts. Whereas victims were prepared to obtain civil orders to protect themselves, they were often reluctant to pursue a breach, because it would lead to a criminal conviction for the perpetrator and far-reaching consequences for the victim, her family and sometimes the community. Indeed, in a survey in 2011, Dr Aisha Gill of Roehampton university found that 57% of respondents said that victims would be less likely to seek help if forcing someone to marry became a criminal offence. Advocates also argue that victims stand more chance of reconciling with their families if a protection order is invoked rather than a criminal prosecution.

Those three observations, together with anecdotal evidence from professional colleagues and the judiciary, suggest that criminalisation of non-molestation injunction orders has left far too many victims without redress and with a real sense of injustice. I remain unconvinced, too, that there is a gap in the law that needs to be filled. In forcing someone to marry against their will, numerous other criminal offences may be committed—assault, abduction, aiding and abetting a criminal offence, cruelty, failure to secure attendance at school, false imprisonment, theft, rape, kidnapping, threats to kill, harassment, blackmail and murder. That list shows that we already have a range of criminal laws that can be used to prosecute in a forced marriage context.

For all the reasons that I have stated, I am concerned that criminalisation of forced marriage could lead to under-reporting, the export of the crime abroad and the practice being driven substantially underground. There is no quick fix.