Violence against Women and Girls

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the day when we celebrate love and romance, I am glad to take part in a debate that seeks to ensure that no one should ever be subject to a mentally or physically abusive relationship. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her work in raising the profile of the incredible One Billion Rising campaign.

Despite Liverpool being the second safest city, victims of domestic violence make more than one in five of all 999 calls to Merseyside police—the highest rate in the country. That amounts to 43,995 calls. The increase in the incidence of domestic violence across Merseyside is staggering, with 32,511 incidents having been reported in the last year—an increase of 36% from 2003. This situation cannot continue. It is a terrible indictment that in 2013 in the UK one in six children aged 11 to 17 experience sexual abuse and that 109 women and girls lost their lives last year at the hands of a partner or former partner.

At least 750,000 children a year witness domestic violence. Although that affects both girls and boys—I note the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—80% of calls to ChildLine on abuse were from girls. The statistics on that are many. Even if the Government do not accept the enduring physical, psychological, emotional and social consequences experienced by too many women across our country because of this terrible crime, it must surely be in their interest, given that according to the Home Office violence against women and girls costs the public purse £36.7 billion a year, to address these heinous crimes and do more about this stain on our national conscience.

We have a serious problem in our society when findings from the crime survey in England and Wales show that one in 12 people think that a victim is completely or mostly responsible for someone sexually assaulting them when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or when they are sexually assaulted by someone they were flirting with heavily beforehand. No one in the country should ever blame a victim for the crimes perpetrated against them.

Is this any wonder when too many abusers are glorified? Perhaps one of the most famous cases of domestic violence was in March 2009, when the music artist Chris Brown was charged for, and pleaded guilty to, assaulting Rihanna. Members will remember the shocking photos of Rihanna in our press—her lip was split and she had a bloody nose and major contusions on either side of her face—yet two years later Chris Brown was given an international platform at the Grammies. This is the man who subsequently got a tattoo on his neck showing a woman bearing a striking similarity to Rihanna and the scars of a serious beating.

We heard the other week that some of our major supermarkets are stocking an energy drink called Black Energy promoted by the convicted rapist Mike Tyson. It uses the slogan “Sex energy” and includes a series of adverts in which he is surrounded by scantily clad women in bikinis and calls himself “an animal”. I remind the House that this is a man who spent three years in jail for his heinous crimes. We also heard last year about the tragic story of a girl from Battersea who did not report a rape at the age of 11 because of a storyline in “Eastenders” that made her so worried about the court process that she thought she would not be supported.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand that a television advertising campaign beginning today or tomorrow will highlight the fact that 30% of young girls are sexually assaulted and that 25% are physically abused. Does the hon. Lady believe that such a campaign will help to reduce those figures?

[Luciana Berger]

We know that there has been a massive reduction, if not a complete moratorium, on the Government spending money on public information adverts. I think, however, that money spent in this area would be welcome, so I hope that the Minister will think seriously about allocating some of the budget to informing and educating the public about domestic violence and abuse, particularly at a time when this crime is on the increase.

There are people committed to tackling violence against women and girls. In Merseyside, our recently elected police and crime commissioner, my predecessor, Jane Kennedy, signed up to a dedicated series of pledges to tackle violence against women and girls that included maintaining specialist domestic violence and public protection units within the police service, which are at risk across the country owing to police cuts; delivering specialist training in domestic and sexual violence; and developing the roll-out of an integrated local action plan to tackle violence against women and girls. In December, we also saw the launch of the Draw A Line campaign, specifically aimed at combating domestic violence.

The reason for today’s debate, however, is that we need to do even more. We need our schools to do everything they can to educate the next generation. We recently saw the One Billion Rising sessions that took place across the country—we had one in Liverpool, at which women called for the statutory introduction of sex and relationships education in all our schools. We also need urgently to challenge the stereotypes in the press and media and to teach both girls and boys about how to respect each other in relationships. We need these statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in every school in our land.

Just before this debate, as has been mentioned, we came together in Parliament square in support of the One Billion Rising campaign and heard the names of the 109 women murdered last year by a present or former partner. It was tragic. The reason for the debate is that we need to do everything we can to ensure that we never have to read out the names of 109 women again.

Police Integrity

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement to the House and welcome the announcement that the national register will be made available to police forces in other regions, in particular the PSNI. Will she confirm that the register will be made available in relation to other security positions, in particular civilian policing of Ministry of Defence installations in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point. I will reflect on that, if I may, but we will certainly discuss with the College of Policing the availability of the register of those who have been struck off and how that is most appropriately dealt with, and I shall take the hon. Gentleman’s point into account during those discussions.

Transit Visas (UK Trawlers)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure and delight for me to make my speech under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee, which selected the debate.

The aim of the debate is to draw to the attention of the Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), my concerns about the living and employment conditions of non-EU nationals on some UK trawlers and fishing boats. I pay tribute to the Catholic charity, Apostleship of the Sea, and to Martin Foley who came and briefed me. Following a problem in my constituency, which is one of the foremost fishing ports in the south-west, the charity drew my attention to the issue. I will not talk about that incident itself, as I understand it is now the subject of a police investigation. I will be careful to ensure that I do not in any way prejudice any investigation that might be taking place. I will talk in general terms about breaches of UK immigration law and the consequent abuse and exploitation of migrant workers, which is a stain on parts of the UK fishing fleet and needs urgently to be addressed.

The context is that the UK fishing fleet is the sixth largest in vessel numbers in the EU, and the second largest in capacity—more than 12,000 fishermen work in the UK. During 2010, the UK fleet landed 606,000 tonnes of sea fish into the UK and abroad with a value of £719 million, so it is no small industry. We should be proud of the UK fishing industry, and I, for one, am incredibly proud of my own Plymouth-based fishing fleet as well. Across many of our coastal towns and ports, the fishing industry is a mainstay of the local economy. It is an industry steeped in tradition. Deep-sea fishing remains one of the most demanding and dangerous occupations, not just in the UK but throughout the world.

In previous debates, I have talked about the physical dangers that many of our fishermen face every day. Those dangers were demonstrated last year when my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) lost her husband in a tragic accident while he was going about his commercial activities as a fisherman. The dangers that our fishermen face cultivate a deep sense of togetherness and belonging in fishing communities.

The overwhelming majority of employers in UK fishing fleets are upright, honourable individuals, who take great care to ensure that their crews are properly trained and fairly remunerated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This issue is important to a great many constituencies across the United Kingdom, not least mine. I represent the fishing village of Portavogie in my constituency, and we also have the villages of Kilkeel and Ardglass in the South Down constituency. Many of the reasons for the problems that the hon. Gentleman outlines are related to EU bureaucracy—the quotas, and the reduction in the number of days at sea. The EU focuses on the financial position in deciding whether boats can go out and whether they can be staffed. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that when it comes to addressing the issue Europe has a lot to answer for as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) on securing the debate, which I know is important to his constituents. I am, of course, looking forward to visiting his constituency some time in the new year, when I am sure we can discuss the matter further.

I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in the Chamber. I know he has a long-standing interest in this matter from a constituency and a wider Northern Ireland perspective. I listened carefully to what he said, and I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who has responsibility for fishing. He works closely with people from all parts of the United Kingdom when we set out our policy on fishing and fishing quotas, and when we have debates in the European Union. Thankfully, my job today is not to talk about wider fishing policy, but to talk about the specific issue of crewing and visas.

The use of non-European economic area crew on UK vessels has been an issue for several years, and I know that it is an ongoing concern for my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. The issue has also been raised in Northern Ireland and with colleagues who represent constituencies in Scotland, where fishing is also an important industry. The subject is complex and wide-ranging, and its scope goes beyond immigration. The concern raised by my hon. Friend’s constituent and the Catholic Church in his constituency is about the living and working conditions of people employed in the sector, and I know that that concerns my hon. Friend, too.

I will set out the background of the visa regime for those who work in the sector. Non-EEA migrants can come to the UK to join ships that are currently in the UK but operate outside UK territorial waters—those ships that mostly operate more than 12 nautical miles beyond UK territorial waters. Because those people are joining ships that operate outside the UK, they do not fall under the scope of normal immigration rules, which means they do not need permission to work. However, they do need permission to enter the UK to join the ship—effectively to transit, hence the title of my hon. Friend’s debate. To do so, they must obtain permission to join the ship, either by way of a visa issued overseas, or with the permission of an immigration officer at the UK border. Those provisions are necessary to allow international vessels to change crew, thus allowing fresh crews to arrive in the UK to join ships and outgoing crews to leave ships and return home.

Within the fishing industry, the arrangements mean the UK’s deep-sea fleet has been able to bring in non-EEA fishermen without prior permission to work because the fleet operates mainly outside territorial waters, which is a perfectly legitimate use of the immigration system. Migrants entering through that route are not migrant workers in the usual sense, so the system is not a loophole through which employers can bring in non-EEA workers to carry out work that is not deemed to be sufficiently skilled, as the work is largely taking place outside the UK. We recognise the need for migrant labour in some specific and highly skilled roles in the United Kingdom, but, as my hon. Friend said, businesses should be looking to the local labour market for opportunities to fill lower-skilled roles. That is why non-EEA nationals cannot come to work on vessels that operate within the 12-mile limit—the inshore fleet—under the “to join ship” provisions.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the problems in Plymouth and the area I represent is around incentivising local people to go out on the fishing boats. The danger is apparent, and there is also a skill level that has to be achieved. Those on the boats have great skill, because they also fillet the fish. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) asked, how can local people be more incentivised to participate in the job opportunities on fishing fleets?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I chose my words with care. I did not say that the work was low-skilled, but that it was not sufficiently skilled to meet our criteria. The Migration Advisory Committee, which is the expert committee that the Government often commission to consider the appropriate skill level required for jobs before we allow people to come to the UK from outside the EEA, did not think the jobs were sufficiently skilled. He raises an important point, however, which I think was the nub of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport: in an environment in which UK nationals are without work, what is the industry doing to ensure that we can train UK or EU nationals to the appropriate skill levels so that they can staff the inshore operations without needing to bring in people from outside? I will touch on that later.

Visas would not be issued for people to come to work on inshore vessels. People who work—or employ people to work—on vessels in the inshore fleet after they have come to the UK on a “to join ship” visa, or sought to enter at the border to join a ship, are breaking immigration law and behaving unlawfully.

Some years ago, it became apparent that some in the UK inshore fishing fleet were using non-EEA labour to crew their ships. The UK Border Agency made it clear that that was not acceptable and that immigration rules needed to be enforced in that area. However, genuine concerns were raised at the time, including by the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments, that the UK fishing fleet relied on non-EEA labour and that immediate enforcement of the immigration rules would have a significant and negative impact on that fleet.

In light of those concerns, in March 2010, the previous Government introduced temporary—I stress the word “temporary”—concessions that allowed for up to 1,500 visas to be issued to non-EEA fishermen to work on the UK inshore fleet to give it sufficient time to transition to using local labour for such jobs. In other words, that was to give it time to identify the labour requirement and put in place the relevant training mechanisms so that people could gain the appropriate skills to staff our inshore fleet.

Those concessionary arrangements came with strict conditions. Permission was granted only after appropriate assurances were given that the workers would be paid the minimum wage and—this addresses the point raised by my hon. Friend—that they would be given suitable onshore accommodation when their ships were in port. The take-up of the concession was relatively low. The route was extended last year, and we closed it down for good this August. We will no longer grant permission for non-EEA migrants to work on inshore UK fishing vessels.

The point at the heart of my hon. Friend’s concerns was about how we enforce the rules and ensure that people are playing by them. I shall also address the living and working conditions on board the vessels, which clearly concern him and his constituent, because although the UK Border Agency is not responsible for enforcing that part of the law, and thus I will not go into incredible detail on this, our officials do some work in that area and we work closely with other agencies.

The “to join ship” visas for the fleet that operates outside our territorial waters are granted in the same way as any other visa. They are issued only when a UK Border Agency official overseas or on the border is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of the rules. The official therefore has to be satisfied that the applicant is genuinely joining a ship at a UK port and that that vessel will be leaving UK territorial waters in the near future.

The British Chamber of Shipping has expressed concerns that “to join ship” visas are increasingly difficult to come by, particularly for ships that are tied up awaiting cargo, sailing instructions or repair. Our officials rightly question whether crew are actually required in such circumstances, given that the ship will not depart port imminently. The individual circumstances of each application are examined by officers from the UK Border Agency and UK Border Force on a case-by-case basis. Our Border Force officers will always question fishermen and other crew seeking to enter the UK. If they have any doubts about the individual, the company or the vessel that they are joining, they will refuse entry to the United Kingdom.

UK Border Force also regularly undertakes enforcement action to ensure that those who employ non-EEA fishermen do so legally. Border Force cutters regularly patrol UK waters, monitoring vessels, gathering information and intervening when appropriate and necessary. The monitoring allows us to ensure that vessels using non-EEA crew who are here on “to join ship” visas are indeed operating outside UK territorial waters. Alongside that, regular enforcement visits are conducted to ensure that those working on board vessels have the right to do so.

If we find people working illegally on vessels, we treat them in the same way as any other immigration offender and they are liable to removal from the UK. If employers employ people illegally on inshore fleets, they are liable to fines of up to £10,000 for each illegal worker employed. As with all our enforcement activity, we do not accept people hiring outside the immigration rules, and we seek to deal with that in a tough manner.

During the course of enforcement activities on vessels, Border Agency officers may come across unsuitable living and working conditions. There have been tragic consequences of such conditions. My hon. Friend may be aware of the fire on a fishing boat in 2008 in which two Filipino and one Latvian crew member were tragically killed.

Border Force and UK Border Agency officers are concerned primarily with enforcement of the immigration rules and do not have enforcement powers in areas such as employment rights or health and safety, but we certainly do not close our eyes to those things. If, in the course of enforcing immigration rules, Border Force and Border Agency officers come across such conditions, they will draw them to the attention of the appropriate enforcement officials in other agencies, such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, with which we have close working relationships. Our enforcement activities are often multi-agency efforts involving the police, the MCA and other agencies, so not only do we enforce immigration rules, but our partners enforce rules on employment rights, the minimum wage and health and safety conditions.

We will continue to work to ensure that all those who do not have a right to work here cannot do so, that those who have a right to work on ships outside UK territorial waters can do so, and that any rogue employers who exploit vulnerable workers, as my hon. Friend suggests, face the full extent of the law. If the inshore fishing fleet requires people to work in the industry, it should look first to the domestic labour force and ensure that people there are appropriately trained.

My hon. Friend raised a point about the International Labour Organisation convention. That, of course, is a matter for the fisheries Minister, so I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to his attention and ensure that my hon. Friend receives a reply outlining the Government’s position on the ratification of the convention from officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Minister.

The hon. Member for Strangford raised a point about training and skills, which are devolved issues. I know that the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are working to provide training to the local work force. The Governments, as well as the industry in those parts of the United Kingdom, are engaged in efforts to ensure that the local work force is appropriately skilled for our inshore fishing fleet.

I think that I have covered all the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and I say again that I look forward to visiting his constituency in the new year, when we can no doubt talk further about these matters.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and the hon. Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and for Stourbridge (Margot James), on raising an issue that concerns each and every one of us as elected representatives. That concern can be measured by the number of Members who are present today.

When I was preparing for the debate, my heart broke as I read about some of the experiences of children and young people in our country. The unfortunate fact is that evil knows no borders, and therefore there are many examples of exploitation of children throughout the United Kingdom. When I look at my wee grandchild, I wonder how anyone could ever intentionally harm any child, but we live in a society where it happens. We must do all in our power, in this place and elsewhere, to ensure that we are addressing it, and that it is no longer kept behind closed doors.

The children’s charity Barnardo’s has given its definition of child sexual exploitation:

“a form of sexual abuse in which a young person is manipulated, or forced into taking part in a sexual act.”

Many abusers groom the young person into believing they can be trusted, and then exploit that trust to use the young person for their own ends. They are evil, manipulative people, using drugs, alcohol, attention, money, food or offers of accommodation to persuade their victims.

A key difference between sexual exploitation and sexual abuse is that young people who are exploited are groomed to believe, at least at the beginning, that they are involved in a genuine relationship with their exploiter. Young people who are sexually exploited are old enough to understand, and be attracted to, the concept of having a romantic relationship with the person who then abuses them. They might be vulnerable and come from a family that is devoid of love and affection, and as a result be searching for a relationship.

A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report stated the belief that the sexual exploitation of children is part of the larger problem of child sexual abuse, the vast majority of which goes unreported and untreated and takes place in the family home or among the extended family, and is perpetrated by people—in most cases men—who are related or known to the victim. I have come across terrible cases where the abuser was the mother or the uncles or a cousin. It can be claimed that the many recent high-profile cases of child sexual exploitation and abuse show many similar patterns, such as the abuse of power, children not being believed and adults with concerns not coming forward. Those are some of the main reasons why people are able to get away with abuse for years, and even today might not have been prosecuted.

There must be accountability in some form in every institution. I sit in my church and listen to the announcements regarding child protection seminars and rules and regulations for all people who deal with children, from the bus driver to the cleaner, and regardless of whether they have been working with children for one year or the past 15 years. It makes me happy that we have checks and measures in place even in non-governmental bodies. They are essential and must carry on.

No one is above the law of the land, no one deserves absolution for crimes unless it is through the courts, and no one should ever again suffer in silence and not know where to go for help. Yet that is clearly not enough; we also need to look at how we can ensure that the measures to be taken are workable and the aims are achievable.

Before entering Parliament, I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I was tasked with reading, and responding to, the Ryan report into the systematic abuse of children in the Republic of Ireland by those tasked with caring for them—by those who were supposed to have a supportive relationship with the children, but who abused that privilege. I have to say that I was left with chills after having read select parts of the Ryan report. I found it extremely difficult to read of the systematic abuse of up to 30,000 vulnerable children, and the subsequent cover-up, in the Republic of Ireland through the institution of the Catholic Church. I felt anger first, followed by sorrow at the thought of so many adults now struggling to deal with hateful childhood memories after being put into so-called “care” and at the thought of how that had affected their relationships even up to 50 years later.

When I hear about individual abuse cases during the course of my constituency work—including some horrendous and very difficult cases—I am chilled and hot at the same time. I am chilled as I cannot comprehend the evil that allows men and women to abuse the vulnerable in any way, and hot with anger that this kind of thing happens at all. For that reason, I have been working closely with the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which helps victims of abuse receive the support and help they need to make it through daily life. It has made it clear to me that we need to improve public perceptions about the way things are being handled. Victims—and, indeed, the concerned public as a whole—must be assured that the latest Savile revelations and other allegations will not result in endless, and ultimately useless, investigations, but that they will instead result in real and meaningful changes, as well as justice for those victims.

Many organisations have been almost overwhelmed by the number of calls to their helplines. When the Savile story broke, NAPAC received hundreds of calls from people who needed help because they had been abused by a monster—there is no other way of describing him. ChildLine has released statistics that break down the number of callers where age was known. The highest number of counselling interactions was with 12 to 15-year-olds—62%. The second highest number was with 16 to 18-year-olds—32%. Last came the interactions with 11-year-olds and under, at 6%. That indicates to me that there should perhaps be more education in the lower age groups, so that children know in school that they can talk to ChildLine about not only physical abuse, but inappropriate behaviour. I know that teachers do a great job, and I am always greatly indebted to them for what they do in teaching children, but more must be done to actively highlight this point to children of a young age. We in this House must do that and help to promote it. It is certainly difficult to explain to a child the difference between someone who is genuinely caring and someone who is perhaps grooming them for later abuse. We should have a concerted strategy in place, and I ask the Minister to outline, either at the end of this debate or in writing, the strategy and the co-operation that goes on between governmental and charitable bodies in this area. The charitable organisations want to help and to be involved, and their doors are open for any suggestions that can come from government.

There is an estimated shortfall in provision of between 51,000 and 88,000 therapeutic support places. That is a huge gap between the need and the service provision for children who have been sexually abused, including those who have been sexually exploited. The NSPCC, which does tremendous work with children and whose helplines are also overwhelmed by those who have been trying to get in contact, has stated that although there has been a gradual improvement in awareness within front-line agencies, more focus and drive is needed from central Government to disseminate and implement good practice effectively. The NSPCC believes it should be a statutory requirement that all pre-qualifying and post-qualifying training for professionals working with young people includes dealing with child sexual exploitation, and I agree. There are steps we can take. The organisations in this area can take them and the Government can suggest ways of taking them, and it is important that that happens. As other hon. Members have said in passionate speeches that showed a real understanding of what it means to be groomed and abused, where we can see a method whereby things can be improved and the Government can be involved in that, we hope that the measures will be in place.

This is a delicate issue. It is hard to hear what is happening behind closed doors in our so-called “modern society”, but the fact is that it is happening. So our duty, in this House and elsewhere, is to stop it happening and provide adequate support for victims. That is a huge undertaking, but if we cannot defend and help the most vulnerable in our society, as we are tasked with doing, we are not doing our job. Public confidence must be boosted but, more importantly, security and safety for those who have a story to tell and wounds to heal must be paramount. That is what we in this House are asking for today and what we are tasked with delivering. I support the thoughts that have been put forward, and I am sure that the House will also endorse them, but we need the changes in place that make a difference for the young people in our society.

Child Abuse Allegations (North Wales)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

One issue that HMIC will be examining in its work on Savile and on the lessons learned from this north Wales investigation and, if necessary, others, is how the police deal with these matters. One of HMIC’s tasks will be to ensure that forces are taking those lessons seriously and embedding them in what they do. Of course, once the college of policing is up and running, it will also be a body with responsibility for developing standards and good practice in a number of areas, and I would expect this to be one of those areas.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the right hon. Lady for today’s statement and for the speed with which the Government have brought it to the House. As is clear from the Jimmy Savile abuse and the north Wales care home abuse, paedophile groups were prevalent in many parts of the United Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s. Organisations that give help to abused children are almost being overwhelmed by the phone calls they are receiving—they are reporting a 100% increase in calls for help from young children. What assistance can she give organisations tasked with helping these vulnerable children?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the number of people now coming forward. As more revelations of a historical nature are made, I hope that people will feel better able to come forward to indicate their concerns and the problems they have been dealing with in their lives. As he says, a number of organisations are working with and helping those children. The issue of child protection is one that this House and the Government have taken and will continue to take seriously in terms of ensuring not only that there is child protection in the first place, but that when there are victims they can come forward and are given the support they need.

Extradition

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and congratulate her on a victory for the democratic process and for fair play. Can she confirm that a precedent has not been set with regard to the reasons to stop an extradition? What assurance can she give that the two outstanding extradition requests from the US, and indeed any future extradition requests, will not be affected by this decision?

[Mrs May]

My decision is based on the issue of Mr McKinnon’s human rights under article 3 and, as I have just indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), each individual case will be determined on its own merits.

Internet Trolling

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Lady is right. I hope to tease out some of the complexities of the legislation during my contribution, but it is not as easy as us just saying that trolls should be brought to book—I shall try to outline why.

Trolling has become a sick hobby for some and an increasing problem for dedicated police trying to monitor and respond to reported cases. Trolls are individuals intent on upsetting and offending people, often in their hour of grief and mourning, for a kind of pleasure that I must admit is totally alien to me and, I would think, to every person in this Chamber.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the House’s attention. Every Member will have examples of constituents who have been subjected to trolling, whether in the workplace, in schools or on the internet. Young people who write about the good things that have happened to them can find that they are attacked on the websites. The example of Tom Daley comes to mind, because of what happened to him at the Olympics, when a cheerful thing turned into nastiness. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some system in place, whether banning trolls from using the websites, legislation or whatever, to protect young people and those using the internet in an innocent fashion?

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree that the first thing to do is to try to identify those people causing the offence, which is very difficult because they hide behind the anonymity of a computer. The second part, of course, is to try to get the issue out among the general public, so that we can secure a culture change in society. One of the starting points is to highlight some of the celebrity trolling and the great offence it has caused, although it happens to ordinary people too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

Those are two of the most depressing and disgusting instances of trolling. It is not just about having a bit of fun; it can lead to serious consequences. I will return to the case of at least one of those people who, unfortunately, took their own life.

Part of the problem is that a degree of professionalism is associated with some trolls that might be too sophisticated for our laws to combat in their current guise. The relevant legislation on this matter predates the birth of social media such as Facebook and Twitter, which were not launched until 2004 and 2006 respectively. In fact, since becoming actively involved in this issue, I have increasingly come to understand that the law surrounding trolling is a minefield. If only Thomas Jefferson had been right when he said:

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”

A whole plethora of associated legislation could potentially be used against trolls, but there is nothing specific to outlaw the practice itself. The Suicide Act 1961 can still be used against those who encourage others to take their own lives, and it was specifically amended, with websites in mind and to simplify the law, by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. We also have the Telecommunications Act 1984; section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986; the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which created precedent by extending the time limit to investigate cases for summary offence; and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, under section 3(2) of which claimants may pursue a civil case for damages. Those are all relevant pieces of legislation, but none specifically identifies trolling as an offence, and every single one was passed before Facebook or Twitter existed. Even section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 predates social media, but it suggests that someone can be found to have broken the law if a message is sent that is

“grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

It goes on to say that the section

“targets false messages and persistent misuse intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.

The Crown Prosecution Service clarified this on its website by stating:

“If a message sent is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or false, it is irrelevant whether it was received. The offence is one of sending, so it is committed when the sending takes place.”

The CPS also confirms:

“A person guilty of an offence under the same section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine or to both.”

The crime is dealt with under the fixed penalty scheme. However, there is a degree of subjectivity when we talk about causing offence. Trolls often write that they do not know what might cause offence to a particular individual and so cannot be accused of so doing.

We can already see the pitfalls. There is ambiguity over whether a six-month sentence is long enough in order to send a message to trolls that such behaviour is not to be tolerated and, by extension, to seek fundamentally to change behaviour. There are also questions about whether, given the complexities surrounding false identities, there is enough time for the police fully to investigate complaints and for the CPS to deem whether a successful prosecution is likely. The Guardian recently reported that nearly 8% of Facebook profiles were fake, which equates to approximately 83 million accounts worldwide. This has become not just a national but an international problem.

The other relevant piece of legislation is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1 of which deals with the sending to another of

“any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient”.

The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings.

I believe that the greatest strength of both that Act and the Communications Act 2003 is that for an offence to be deemed to have been committed, the intended recipient of the message never has to receive it. That is pivotal in prosecuting RIP trolls, because more often than not the intended recipient of their bile is deceased. It is therefore right and proper that it is the sending that is an offence, and that proof is not needed that a person has received the communication in question. There still has to be intent to cause offence or distress.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore feel that there is a greater role for the police to play? If the legislation is in place and there is an opportunity to prosecute, should the police do more?

[Steve Rotheram]

It is always difficult to say whether the police should do more, and part of the problem is the complexities of the gaps in legislation which I have just identified. That has to be the starting place for the House to consider seriously whether a Bill should be introduced to close the loopholes that people have been able to wriggle out of.

There have recently been two prosecutions for racially motivated tweets. One was sent to the former footballer Stan Collymore and the other was sent in the wake of the collapse on the pitch of Fabrice Muamba. Both were vile comments, but the sanctions imposed by judges were met with condemnation from certain sections of the public and disdain from others for being too lenient.

We must work harder to raise the issue of trolling so that people know unequivocally that they should not say something online that they would not say face to face. The case of Natasha MacBryde, which was mentioned earlier, is perhaps the most high-profile case of trolling, because an 18-week prison sentence was handed out to Sean Duffy, who admitted that he was hooked on the sick craze. That is far and away the severest sentence that a court has handed out to date.

Many months before the release of the Hillsborough independent panel report, I spoke to Facebook about a page that had been set up on its site called “96 Wasn’t Enough”. It informed me that the content of the page and/or postings on the site did not constitute a breach of its community standards, and that there was no need to remove the page because there was not an implied or explicit threat. I add that I do not condone trolling by anyone. Alan Davies received some horrendous abuse over his ill-judged comments about Hillsborough, and I was quick to condemn hate messages aimed towards him and his family. I think it is better to educate than to abuse.

Trolling is not about normal social discourse, or even about disagreeing vehemently with someone who has a contrary opinion. The test should be quite simple: would someone be happy to put their name to what they have said under a false identity? We are not talking about cases of whistleblowing, in which it would be understandable to anonymise a person’s details. If the answer to that question is that someone would not be happy to be identified, we have to ask why. Why would somebody need to hide their identity under such circumstances?

Having listened carefully to what Facebook had to say when I met it, I have developed a better understanding of what it determines to be acceptable. Although I may disagree with the grey areas within the boundaries that social media sites impose, I understand that they are as much about the sharing of information as they are about people getting a better understanding of local, national, regional and international cultures, events in history and universally famous tragedies. However, I have severe reservations about the ability of social media sites to understand fully the gross offence caused by certain types of message, especially to families and friends of deceased victims. Surely common sense must prevail. All too often, the benefit of the doubt falls in favour of the rights of the troll over those of their innocent target.

Trolling is not about disagreeing with another person’s perspective. It is not about telling somebody straight what they think about them, or that they think that the other person is wrong. Trolling is not even about arguing with somebody online about sensitive issues. It is about setting out, intentionally and deliberately, to cause gross offence to another, or to say something menacing.

I reiterate that I hope that tonight’s debate is just the beginning. I am keen to hear others’ views and to learn new things about trolling. Will the Minister therefore answer the following questions? Do the Government fully appreciate the escalating problem of trolling? What monitoring of activity are they undertaking? Are the Government satisfied with the prosecution rate of trolls, or does the Minister believe, like me, that the number of trolling cases far outweighs that of convictions? Has the Minister met the police and/or the CPS recently to discuss the obstacles to prosecuting trolls? What time frame have the Government scheduled to look at ways in which to address the problem? Could an amendment to legislation be made in this Parliament, if the Minister believes that to be appropriate? What discussions has he had with social media sites about the need to strengthen the community standards that govern best practice on them? Does he agree that they could and should do far more to aid the police with prosecuting trolls?

I believe that the law of the land needs to be constantly updated to reflect social and technological advancements. However, I also appreciate that, in the case of trolling, concerted effort by Parliament to change online culture may well prove to be just as important as an amendment to existing legislation.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I acknowledge the Select Committee’s interest. Indeed, I gave evidence to the Committee, and I remember the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me during the evidence sessions. The matter is being considered, in relation to the Select Committee’s report and in the context of the recommendation made by the independent reviewer. All I can say is that we will make a further announcement in due course. Unfortunately, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a more specific answer now, but I acknowledge the point that he is making, and we will respond to the points made by the Select Committee and by the independent reviewer shortly.

We recognise that proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, the proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of the organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that could arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual was a member or supporter of the relevant organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on that organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, she firmly believes that IM is involved in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to give them the following information. IM is a terrorist organisation based in India. It emerged in 2007. It uses violence in its attempts to achieve its stated objectives of creating an Islamic state in India and of implementing sharia law there.

The organisation has frequently perpetrated attacks on civilian targets, such as markets, with the intention of maximising casualties. In May 2008, for example, a spate of bomb detonations in the city of Jaipur killed 63, and in September last year an explosion outside the high court in Delhi reportedly killed 12 and injured 65. IM has sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. An example of that was an attack on a prayer ceremony in Varanasi, which killed a child, in December 2010.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand and wholeheartedly support the reason for proscribing the organisation here, but is it proscribed in India as well?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, the organisation is proscribed in India and in several other countries, including the United States and New Zealand. The proscription here will align the UK with the emerging international consensus.

It is important, in the context of this order, to state that the group is also known to target areas popular with tourists. A shooting incident in Old Delhi wounded two Taiwanese tourists in September 2010, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to detonate an explosive device at the scene. The organisation has also publicly threatened to attack British tourists, so it clearly poses a threat to British nationals in India.

European Convention on Human Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary and Immigration Minister on bringing this matter before the House. I fully understand the reason for the debate, but I hope that the clarification given in the letter that hon. Members have seen will ensure that there is no Division.

Everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, home and correspondence, as many other hon. Members have said. This has been used by many people, however, to claim that anyone has a right to live and settle, with their family, where they choose and so can come to the UK, with or without a visa, to have a private family life. It must never be forgotten, however, that the right is a qualified not an absolute right, and that qualifications are essential in respect of immigration. We must therefore retain the right of the Home Secretary to control immigration through the rules already implemented and what is proposed today.

The Home Secretary’s clarification of the rules for the courts has assured me and, I hope, the House. The Human Rights Act was a good thing in principle, but once lawyers became involved, it changed, as is so often the case. I am reminded of that great and famous Shakespearean quote, “First kill all the lawyers.” That is a bit drastic, I know—I am not saying we should do it—but it is how many people feel when they hear some European judgments. The status of our judiciary has been perpetually challenged by the European Court in cases presided over by people with questionable experience making questionable rulings. As is often the case with Europe, we sign up to something in theory that turns out to be completely different in practice. That is our frustration with Europe and many of its rulings.

The ruling on the Abu Qatada case revealed that seven of the 11 top judges at the European Court of Human Rights had little or no judicial experience; one was 33 when appointed and had no senior judging experience. British judges go through years of training in the law before their application will ever be considered. To have such under-qualified people overruling our own judges is a slight, but worse still, it is dangerous and leaves us with our hands tied on too many occasions. That is the reason for this debate, I believe.

In the past, and even this very day, article 8 issues are being raised in asylum applications or as a basis for standalone applications for leave to remain in the UK. They have also been raised in appeals against deportation or removal. This was not the reason the article was created; it was not meant to be a free pass into the UK and the benefits of living in such a great nation. According to the Courts Service, in 2010, 233 people won their appeal against deportation, and of those 102 were successful on article 8 grounds. According to figures from the independent chief inspector of UKBA, however, in 2010, 425 foreign national prisoners won their appeals against deportation, and these were won primarily on article 8 grounds.

Whichever figures are right, the matter must be addressed, which is what I think the Home Secretary is trying to do through the motion. While our immigration rules should always take note of human rights issues, they must be based on the needs of the country, which must have the right to caretake those very rights. Article 8 is increasingly difficult to impose legally; it is time to get this right, which is what the motion does.

I have received correspondence from groups stating that the removal of paragraph 395C of the immigration rules is tantamount to sacrilege. That paragraph stated that no one could be removed from the UK if it would contravene the UK’s obligations under the Geneva convention on refugees or the European convention on human rights. It set out a range of factors that UKBA had to consider before deciding to remove a person from the UK and reflected the considerations necessary for assessing compatibility with article 8. Those considerations included the person’s length of residence in the UK, the strength of their connections with the UK, their personal history, their character and conduct, their domestic circumstances and, importantly, any previous criminal record.

Other briefings, however, point out that deleting the paragraph has not altered the UK’s obligations under the convention. We are still bound by the rules, but that does not mean that we cannot implement our own rules. In my view, we have not yet given our sovereignty to Europe. The Home Secretary has confirmed that there will be safeguards for those who have been subjected to torture in their homeland—an assurance that many Members have sought and received. I agree with the Home Secretary in asserting her right, and the right of every UK citizen, to have control over immigration in this country.

I am not by nature someone who scaremongers. If I were, I would be reciting the figures, which are screaming out for an immigration policy change. What I will say is that if we deny ourselves the right to allow or disallow people into the country, will there even be a United Kingdom in the future, or will we be like other countries that have put their trust in the European Union only to find themselves on the brink of demise?

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Several times in his speech the hon. Gentleman has referred interchangeably to the European Union and Europe when discussing the European convention on human rights. It is very important that we make the distinction in this House and in public, because the public are making the same association between the European Union and the European Court, and it is very damaging when trying to understand both institutions and separate them in the public mind.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly we want to focus on where the responsibility for this issue lies.

I want to make a quick comment about what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said. We agree on many things. I am a descendant from an Ulster Scot from the lowlands of Scotland, so I have an affinity with the Scottish nation. It is very obvious which papers he does not read in his house, but it is also obvious what his concerns are, and they are rightful concerns. I disagree with him on independence for Scotland, and I also disagree with him on the issue we are discussing, but I am sure that there are many other issues on which we will agree in future.

We have the right to make immigration control rules. As a nation, it is not in our nature to abuse human rights—that is not what this debate is about—and we will certainly not start doing that with these rules, especially when there is an underlying onus to consider the human rights implications in every decision our judiciary makes. I therefore support these rules and the guidance, as well as the clarification that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration have provided. I believe they are necessary and important, and the people I represent want to see them in place.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sandra Osborne]

Yes; that is typical of how staff have been treated in the agency.

The chances of a smooth transition to the referral line and retention of expertise, as the Government claim, are therefore negligible. Given the one third of operators who are disabled, one fifth from BME communities and one fifth who are carers, what equality impact assessment has been made of the changes to the helpline provision? Why the delay with the announcement of the new helpline provider? The announcement was supposed to be made in mid-February, but it is now rumoured to have been pushed back to the middle of May.

The closure of regional offices will exacerbate the problems of advice deserts, where no other advisory services exist, and the commission will lose its vital link to the public and vital access to crucial evidence of emerging issues. Instead of remaining regionally focused, teams have been reassigned to undertake national support work. The loss of those offices and the intelligence-gathering work that they do at grass-roots level, which my hon. Friend mentioned, will have a significant impact on the understanding of equality and human rights across Great Britain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the House. Does she agree that in these days of cuts, which we are now shaping up to, there is a danger that we are preventing some people from taking advantage of legal guidance and legal aid? As I suspect that she is aware, we should consider one section of the community in particular: ladies should get legal aid and advice at the time of their life when they need it most.

[Sandra Osborne]

I could not agree more, and I hope to mention that later.

What research has been done to ascertain the impact of the closure of regional offices on the problem of advice deserts and gathering evidence on emerging local issues?

Legal grants—projects providing specialist legal advice and representation in equality and human rights—ended on 31 March, and strategic grants providing guidance, advice and advocacy services, infrastructure development, capacity building and good relations will end in March 2013. Many disability and race groups have benefited from the EHRC grants programme, as they did before the EHRC’s creation. A grant received by a local equality body from the EHRC could, and often did, lead to additional sources of revenue from other funders, such as the lottery, charities and local authorities.

The warnings by experts such as Race on the Agenda in 2007 that the local BME infrastructure would suffer significant funding reductions have been realised, not because of the EHRC’s creation, but because of Government cuts to the EHRC grants programme. The Government have argued that the grants function, among other services, should close because they claim grants have little impact and the service function has not been well managed. Although there is an ongoing complaint about the Government’s statement in this regard, it is perhaps most telling to note that the experts and stakeholders also challenge the Government’s assertion. A survey of providers by the Discrimination Law Association indicated that, without EHRC grants, advice organisations such as citizens advice bureaux and law centres would not be able to sustain their services and that some might have to close down completely. My question to the Minister is, from whom have the Government and/or EHRC received protestations about the withdrawal of the grants programme?

The EHRC’s mediation services have ended. Contrary to the Government’s claims that legal aid will take up the shortfall, once the legal aid reforms are implemented, the only legal aid available for discrimination cases will be for goods, facilities and services cases, which are in the minority and are complex and involve large sums. Employment cases will not be eligible for any legal aid support.

I want to turn now to the loss of independence and United Nations “A” status. In 2009, the commission became one of just 70 United Nations “A” status accredited national human rights institutions. The EHRC is Britain’s first accredited NHRI. The “A” status confers special rights and entitlements to work with the UN Human Rights Council. To determine this status, the UN reviewed the work and structure of the commission at the time and found it to be compliant with the Paris principles. Key Paris principles are that the NHRI must be independent of government and not be subject to financial control that might affect its independence. The commission must also have adequate funding to conduct its activities. The loss of independence, lack of financial control and lack of funding due to 62% cuts mean that this status is in jeopardy.

The commission recently published its framework agreement with the Home Office, which includes details of spending controls and an obligation on the commission to provide a business case for approval to the Home Office’s director of communications for all projects with an element of spend on advertising and marketing. If the project is spending more than £100,000, the business case, once approved by the HO director of communication, should go to the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities. Once HO Ministers have approved it, the EHRC must complete the Cabinet Office’s exemption template and submit the case for approval to the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

The agreement also states that the Home Office should receive near final versions of external EHRC communications 48 hours before issue. I do not know whether that is independence. Many MPs will be surprised that the framework agreement dictates how the commission interacts with Parliament and yet states categorically that the commission must be politically neutral and abide by the Cabinet Office’s rules on lobbying for non-departmental public bodies.

The commission is also instructed to issue guidance to staff, outlining when and how briefings for Parliament are developed, the style of briefings and how briefings should be internally cleared. Does the Minister believe that the framework agreement complies with the Paris principles, particularly relating to independence? Has he assessed the impact of the proposed budget cut to £26 million by the end of this year on the commission’s independence?

The current restructuring at the EHRC repeats many of the mistakes identified in the Public Accounts Committee report of 2010. The report highlighted the problem of staff with valuable skills leaving through an early exit scheme and went on to recommend that the Treasury and the Cabinet Office should ensure that they provide clear guidelines on the need to consider the retention of key skills when devising early exit schemes.

According to an answer to a parliamentary question, the EHRC spent £500,000 a month at one stage on consultancy fees and expenses for interim staff who are leading the work on reforming the commission. That is neither an acceptable use of public money, nor is it in the interests of the taxpayer. These major changes are occurring as questions about the commission’s new chair go unanswered. What assurances can the Minister give that the commission will not lose more skilled and experienced staff through more early exit schemes and that it will not replace staff already lost with costly consultants in the future? Can he say whether the Treasury and the Cabinet Office have produced the guidelines recommended by the PAC to ensure the retention of skilled staff, and has the commission followed that guidance? When will its next chair be announced?

Key stakeholders who responded to the Government consultation on the future of the EHRC, which was called “Building a fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission”, made clear the need to maintain the EHRC’s funding and remit. However, the Government have so far refused to publish the results of the consultation in detail, despite freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions and an official letter to the Home Secretary from the general secretary of the TUC. So I have another question for the Minister. I am asking lots of questions, but that is because there are lots of questions to be answered. Will he publish the responses to the Government consultation on the future of the EHRC and, given the Home Office’s report on its own website that the majority of respondents opposed the changes to the EHRC, will the Minister halt further cuts?

There are many reasons for the EHRC to be proud of its achievements in its first two years. In fact, those achievements are too numerous to mention all of them in the time that I have available today. To mention just a couple of them, the EHRC has ensured protection against discrimination in employment for 6 million carers and exposed exploitation of migrant workers in the meat-processing sector.

There are still many equality challenges facing Britain today that require the presence of an effective EHRC. The annual reports of the Tribunals Service show a substantial increase in the number of claims lodged in employment tribunals since 2008-09. In addition, there are planned cuts to legal aid worth £350 million, and there will be a £1.166 billion reduction in grants to local government. At the same time, confidence in the voluntary sector is at an all-time low, and a voluntary sector in crisis cannot fill the vacuum left by funding cuts to local government grants, legal aid and the EHRC. A Government who take equality seriously would be committed to a future-proofed EHRC.

However, I acknowledge—as do many of the EHRC’s natural allies—that it has not all been plain sailing for the EHRC. Its first three sets of accounts were qualified by the National Audit Office, and obvious tensions between staff, senior management and the commissioners have no doubt had an impact on the EHRC’s ability to achieve its goals. The Government have sought to attack and undermine the work of the EHRC, particularly because of financial management issues. However, responsibility for those issues does not lie with those who work on the helpline, the grants team and the mediation service, or in regional offices. Any such issues should be sorted out, but they should not be used as an excuse to cut essential services to those who are in need and to those who are suffering discrimination.

As I have already said, despite concerns about the EHRC’s performance, non-governmental organisations, unions and others still want to see an effective, robust and independent EHRC, and I agree with them as the chair of the all-party group on equalities. Those bodies want a future in which an outward-looking, integrated and well-resourced commission that is in touch with the grass-roots concerns and needs of ordinary people provides much-needed enforcement powers, advice and support to the people of Britain, as they face the dire economic challenges brought about by this Government’s policies.