Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I am disappointed in that question. Secular and humanist are not the same. I am not a humanist. I would want a purely secular ceremony were I to be marrying, but others want a ceremony that reflects their beliefs. Humanism is recognised as a strand of belief. A ceremony to accommodate that deep-held feeling has to be organised and provided if we are to meet the legitimate desires of our humanist friends and neighbours.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be well aware of my opinions and views on this matter. In Committee evidence, there was among the Churches and other religious organisations an overwhelming majority opposed to humanist weddings. Is she saying we should ignore that vast strand of public opinion—the many millions of people who oppose this—in favour of a small minority?

[Kate Green]

With the greatest respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman has any evidence whatever that millions of people are opposed to this proposal.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No, not until I have dealt with the question fully. I do not believe the hon. Gentleman has evidence of millions of Church members opposing this proposal. I fully accept that there is quite likely to be a lack of enthusiasm among those at the top of the Church hierarchy, but I would not necessarily take even that for granted in all cases. Many people, including people of faith, attend humanist weddings, and value and celebrate their participation in them, either as family or friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weatherley]

Of course I have total respect for the Attorney-General’s opinions, but as we all know, in law and legal advice, there is no firm decision or certainty until something goes to court. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, I have yet to hear a cohesive argument for why what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) describes would be the case. Just saying it time and time again does not make it right. If someone can say why that would happen, we would of course listen. The last thing I want to do is delay the implementation of same-sex marriage, as my hon. Friend will know, but we are in danger of missing a huge opportunity to extend equal marriage to a huge section of our population who at the moment are being ignored.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should ignore the advice and legal opinion offered by the Attorney-General? Does he think that we should just put that aside and push ahead with this provision?

[Mike Weatherley]

People ignore legal advice for all sorts of reasons. I am saying that I would like that legal opinion to be put to the test. We should not simply say, “Oh well, if that is the case, we will just sit back and not do this.” It is up to us to find a way of doing it. I do not happen to think that that interpretation is the correct one, and I would like to see it put to the test, as would many other people.

It is evident from what is happening in Scotland that there is a huge latent demand for humanist marriages, as well as for equal marriages. If humanism was right for my father, I for one would like to see equal marriages extended to include humanist marriage ceremonies. I would find it odd if those who supported same sex equal marriage did not also support equal marriage for others, which is why I am supporting the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I step back and wonder whether all these amendments are required right now and whether this is where society wants to go right now. Many Members have been forced to make a decision, and there is naturally a tendency to want to support the Bill and not to view it as out of place. My question is why these issues are being brought to our attention at this moment in time. As I say, I did not see the deluge of calls for this measure, although the trajectory of society moving forward means that this is very much how we would anticipate the Bill and its amendments.

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to conduct this debate, which has prompted us to think about the wider issues of the role, purpose and values of marriage in our society. We are debating amendments relating to gender recognition and so forth, which has educated us about the historic role of the state in respect of the Church.

The Bible is full of commands that are unknown or ignored by many Christians today. That reflects how society is very much moving forward. Wives used to be subject to their husbands; children arguing with their parents used to be taken out and stoned to death; women used to have to cover their heads in church. Those things are either unknown by Christians today or simply ignored because they have no place in modern society. The Church has changed its views over the years—indeed, the Bill has changed as we have debated it over these last few months.

The Church remains divided on many subjects: the burning of witches, abortion, contraception, the status of illegitimate children and so forth. On a wider perspective, it is the role of Parliament to challenge the Church on these issues and through the Bill and amendments, as we did on the grander issues in the past. Slavery was indeed defended by many bishops because of the Bible; the Old Testament regulated for slavery; divorce was clearly condemned by Jesus in the Gospels, and those who had divorced were not permitted to remarry. In the Church of England, marriage was “Till death us do part”; it was long thought to be lifelong and indissoluble, yet divorce was formally introduced in this place in 1857.

What, then, are my thoughts on this Bill? I am absolutely supportive of the concept, but, like many of the Government amendments, it is ahead of its time. That puts many of us in an awkward position. Do we support the Government amendments and the Bill, which I believe to be somewhat messy and not well handled, albeit on a subject to which I do not object. Should I vote against the Bill and the amendments for which many of my constituents have called? A significant number of them were moved enough to call me to make sure that I did not support specific amendments or indeed the Bill as a whole. Then there is the final option, which is to abstain on the amendments and the Bill, thus honouring many of the calls not to support the Bill’s proposals while ensuring that my vote is honest to myself.

I shall conclude because I know others wish to participate in this important Report debate. I hope I shall not digress too far from the subject matter by mentioning that the FTSE 100 yesterday recorded its highest value in 24 years; despite being a significant economic indicator, it got no mention in this place. I hope that after Third Reading later today, we can back to considering the economy. The subject of gay marriage is significant and should be brought into law, but I remain to be convinced that it should be a priority for now. Those who will benefit from the change in the law are calling for the change now.

[Jim Shannon]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to amendments 27 and 28. It will not be a surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to hear that I am deeply unhappy about the Bill. I have said that in Public Bill Committee and in this Chamber in the earlier debate, I said it yesterday and I will reiterate it today.

I want to thank the Government for at least listening to me and my party on one issue. The Bill proposes that same-sex marriages formed in England and Wales should be recognised as civil partnerships in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is consistent with the way in which overseas same-sex marriages are currently recognised in the House.

I was a member of the Committee that scrutinised the Bill. When I say “scrutinised”, I mean that the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) scrutinised it very thoroughly. Most of the Committee’s members, however, sat in silence throughout the five days of our debates on the clauses, and most of them tabled precious few amendments. They seemed to see themselves as cheerleaders for the Bill, rather than the scrutinisers that they should have been. Never before, during my short time in the House of Commons, have I known members of the official Opposition to abdicate their responsibility to hold the Government to account quite so thoroughly.

Some of us did table amendments, and took the time and the trouble to speak. I pointed out to the Committee that Scottish Ministers were to be asked to give their consent to legal changes allowing recognition of English same-sex marriages, whereas Northern Ireland Ministers were merely to be consulted. Amendments 27 and 28 give us an opportunity to align the law with that in Scotland, which is good news.

As I said in Committee and have said in the Chamber, the Bill has generated the biggest single postbag I have received on any issue in all my years as an elected representative—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am trying to be as tolerant as possible, but we are discussing this group of amendments, not previous amendments and what happened in Committee. I am trying to be fair, but we are in danger of not remaining where we should be.

[Jim Shannon]

Amendments 27 and 28 provide for “consent”, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remove the reference to consultation. Why is that important? It is important to the people whom I represent in Northern Ireland because it introduces accountability to the process. Some 1,700 of my constituents have contacted me about the issue: members of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists, members of the Elim Pentacostal Church, Baptist Brethren, evangelical groups, Roman Catholics, Sikhs and Muslims. Members of faith groups throughout Northern Ireland have asked us, as Members of Parliament, to push for consent rather than consultation, and we have done so.

I believe that when we convey opinions about the importance of faith and religious persuasions, as we have in the House today and as we did in Committee, those opinions cannot be ignored. It has grieved me when some members of the Committee, and perhaps some Members in the House, have brushed aside the opinions of those with hard-held religious views.

Several of my fellow Northern Ireland Members have received similar amounts of correspondence from constituents, all of them pushing for consent rather than consultation. Only 17 of my constituents who contacted me were in favour of the changes. Theirs was very much a minority view, but it is one that we must respect and take on board.

The Northern Ireland Assembly will make the final decision on the issue, which is why amendments 27 and 28 are important. The Assembly has rejected same-sex marriage on two occasions under the consultation process. The first occasion was on 1 October 2012, when it was rejected by 50 votes to 45. Then, on 29 April this year, it was rejected by 53 votes to 42.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have been generous, and have allowed what I thought was a kind of preamble, but we are actually discussing a group of amendments entitled “Gender, benefits and miscellaneous”. That is the problem that I am facing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman must be getting there. I am sure that he is, and will confine himself to the subjects under discussion from now on.

[Jim Shannon]

I may have been a wee bit over-ambitious in trying to express some of my points of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate your generosity. I will return to the issues directly.

The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), confirmed to me, in a letter that I received yesterday, that

“Amendments 27 and 28 to clause 15(6) of the Bill make all orders and regulations made under the Bill subject to the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel if those amendments would otherwise fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

The amendments have clearly given the Assembly the authority to make a final decision on the issue. That is very significant, and I thank both Ministers for what they have done.

This issue is immensely important to us in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to a massive postbag. I thank Ministers again for enabling consent rather than consultation to be enshrined in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I could not quite hear everything that the hon. Lady said, but my consideration is that it is down to Northern Ireland to respond. I am assured that that is right, but if that is not correct I will write to her to clarify that.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps the Minister’s correspondence could clarify the matter. I believe that the authority lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps she might like to reply, if that is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mrs Grant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am being reassured from both flanks, and from much higher authorities than me, that that is the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.

I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Jim Shannon]

I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.

There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:

“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”

Claims Management Companies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The claims management industry has grown dramatically in recent years. In 2007, it was estimated that there were 400 claims management companies. There are now more than 3,000. The value of the industry in terms of annual turnover continues to grow and is now estimated to be £774 million, which is up 33% on last year.

Unfortunately, not all claims management companies behave responsibly. Consumer research conducted by the Association of British Insurers found that about four out of five adults in the UK had received unsolicited texts encouraging them to pursue claims for accidents or mis-sold financial products. In just 8% of cases, the individual who was contacted had had an accident or held a policy against which there might be a claim.

A Which? mystery shopping exercise found widespread rule breaches, misleading statements and unfair contract terms by a significant number of claims management companies. If you have received a text message or seen a TV advert telling you that you have thousands of pounds of unclaimed payment protection insurance, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are not alone. The research by Which? shows that 93% of people have.

In 2011-12, the claims management regulator received 10,000 complaints about claims management companies from consumers and firms. The cold calls, high-pressure tactics and misinformation that are used mean that the behaviour of some CMCs is extremely damaging to members of the public, particularly elderly and vulnerable people. Furthermore, the damage to businesses from the tenacity and dishonesty of some CMCs is very concerning. As the Motor Accident Solicitors Society points out, problems with the regulatory structure have allowed such bad practices to flourish. That is why that organisation and others have called consistently for better regulation.

The mis-selling of payment protection insurance by banks was one of the biggest mis-selling scandals ever. The courts have rightly said that those who were mis-sold PPI must be compensated. However, when claims management companies enter into the fray, further injustices occur, as a scandal of mis-selling begets a scandal of misclaiming. The claims management companies wilfully exploit the structures that are in place to protect consumers by submitting countless claims that have little or no merit, with no fear of a financial penalty. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Every one of us as elected representatives has had complaints from our constituents on this matter. One of my concerns is that when people who are vulnerable financially receive information about such claims, they think that there is nothing to lose and that they will get the money. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is time that these companies were regulated so that they do not raise people’s expectations so that they think they will get the money, when at the end of the day they will not and, indeed, will be out of pocket?

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

So, at this late hour, we finally reach the Third Reading of the Crime and Courts Bill and gather to bid it farewell and send it on its way back to the other place. I have to say that it is lovely to see the Home Secretary in her place. We missed her last week—at least on this side of the House—and now that she is here, perhaps she would care to intervene and tell us what her alcohol pricing policy is. We would love to hear it, because unfortunately, her crime prevention Minister, the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), struggled to tell us what it was. He took the flak for her, and given the news about his new arrival, she really does owe him one. She needs to ensure that she pays that debt.

Opposition Members owe thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), all of whom have led our efforts on the Bill.

We support the Bill overall, and we support many of its key measures and objectives. We clearly support the Leveson measures that we have discussed extensively this afternoon, and the aims to strengthen the fight against organised crime. We also support the efforts to increase judicial diversity, although we wish that the Government could have done more in that regard, and we support the action on drug-driving.

The Home Secretary has done an admirable job of attempting to create a theme in what many Members have repeatedly described as a Christmas tree of a Bill that has had an increasing number of different things attached to it during its passage through the House. That leaves the right hon. Lady and me to take it in turns to play the fairy on the top in the debate this evening.

Although we support the principles behind many of the key measures, the detailed debates have revealed considerable weaknesses in the Government’s implementation plans and a chaotic approach to some serious aspects of the fight against crime and terrorism. The Home Secretary made great play of the issues regarding the National Crime Agency, which, as she knows, will simply pick up much of the valuable work now being done by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. However, the Bill will leave this House with the Government still having failed to reach agreement on how serious organised crime will be dealt with in Northern Ireland. The Bill will abolish SOCA, which has done a considerable amount of work on human trafficking, drug smuggling and other organised crime in Northern Ireland, yet the National Crime Agency will be unable to operate there or to continue any of that work because the Government have failed to reach agreement on that matter. We have no idea how long it will take to sort that out, or how that work will be done in the meantime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a matter of concern that we read in the papers back home today that someone who is involved in crime in south Armagh has been able to launder some £85 million through various banks. That is an example of an issue that cannot be addressed, and it is down to the intransigence of Sinn Fein at this time.

[Yvette Cooper]

There are some very serious gaps as a result of the Bill. The Government chose the timing of its passing. I think it was nearly two years ago that the Home Secretary announced that she wanted to replace SOCA with the NCA, yet they have failed to reach agreement on the way in which the NCA should operate in Northern Ireland. That is a matter of concern. As a result of the joint work between SOCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, more than £13 million of drugs were seized, 33 potential victims of human trafficking were rescued, and more than £4 million of criminal assets and 23 million counterfeit and smuggled cigarettes were seized. There were also 23 criminal convictions for serious environmental offences.

That was all as a result of the important joint work being done by the PSNI and SOCA. As of tonight, however, we do not know whether any of that work will continue, or how and when a solution will be reached. And if that was not bad enough, there is no agreement on handling the overseas proceeds of crime with Northern Ireland either. Again, the Home Secretary made great play of the importance of overseas and global reach. Criminals in England, Scotland and Wales, however, who have assets abroad will rightly find under this Bill that they can be seized by the courts, but because of the Government’s failure to reach agreement, criminals in Northern Ireland will be able to keep those assets abroad untouched. Again, we have no idea when that will be sorted out. The Home Secretary chose the timetable, yet she failed to get agreement and has created this gap.

On terrorism, too, the Home Secretary’s approach is chaotic. After the Government were defeated in the other place on their plans on counter-terror and the National Crime Agency, she told the House on Second Reading that she would “listen and reflect” on the concerns of the experts, including the former Metropolitan Police Commissioners in the other place, but she has done nothing of the sort. Instead, at the last minute, she has simply reinstated an order-making power to deal with a major change to counter-terror action in Britain, yet with no reason given in her Third Reading speech when she had the opportunity to do so. She has told us repeatedly that she has not made a decision whether or not to transfer the powers from the Met to the NCA. In that case, why put an order-making power in the Bill? We can guarantee that there will be another Christmas tree Bill coming from the Home Office, if not many more, which will give her the opportunity to do so and to have a proper debate after she has taken a decision, when she can set out for Parliament the grounds for her decision rather than trying to pre-empt serious debate—either in this place, or in the other place—despite the serious concerns raised with her. I am sure that the other place will want to look at this again.

We have had other concerns, such as the watering down of protection against abuse by bailiffs; ignoring the concerns of the Lords; removing the obligation inserted by the other place to address problems for women offenders; the lack of implementation plans for drug-driving; removing immigration visitor appeals even though a high proportion of decisions are wrong in the first place; and the Government’s failure to bring in the stronger immigration enforcement powers we called for. We are concerned that the Government were late in bringing forward the proposals on a forum bar without consultation. I hope that the Home Secretary has got the details of this right. Clearly, it is extremely complex, but given the importance of extradition issues, it is unfortunate that she still proposes to pull out of the European arrest warrant.

There are some very important issues in the Bill, and we will support it. The Government have, however, wrongly ditched some of the improvements that the noble Lords made, and I hope they will be made to think again. We will support the Bill tonight; we hope the Lords will improve it; and we very much hope that the Government will sort out the serious gaps and failings in the detail and implementation that these debates have exposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment. The Conservative party—although not the Opposition, from what we have heard today—is committed to the need for change and to ensuring that international human rights frameworks do not inappropriately intrude on the democratic decisions of this Parliament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that an essential part of probation for reoffenders is monitored interaction within the community, and that community service can be a useful tool for reintegration in society?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that prisoners reintegrate. That work should start when prisoners are still in custody and continue through the gate into the community. We want to see more of that and will encourage it in any new system that we design.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

I shall come on to that in a while.

I was making the point that back then, Parliament acted as a brake on women’s ordination, but in the intervening two decades there has been a huge change in attitudes in both Houses to gender equality in general and on the role of women in the Church in particular, as we have experienced and witnessed women’s ministry in practice in our communities. My assessment is that when a resurrected Women Bishops Measure comes before the House, the main danger for it is not that it will contain insufficient safeguards for its opponents but that it will contain too many and be deemed inconsistent with widely accepted views on equality.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Figures that have just been released show that half of those who voted against the legislation to allow female bishops were women. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on that?

[Mr Bradshaw]

The hon. Gentleman will have to examine the Church personship of those particular members of Synod, but it is not a secret that there are as many female members of the conservative evangelical and conservative Catholic wings of Synod as there are male members. We do not necessarily make choices and choose values based on our gender.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

If people have injuries that qualify, and if they are resident in this country, they will still qualify—although things might depend on how long they had been in the country. As I hope the all-party group would accept, the overall package of services for the victims of trafficking—which I know a bit about from my previous life as Immigration Minister—is considerably better than it was in the past.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Over the last month or so, we have learned about some truly horrendous past sexual abuse of children. Many of those offences took place up to 30 or 40 years ago, so many of the perpetrators are now dead and gone. The victims who 30 years later are coming to terms with the trauma of what happened to them need to be assured that the CICS is available for them. Can the Minister assure us today that they will be able to claim?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, especially given the current circumstances that he describes, and I am able to give him that assurance: the claims officer will have the discretion to consider claims that may have been delayed for a very long time for precisely the reasons the hon. Gentleman sets out.

There has been criticism of the removal of the possibility of compensation for victims suffering from post-traumatic epileptic fits. Critics need to know that where there is a continuing disability—including where the victim’s condition is controlled by medication—an award may still be made.

The right hon. Member for Tooting spoke about the removal of awards for those who have suffered scarring. That is an important point, but it needs to be understood that if the level of visible disfigurement is anything other than minor, the victim will still be eligible to make a claim. The rationale behind the removal of the lower bands is that they are the least serious injuries in the tariff and victims tend to recover from them fairly quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

I would suggest introducing progressive taxation, but perhaps we can have that debate on another occasion. We have this valuable opportunity to debate the changes that the Government have been trying to sneak through, and I will not be pushed in another direction, because we need proper scrutiny.

A number of CICB cases have been dealt with recently, which has led to additional funds being paid out, as the former Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), is well aware. The reason for that is partly the policy under the criminal injuries compensation scheme to delay payment in many types of cases, particularly those relating to children, such as shaken-baby cases, and other cases in which people have suffered injury. The authority’s policy is to wait and see how the person recovers and what the long-term implications of the damage are.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady touches on the issue of children. Is she aware that children whose lives have been wrecked as a consequence of illicit drug taking and alcohol abuse by their mothers during pregnancy will not be able to claim? Is there not something seriously wrong there?

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. At the moment, such children are entitled to compensation, but they will not be so under the new scheme. Most people who look at the new rules will feel that again the Government are targeting the most vulnerable in order to make savings in the Justice budget, but that is definitely not the place where we should be looking for savings.

I was interested to hear what the former Minister had to say. Some of his arguments today were not put before either Committee. In the last Committee, on 1 November, Labour Members had the opportunity for the first time to elicit some detail about the £500,000 hardship fund that the Government have announced. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the Front Bench, I have not seen the letter sent to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members about the fund. In reality, of course, it is a meagre fund, and, from what the Minister said in Committee, I understood that it would be focused on those who had suffered loss of earnings.

The Minister needs to outline in detail what the criteria will be for applying to that fund. Government Members seem to have suggested today that victims of dog attacks, for example, might be entitled to make an application. That information was not put before the Committee when we discussed the matter previously, yet the facts today are exactly the same as they were last Thursday. Almost half of those who currently get compensation under the scheme will no longer be entitled to it. Several hon. Members have mentioned a range of injuries that will no longer entitle someone to compensation.

The Minister’s response was that if an injury led to long-term damage, the individual concerned could qualify under a different tariff, but if they were entitled under a different tariff—the higher tariff—that is how the compensation would have been claimed in the first instance. It was a spurious point, made simply to provide some explanation of why half of those currently eligible will no longer receive any compensation. For example, those suffering from what are called needle stick injuries—that is, where somebody is stabbed—which might be sustained during their employment if they work in a hospital, normally receive the lowest amount of compensation, but they will now no longer be entitled to any. Indeed, a number of categories have simply been taken out of compensation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned children who have suffered as a result of their parents’ alcohol or drug abuse, particularly by the mother. They will no longer be entitled to compensation, but in the original consultation only those who had suffered from foetal alcohol problems were affected. There has been no consultation whatever on drug abuse, which is also part of the scheme.

If Government Members decide to go ahead with the proposals, they will live to regret it. As constituents go to see them with the practical problems associated with the changes, they will come to believe that mistakes have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned that applicants would now have to pay £50 for their medical notes, and they will also have to obtain them physically. That will be a major problem for many people who want to claim from the scheme. Those of us who have been involved with such matters know that obtaining medical reports, hospital records and so on is not the most straightforward thing to do. Individuals will face practical difficulties in obtaining those records, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable.

The Minister has said that the new reporting requirements will have no impact on those claiming as a result of sexual abuse, particularly historic abuse. However, all the legal advice on the new definition and the more restricted requirement of reporting to the police suggests that this will be a major problem. The Minister needs to come back with more detail on that if she is seriously contending that the changes will make no difference.

Let me draw to a conclusion, because many others want to contribute. I urge Government Members to look into these changes in detail, because the more we have done so, the more concerns many of us have had.

Firearms Controls

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I have no experience. I have never held or shot a gun, but I have experience of a terrible tragedy in my constituency on new year’s day. I am attempting to share my experience with Members and to advocate having a review in the interests of public safety.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the balanced way he is approaching this subject. I am concerned that the focus seems to be on legitimate firearms holders, the majority of whom are law-abiding. Will he reassure sporting Members and others throughout our local communities who enjoy the sport that this debate is not going down the road to remove firearms from those who have a legitimate right to hold them?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I hope I have made that point. I am not proposing that people with a legitimate need to hold firearms, such as farmers and so on—there is a whole list of such people—not be allowed to hold them. That need should be declared as a reason for holding a certificate, and the police or the licensing authority would take it into account.

In a case in my constituency in 2008, Michael Atherton had his weapons revoked following threats to self-harm, and issues relating to mental health and gun ownership were also a factor in the case of Christopher Foster, who shot his wife, his daughter and himself after confessing suicidal thoughts to his GP.

I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Medical Association have an agreement whereby the police alert GPs to any new applications for and renewals of firearms licences. However, concerns remain where an applicant fails to disclose full and accurate medical information at the time of application or renewal. Applicants are required to provide a number of medical details, including whether they suffer from any

“medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug…conditions”.

They also have to declare whether they have ever suffered from epilepsy or been treated for

“depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder”.

However, that information is not routinely checked. Licensing officers approach medical professionals only when there are doubts about an applicant’s medical history, although Dr John Canning—again, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on behalf of the BMA—stated that GPs are “not very often” asked to provide medical evidence, although it happens “from time to time”.

Following the case of Christopher Foster, the Independent Police Complaints Commission proposed in 2008 that the licensing force should be required to approach the applicant’s doctor in each case, in order to obtain confirmation that the medical information provided in the application was correct. The omission of information from a firearms application was also an issue in the case of Mark Saunders in 2006, which ended in his being killed by the Metropolitan police. Mr Saunders failed to declare during the application process that he had been treated by a consultant for depression and for his tendency occasionally to drink more than was sensible—indeed, he had been referred by his GP. Unfortunately, on his application for a firearms licence he stated that he had no such health problems.

In my view, the solution is to ensure that each applicant knows that licensing officers will approach their GP as a matter of course to verify statements made on their application about their health, to ensure they are correct and accurate. My proposal would address failures by an applicant to disclose any medical problem that raises questions about their suitability to own and have free access to a firearm. Finally, I call for greater consultation between the licensing authority and those who are or have been a domestic partner of a potential applicant. A similar system is already in place in Canada, where all citizens applying for a firearms licence are required to have their present and past partners in the previous two years sign their application. Refusal to sign for any reason does not automatically mean that the police and licensing authorities will veto an application, but it will trigger further investigation by law enforcement officers. The Canadian requirements merit further exploration, and I would appreciate it if the Minister informed the House of any progress made on this matter.

There has been no knee-jerk reaction. These proposals are considered, practical measures that, if implemented, could allow the consistent application of firearms legislation, strengthen existing safeguards and ensure public safety while maintaining the rights of the shooting fraternity to have access to firearms where there is a good and legitimate purpose for their use.

Court-appointed Deputies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I applied for a debate on this subject to raise the case of one of my constituents, who, for today’s purposes, I will call Mr Able. He has seemingly exhausted every official regulatory channel available, without anyone taking responsibility for remedying what has happened to him. Although cases of his kind may be in a minority, I want to illustrate how easily a vulnerable adult has been appallingly failed through poor communication and a lack of scrutiny in the system of court-appointed deputies and in the Office of the Public Guardian.

In 1997, my constituent was awarded a not insubstantial sum following a road traffic accident in which he was injured. He was assessed as being affected by learning difficulties and additional cognitive impairment following the collision. The following year, the Public Trustee was appointed his receiver—the role now known as that of the deputy—and in 2001 that role passed to a firm of solicitors. They failed not only to protect his existing funds, but to secure and maximise his income. Over the nine years that followed, Mr Able’s award was virtually wiped out, and the local authority has been looking after his deputyship since 2010.

It is clear that the eventual decision to replace his court-appointed deputy with Wiltshire council is the best thing that has happened to Mr Able during my involvement in his case. Before that, inadequate sharing of information across agencies about my constituent’s actions and circumstances led to a large proportion of his capital being eaten up by solicitors’ fees, and to him not receiving the benefits to which he was entitled.

Nearly £33,000 was spent on the cost of his court-appointed deputy, but despite the hefty price tag, the deputy was not able to prevent a further £13,500 being spent on a different firm of lawyers’ pursuit of a speculative unfair dismissal case, which adds up to more than £46,000. That firm predicted that Mr Able could secure between £20,000 and £36,000 in damages, but won him less than a tenth of that, leaving him substantially out of pocket and his deputy trying in vain to get those lawyers’ costs below £13,000. How can the system conclude that it is in the best interests of a vulnerable adult, with no other means, to run up such fees? How could the situation have gone so far with no one in authority suggesting that it was in any way exploitative?

The Court of Protection has a panel of people who can be appointed deputies. My constituent’s case suggests that those considered for appointment are not suitably equipped to serve some of the clients assigned to them. It also suggests a disturbing degree of laxity in how some individuals become deputies. Mr Able’s deputy for much of the period had no links to the panel of deputies. To all intents and purposes, he had inherited his case from a deceased colleague. The level of vagueness that my staff and I encountered when trying to clarify exactly what happened in that period, and how the application process to find Mr Able a new deputy was managed, was disturbing.

I understand from the Office of the Public Guardian that a review has been undertaken of the panel of deputies, one of the aims of which was to introduce clearer procedures on how individuals become and remain panel members. I would appreciate the Minister’s assessment of how that exercise has gone, and how it has treated the question of whether solicitors are, in all circumstances, suitable for appointment by the court as deputies.

Mr Able has gained access to the support he needs only through a patient and conscientious local authority team, to whom he pays nothing comparable to the solicitors’ fees I outlined. However, that support was secured only when he was approaching the point of crisis, and after his money—the management of which was his deputy’s task—had been almost entirely depleted.

It seems that at that and too many other points in this case, Mr Able’s behaviour and capacity have been cited as a reason why certain things did or did not happen, and have been used to explain and justify action, or inaction, by those who were supposed to have his best interests at heart. That is not acceptable. If professional court-appointed deputies are unable to work with their clients’ behaviour, they are probably not the right people to do the job. If that is what happened in this case, they should have said so. Instead, they were just happy to take his money for the time and the attention that he demanded of them.

There is a related point about scrutiny and who monitors whether deputies are undertaking their duties effectively. The Court of Protection visitor had decided to stop visiting Mr Able back in April 2003. Mr Able did not receive another visit until January 2011.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Would this gentleman’s circumstances have been different if the court had recognised early on that he did not have the capacity to look after himself, and if someone suitable had been appointed from an organisation that looks after people with disabilities? Does responsibility for what took place lie with the court or the solicitor?

[Duncan Hames]

That is the astonishing thing about this case. The court made an assessment, in which it determined that Mr Able was not capable of managing his own finances. The things that we are led to believe the system considered Mr Able capable of doing, in terms of looking after his best interests and challenging what was happening to him, is extraordinary given that original assessment. I certainly agree that part of the problem is that inconsistency in what he was expected to be able to do, given the decision that the court had already made about his ability to manage his finances. That does not absolve the court-appointed deputy of the responsibility of saying that in the circumstances they were not the best people to serve him.

Mr Able did not receive a visit from the Court of Protection visitor again until January 2011. Even a change of deputy in 2005 was not considered an appropriate trigger for a visit, despite the fact that it took a year for Mr Able’s deputy’s replacement to be confirmed. As part of the oversight process to protect people who lack capacity, visitors can be commissioned to make reports by either the Court of Protection or the Office of the Public Guardian. I contend that not having Mr Able visited at any time in eight years demonstrates a terrible sense of complacency among those who were meant to be looking after his best interests.

In this case, my constituent was removed from the list of people to be visited for the “time being” on the grounds that regular visits would not “achieve anything”. However, a court visitor was engaged on Mr Able’s case when the deputy applied to be discharged, and produced a report in 2009, which seems to have been compiled without the visitor even meeting Mr Able. In such cases, the system seems to serve the needs of the deputies rather more than those of their clients. I wonder how well the criteria for how deputies manage their clients’ money are set and monitored, especially clients in Mr Able’s position, given the view that had been taken about his capability. I would welcome the Minister’s opinion on whether the system of visits is in need of review to help improve the situation for people in similar circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I will happily meet my hon. Friend. What he describes sounds concerning, but we will obviously need to look into the details of the case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Christians who were penalised for wearing a cross at work or taking a stand for their religious beliefs. That has caused great concern, and many people are asking where is the protection and religious freedom for Christians. What steps will be taken to prevent the erosion of justice for those with Christian beliefs, and to provide people with the protection that they should—and must—have?

Legal Aid (Women and Families)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I will answer that question later in my speech.

Issues raised in individual casework are often the root causes of problems faced by communities, which places law centres in the unique position of being able to disseminate information to other support bodies and to propose remedies. Research by the New Economics Foundation calculated the contribution of law centres by quantifying the social value such institutions provide and found that for every £1 invested in a law centre, a further £15 of social value is generated.

Family legal work remains the most costly area for the civil legal aid budget. It covers issues of child welfare and protection, as well as divorce, property and relationship breakdown issues. The proposals have retained legal aid for cases where domestic violence or forced marriage is involved and for cases where children’s safety is in danger.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. A lady in my area who reared her children and left her job, and depended on her husband for income, finds herself needing legal aid after a messy divorce, but cannot receive it. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that families—ladies in particular—will find themselves vulnerable at this time?

[Mr Sharma]

I agree. As I stated earlier, the impact will be on families in society.

Abundant research has been carried out into the adverse consequences of family breakdown. There is also ample evidence suggesting that job loss, financial difficulties and loss of income can bring about family break-up. Therefore, the provision of advice for other civil law problems, such as employment, housing and debt are important in preventing problems from escalating.

The Government’s proposals would seriously damage access to justice, especially for the most vulnerable in society. The Ministry of Justice impact assessment shows that there will be a disproportionate effect on women. Similarly, the cuts disproportionately impact on black and minority ethnic clients and those with disabilities. As legal aid is targeted to those with low incomes, it will have a disproportionate effect on this section of the community. However, it is likely that those on very low incomes will be particularly negatively affected.

And then there is domestic violence. I direct the Minister to a speech of great power delivered by the noble Baroness Scotland in another place to the Minister, Lord McNally:

“look at the average case, such as when a woman has run from her home. She manages to go to her GP, who sees the injuries and notes them and then sends her to hospital because there are fears that she may have cracked a rib or another bone. She is seen by the medical staff and they verify that the injuries that she complains of are genuine. Her neighbours may have come in to rescue her from an assault. They may not have seen the assault taking place but have noted what was happening and taken her away. Social services may have come along and examined the children, spoken to them and heard what they had to say. All of that might have been used by the police who then came along and arrested the man. He may then acknowledge that he has indeed committed the offences that are alleged against him. Even if all those things had happened, under”

the Government’s current

“provisions the woman would not be entitled to legal aid. That cannot be right.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 595.]