Debate on the Address
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Labour had 13 years to act on zero-hours contracts and did absolutely nothing. We are outlawing exclusivity in zero-hours contracts. I thought this was one of the problems with the Leader of the Opposition’s response—[Interruption.] Oh, too late we are told. Hold on, Labour had 13 years to do something and did nothing. One of the problems with the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the Gracious Speech was that I was not sure he had read it. He asked when we are going to make sure that employment agencies cannot only advertise overseas—we have acted on that. When we are going to have higher fines for not paying the minimum wage? It is in the Queen’s Speech. When are we going to stop exclusivity in zero-hours contracts? We have done it. Those are all things Labour has talked about and never acted on.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is aware that there is an enormous gap between the rich and the poor. I am not making a party political point, but in my constituency many people are on the minimum wage and it is not enough to make ends meet. Why did he not consider increasing the minimum wage in the Gracious Speech today?
The Prime Minister
I support increases in the minimum wage, and it has just increased at a faster rate than average earnings, which is actually the policy the hon. Lady supports. I want to see a £7 minimum wage, but what we need to do, while keeping the process of setting the minimum wage independent, is cut taxes for people on minimum wages. That is what we are doing. The income tax bill of someone working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage is down by two thirds—that is what has happened under this Government.
On inequality and poverty, let us just be clear about what has happened under this Government: today there are half a million fewer people in relative poverty than there were under the last Government; relative child poverty has been lower in every year of this Parliament than in any year of the last Government; the proportion of workless households is at its lowest since records began; and inequality is at its lowest since 1986. The facts may be inconvenient for the Labour party, but none the less it should listen to them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend’s latter point is constantly reviewed, and it will come as no surprise to him that his urging is supported by many Select Committees. On his first point, for the first time all permanent secretary appointments are for a fixed tenure of five years. We publish the objectives of permanent secretaries, and all this is beginning to be more accountable than it has ever been before.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
T7. This week concerns were expressed in the media about the move to a shared network for emergency services. Why are the Government refusing to share the risk assessment, saying that it will prejudice the procurement process?
Deregulation Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
Absolutely. Providing for a more level playing field and enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to compete fully in the marketplace is at the heart of what the Government are trying to do, and that has to happen.
To secure the sort of reform that we are pushing for, we need to continue to inspire our EU neighbours with ambitious reforms such as the Bill. In that way, we can build alliances in Europe with politicians, citizens and businesses that also want a competitive EU—a single market, not a single over-regulated state. That is what we are working for. The EU institutions, especially the red tape-loving European Parliament, have become divorced from the economic reality of Europe and its people, including those in the UK. In the end, however, reality does bite, and the fantasy that it is a public good to have ever more legislation in ever more areas of life is fundamentally exposed. Barriers that hinder innovation, and the overall competitiveness of our entrepreneurs, employers and exporters, must be addressed at EU level as they are tackled in the UK.
In October, the Prime Minister’s taskforce showed what could be done with its “Compete” principles for better regulation and more than 30 recommendations for reducing the bureaucratic burden. The public outcry, especially in the UK, that led to rules on discards being swept away from fisheries policy shows that even Brussels, with enough pressure, will respond to the agenda for change. With the work that is being pushed forward and the alliances we are building in Europe, it is good that latent EU reformists have been enabled and even emboldened to get on to the front foot in arguing for a better Europe.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Most of the hon. Gentleman’s speech seems to have been concentrated on the European Union. Is it aimed at Tory voters who may be considering voting for the UK Independence party?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Deregulation Bill because, whilst acknowledging that removing unnecessary burdens on small businesses is welcome, the Bill fails to recognise the social, economic and environmental benefits of effective regulation and contains a number of extremely damaging proposals including: the watering down of safety protections for employees that will leave workers at greater risk of injury, ill-health and abuse; the erosion of protection of journalistic sources and against police seizure of journalistic material, which threatens the basis of the free press; and the imposition of a growth duty on non-economic regulators such as Natural England and the Health and Safety Executive, which is irresponsible and risks undermining their core roles; further considers that this Bill is another illustration of a Government which is embarking on a deregulatory path without due consideration of warnings, including from businesses, that effective regulation is essential to create jobs and innovation and that ripping up vital green legislation risks locking the UK into polluting industrial processes for decades to come, jeopardising future competitiveness, damaging the UK’s attractiveness for green investment, and undermining new industries; and further believes that this Bill represents a race to the bottom and an obsession with GDP growth at any cost which is not in the public interest.
I tabled this reasoned amendment because I believe that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. I listened to the Minister characterising those of us who have signed the amendment as somehow being of the far left. If that is the case, that category would have to include groups such as the UK Green Building Council, the Aldersgate Group and many other business groups right across the spectrum that have deep concerns about the Bill’s direction of travel.
I did not table this reasoned amendment without giving consideration to those parts of the Bill that are welcome and uncontroversial. Certainly, some parts of the Bill are completely fine. For example, it is cold homes week and many MPs and charities are working hard to highlight fuel poverty in cold homes. Scarves are a symbol of the campaign and people have been knitting away in the past few weeks to draw attention to the need to tackle fuel poverty. I am sure that nobody would object to the clauses in the Bill that would remove restrictions on the selling of knitting yarn. They will allow small and large businesses engaged in the selling of yarn better to meet their customers’ needs. Other provisions are similarly sensible, such as those that would facilitate the recording of public rights of way, and I give them my full support. Removing genuinely defunct legislation from the statute book also makes sense.
My worry is that the basis of the Bill is incredibly simplistic and crude: in the Government’s mind more regulation is bad and less regulation is good, without ever questioning the kind of regulation. Is it smart regulation? What is the purpose of the regulation? Will it actually generate more development? Will it incentivise industry? Will it provide industry with the level playing ground it often asks for? Instead of this nuanced approach, we have a complete knee-jerk reaction that says, “Regulation is bad, deregulation is good” and proceeds in a simple way.
I will make comments on three areas of the Bill. First, I want to cover some specific provisions—I will outline just a few. Secondly, I want to talk about the fundamentally flawed premise on which the Bill is based: it fails to recognise that some regulation can be good for business and job creation, as well as for consumers. Thirdly, I will say a few words about the new growth duty on non-economic regulators, which I fear will interfere with, and impinge on, their ability independently to carry out crucial roles, including: the Care Quality Commission protecting public health; Natural England protecting our environment; the Health and Safety Executive protecting employees and others from harm at work; or the Equality and Human Rights Commission challenging discrimination and protecting human rights. This growth duty is just the latest manifestation of an obsession with short-term GDP growth at any cost, and that is simply not in the public interest.
First, I will focus on just a few of the harmful provisions that I think Ministers are trying to ram through in the name of deregulation. The Bill narrows the application of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, following the 2011 Löfstedt review. The Bill effectively exempts self-employed people from health and safety law where their activities do not put another person at risk. On the surface, one could ask what could be wrong with that. The problem is that the changes in the Bill are completely unnecessary, because the only time the 1974 Act can be used is when a person does put another person at risk. No self-employed person has ever been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for risking just their own health. Right now, the law is straightforward and it works. The Bill will create not only confusion, but complacency.
Let us not forget that the fatality, injury and ill-health rate for the self-employed is already much higher than that for other sectors. Some of the more dangerous industries, such as agriculture and construction, have a high proportion of self-employed people working in them. There is an obvious risk that people who control the workplace where self-employed people work may think, wrongly, that they do not need to be as concerned about fulfilling their duty of care to the self-employed. The TUC has made this point clear, as have the majority of respondents to the HSE consultation, who rejected the very option we now have put before us. The health and safety professional body, the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, warns:
“This is a very short-sighted and misleading move, it won’t actually help anyone; it won’t support business; but it will cause general confusion.”
As well as health and safety protections, it is also reasonable to ensure that employees do not face discrimination in the workplace, yet the Government are trying to take a massive backward step in the fight against discrimination, too, by removing the powers of employment tribunals to issue wider recommendations on gender, race or other forms of discrimination in the workplace.
Yasmin Qureshi
As the hon. Lady will be aware, employment tribunals made these recommendations only 19 times in 2012, and in fact employers often welcome them because they help to resolve many underlying issues that often lead to discrimination claims being made in the first place.
Caroline Lucas
That is a clear example of where the status quo is not causing a problem. The Government are looking for problems to solve where there are no problems, and instead are creating a whole lot more.
Affordable housing could be another casualty of this obsession with deregulation. Reducing the eligibility period for the right to buy could seriously undermine housing associations’ ability to provide affordable housing and make it more, not less, difficult for housing associations to do business, contrary to the Government’s own apparent aims. It would be interesting to hear what assessment the Minister has made of the impact on the Government’s ambition to deliver 165,000 affordable homes over the Parliament. Why did they not consult housing associations on the impact of the measure before bringing it forward?
On the environment, in May 2010 in the coalition agreement, the Government committed to encouraging community-owned renewable energy schemes, and that is being delivered with the launch of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s community energy strategy. However, the reduction of energy and climate change duties, set out in clause 28, appears specifically to contradict that commitment and undermine the recent statements supporting community energy made by Ministers.
On public participation in decision making, the Bill weakens the Government’s overall consultation duties by removing specified statutory duties to consult. The majority of the consultation requirements to be removed by the Bill relate to the environment and greatly reduce the participation rights of affected people, including regulators such as Natural England. Consultation is a core element of democratic government and serves as one of the main ways the Government can be held to account for their actions. It also contributes to increasing public trust in government and is essential for developing policy and legislation, because it provides access to wider sources of information, opinions, and potential issues and solutions. The Government risk undermining their legitimacy and triggering a public outcry by removing statutory consultation requirements. The statement in schedule 15 that the Government consider these statutory requirements to consult as unnecessary is neither satisfactory nor sufficient to justify that removal.
More specifically, the UK is a signatory to the Aarhus convention, which binds the UK to provide the public with, among other things, a right to participate in decision making in any proposed activity that might have a significant effect on the environment and/or during the preparation of plans and programmes relating to the environment. The removal of the requirement to consult on the exercise of various powers relating to the environment directly conflicts with the requirements of the Aarhus convention, which stems from principle 10 of the Rio declaration, which opens with the declaration:
“Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.”
The Government should justify the removal of each of the consultation requirements and confirm how the UK’s public participation obligation, pursuant to the convention, will be discharged.
We have already heard quite a bit about clause 47. I was going to say that hidden in the Bill was a provision seeking to repeal some of the journalistic protections in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that currently ensure proper and fair judicial scrutiny before police applications to obtain journalistic material are granted. I am grateful for the fact that the Minister is attempting to reassure his own Back Benchers on this issue, but it worries me that only at the last moment, when the Bill has got to this stage, is he proposing further consultation on this important part of the Bill. That strikes me as odd, as many organisations have been extremely vocal in raising this issue over several months. The Newspaper Society, The Guardian and many others have warned about the impact of closed material proceedings and so on.
I am grateful that, at the last minute, the Government are looking again at this matter and saying they will consult again, but that raises questions about how many other parts of the Bill will have unintended consequences.
Afghanistan and EU Council
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
May I, through my hon. Friend, thank his son for his service in Afghanistan? We have been there for many years now, and we come across people now who are on their second or third tour of Afghanistan—people who have spent many months of their lives working under very difficult conditions. We can be proud of the fact that when we sit in a room with our armed forces and ask them about the job they are doing, the morale is high; they are enthusiastic about the capabilities of the Afghan security forces, and they are also enthusiastic about the kit they receive. There are still issues we need to deal with—more access to wi-fi and one or two other things—but generally speaking I found people in high morale who are enthusiastic about the job they are doing.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s usual advisers are gentlemen in uniform, but may I ask him to reconsider the use of drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, because a consistent body of evidence has shown that drones have killed far more civilians than al-Qaeda operatives, and with countries such as Pakistan openly objecting to the use of drones, that is also a violation of their sovereignty? Please will the Prime Minister therefore take a thorough relook at this whole issue of drone use?
The Prime Minister
As this issue relates to Pakistan, it is an issue for the United States and Pakistan, although what I have said about the huge damage that has been done to al-Qaeda is beyond debate; it is a fact. On Afghanistan, I think it is important that we give our armed forces every protection they can possibly have, and the use of ISTAR drones and other cameras and the like have done a huge amount to keep our armed forces safe and to make sure we defeat the Taliban insurgency.
Oral Answers to Questions
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
1. What recent representations he has received on the effect of membership of the European convention on human rights on the UK’s reputation for upholding the rule of law.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have not received any recent representations on this subject, but I am clear that the United Kingdom’s enviable reputation for upholding the rule of law is closely linked to our country’s commitment to the European convention on human rights and to ensuring that those rights are enshrined in our own laws.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. Some Government Members are talking about exiting the European convention on human rights. Will he assure us that that will not happen? I know that he believes in the convention, so may I tell him that he will have the support of Opposition Members in the battle to ensure that we remain in it?
The Attorney-General
I have noticed, on occasion, irritation in all parts of the House about the operation of the European convention on human rights, but the Government’s position remains clear: our adherence to the convention is in the national interest.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
May I reiterate what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) said? If special advocates, who are independent people and fully aware of cases such as those in question, are expressing reservations and think the provision is wrong, should the Government not take notice of that?
Mr Clarke
We have taken notice of it, but I do not understand why special advocates seem to be taking up the arguments of people who say that we should never allow anybody to consider the evidence in question. I never thought that PIIs were a perfect process, but the critics have suddenly decided they are now that we have brought forward CMPs. If there is a PII, the judge cannot take account of such evidence, claimants and the defence cannot use it, and the lawyers do not know about it. That is held up to me as a superior position to the one we are putting forward, which will mean that the judge can consider that evidence.
Hazel Blears
I, too, intend to speak briefly as I know that a range of Members want to contribute.
My speech follows that of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and I have the greatest respect for his point of view on this issue, for the depth of his knowledge and for how he has studied these matters. The sense in the House is that people hold varying views which, in many cases, cross party lines. People feel strongly about trying to strike the right balance between liberty and security, which has been the subject of many of our previous debates.
It is right that these matters should be controversial, because they go to the heart of our legal system, protecting the rights of applicants and respondents, ensuring that the role of the state is in the proper place to hold the balance between parties, and trying to ensure that our justice system retains its respect and integrity across the world. That balance is difficult to draw and is never easy to achieve, and I say that as the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism who took the controversial legislation on control orders through the House. We debated them until 5 am in one of our very rare all-night sittings, which was for me evidence of how strongly people felt about these issues and how much they wanted to protect the integrity of our legal system. I share that desire.
The Bill has been debated at length and the issues have been debated in great depth. It is perhaps almost otiose to be debating them again, but a few points need to be made.
We must not forget why we are debating the Bill. If we did not need to debate it, none of us would want to introduce it. Everybody in this House and in the country believes in the British system of open justice, an adversarial system in which evidence is brought into open court and tested by the parties, allowing the judge to deliberate on the evidence and make a judgment.
We are in this position for two reasons. First, legitimate concerns have been expressed by our intelligence liaison partners, particularly in the United States of America, about the breach of the control principle for intelligence, which has put sources, techniques and capabilities at risk. That is the issue of national security, which is very much about the assets that are at risk. I am delighted that the Norwich Pharmacal provisions have gone through with agreement on both sides, which has been extremely positive, but concerns nevertheless remain about the possibility of information being disclosed in open court proceedings that could damage our intelligence relationships. That is the first reason why we are debating this issue.
The second reason is that we have seen an increasing number of claims of unlawful detention and allegations of mistreatment or torture by the security services against people who have been held in a range of different circumstances. Those allegations amount to more than 20 outstanding cases and the number is likely to increase if there is a jurisdiction within which such claims can be ventilated freely. The position has been that many of those claims have had to be settled because the evidence necessary to prove the case either way impinges on national security. That is why we have seen payments made to some claimants without having the opportunity to decide whether their claims were well founded as the evidence has not been put into a judicial setting.
I feel particularly strongly about this matter. If the security agencies have been conducting operations in a way that falls outside our framework of human rights, I want those issues to be put before a court and to be litigated. The fact that they cannot be goes to the heart of the reputation of our intelligence services. People will always say, “Well, you are settling that case because something in it was well founded. That is why you are prepared to pay £2 million, £3 million or £4 million to avoid litigation in our courts.” I want that information; I want to know what happened. Equally, if these claims are unfounded and unfair allegations are being brought against our security services, I want them to be able to defend themselves and the good name and integrity of our intelligence agencies.
Yasmin Qureshi
Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that using the concept of national security as something to hide behind is not right either? This has been used by states all too often. We know from our history that things can be hidden behind national security issues and the truth does not come out.
Hazel Blears
My hon. Friend makes my case for me. If she wanted the information about these matters to be put before a court for a judge to decide, she would support the idea that, in a small number of cases, closed material procedures are necessary. I am afraid that I must tell her that in some circumstances if the secrets we hold, the capabilities, the agents and the capacities we have were to be put in open court, the security of our nation would be threatened. If she does not accept that—I genuinely say this with respect—she has no appreciation of the importance of those secrets to our national security.
Yasmin Qureshi
That is completely wrong. As one who has spent many years prosecuting, dealing with issues such as PII, making applications in front of judges relating to informers, issuing evidence for public interest immunity applications and being sensitive to issues on behalf of victims, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the suggestion that we do not appreciate these things is not right. I am saying that it is possible to have these discussions and to find out what is happening. Special advocates, for example, who are experts and independent people belonging neither to the defence nor to the prosecution, have said that these particular procedures in civil cases are completely inappropriate. A criminal trial is a different matter, but these procedures are not right in civil cases.
Hazel Blears
It may well be that some people take a principled position that paying out millions of pounds is a price worth paying if they do not want to have closed proceedings. That is a perfectly legitimate place to be, but it does not happen to be a situation with which I agree. My hon. Friend talks, as many Members do, about PII, which is about excluding information; I want to be in a position where we maximise the inclusion of information and bring it before the judge.
Mr Davis
Yes, 1997; for only a decade or two. A generation of special advocates have taken a strong stance on this, and they have taken a different stance from everybody else because they have experienced both sorts of procedure. Nearly all of them have personally understood the closed material procedure and the PII procedure, and most of them know both procedures inside out. One of the things they argue—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) in his brilliant speech, every word of which I agreed with—is that PII has been misrepresented. Any special advocate will say that PII is a much more complex, judge-created, judge-evolved process than is being represented. Of course there can be simple blocking; of course, in addition, there can be redaction; of course there can be circles of confidentiality; of course there can be in-camera hearings. The Minister without Portfolio rather dismissively said that this is the system that gave us arms to Iraq. Even in that process, which involved at least one ex-Minister and one Minister in the House today, early on in the development of PII we saw one category of certificate refused, one category accepted and one category heavily redacted. That gave the court enough information to make Alan Clark face the interrogation in which he came out with those famous words “economical with the actualité”, which collapsed the case because the prosecution recommended an acquittal on the basis of the evidence.
Yasmin Qureshi
Just to continue to emphasise the PII point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, he will be aware that at this moment and for many years in our country, covert operations have been carried out evidence from which has been used to convict people, yet the methodology used, where the operatives were and the locations were always kept secret, and that was part of the PII application. PII is not about excluding evidence, it is about including evidence, but not letting the other side know what is adduced. The majority of people seem to be working on the totally wrong basis of what a PII is.
Mr Davis
The hon. Lady is of course right, but let me come to the point that I was driving towards, which is that none of the systems that we are talking about is perfect. PII clearly has weaknesses. Everyone who has spoken has said something to that effect, and the hon. Lady was particularly correct about that; there are weaknesses to PII. We should not accept that that is the perfect outcome either.
Hillsborough
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman asks the right question. It is necessary to study the report. The families have long believed that, although the Taylor inquiry came to the correct conclusion about police culpability, there was then a move engineered by some police officers—I believe there is evidence in the report about this—to try to put forward an alternative narrative, which was wrong, deeply insulting and very hurtful. That and new evidence on it is contained in the report, which is worth while.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments of the statements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for setting up the inquiry. Those who have died cannot come back, but does the Prime Minister agree that their families can be assisted by two things at least? First, although I accept that politicians cannot make the emergency services and public officials apologise, perhaps the Prime Minister could ask the Mayor of London for an apology for the derogatory comments he made about the people of Merseyside many years ago as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. Secondly, in the light of the clear dereliction of duty and negligence by the emergency services and the police, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a compensation fund to make ex gratia payments to the victims’ families, so that they do not have to go through a lengthy legal process to get compensation?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a number of points. On what the Mayor of London or others have said, the report is important. As I have said, for people right across the country, whether they are in positions of power and influence or not, the report is the proper explanation of what happened. People who thought that something else happened need to come to their senses and realise what actually happened. One of the moments that struck me in trying to understand what happened was when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) gave that address to the fans on that anniversary. When those of us who are not from Merseyside and who have not followed this as closely as others saw just how many people turned out on that day, we also saw just what an enormous sense of outrage and injustice remained. That was an important moment. It is now for others to understand that the truth is out. Everyone needs to come to terms with it and to make the right arrangements.
Individual Voter Registration
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
We know that some 5 million people who are eligible to vote have not registered to do so, and the Government’s proposed reform will allow another 5 million-odd people to be knocked off the register. These reforms, plus the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, are a blatant example of gerrymandering of the type that the former leader of Westminster city council, who is now a fugitive from justice living in Israel and who was knighted for her dishonourable action, carried out on a magnificent scale in Westminster.
Some 10 million people will not be on the register because of a number of the Government’s proposals. If the Minister makes the following promises, my party will be able to support him: first, that the signing of the electoral register will not be optional; secondly, that door-to-door canvassing of properties that fail to reply to the electoral register will take place in 2014; thirdly, that postal and proxy voters who do not provide new personal information or send back new forms will be allowed to vote in 2015—as we know, the majority of such voters tend to be elderly—and, fourthly, that anyone who does not fill in the form properly, or who opts out, will be included in the 2015 boundary review.
The Labour party proposed that IER should be introduced in 2020, but only after the Electoral Commission has established the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register. The Government should not abolish the Electoral Commission’s role, and the changes should not go live in 2015. The current proposal will reduce the numbers on the electoral register to as little as 65% of the population. That is the prediction of the independent Electoral Commission. As a result, millions of people will be disfranchised.
Those who will lose the ability to vote are likely to be the young, those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, the disabled and those in social and private rented accommodation. This is a partisan move, and if the Government have their way, for the first time in its history the electoral register will become unrepresentative of the population as a whole. It is imperative that people beyond Parliament recognise just how insidious these proposals are: never before has the very fabric of our democracy been at risk. Every democrat has a duty to defend it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
8. What charging responsibilities have been transferred to the police from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
9. Whether the Crown Prosecution Service plans to evaluate the effects of the transfer of responsibility for charging from the CPS to the police.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The transfer of charges from the Crown Prosecution Service to the police under the fourth edition of the DPP’s guidance on charging was completed in June 2011. The following charging responsibilities have now been transferred to the police from the Crown Prosecution Service: summary-only matters where a not guilty plea is anticipated; criminal damage offences under £5,000 where a not guilty plea is anticipated and can be tried summarily; and Fraud Act 2006 and handling offences where a guilty plea is anticipated. There are certain exceptions that must continue to be referred to the CPS, which is currently undertaking an evaluation of the transfer that is expected to be completed early in 2012.
The Attorney-General
No, it is not to save money. It was a question of whether the system could be operated more efficiently. Some anxiety was expressed when the pilots were commenced, but the evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service has overwhelmingly been that the system is working well. For that reason, we are happy to consider, on a pragmatic basis, rolling it out further. Ultimately, whatever charging decision is made, decisions on prosecution will remain with the CPS.
Yasmin Qureshi
Before I ask my question, I should declare that I was employed by the Crown Prosecution Service many years ago, that I have been instructed by the CPS as an independent barrister and that I have a family member who works for the CPS. In my area, Greater Manchester police are closing their files management unit, which prepares files for the CPS, so that the officers can be put on the beat. Coupled with the devolved powers to police officers, that has led to a deterioration in the quality of the files that are sent by the police to the CPS. Because of this money saving by the police, the CPS has ended up spending more resources and personnel on sorting out these cases, which should have been dealt with properly by the police.
Public Disorder
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was very struck at the meeting that I had in Wolverhampton with shopkeepers and residents that they simply want to ensure that the Government and the police stand up for the law-abiding, take back the streets and make sure that they belong to the law-abiding people of our country.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the Bellwin scheme will operate at 85% or 100%, as it did under Labour for flood victims?
The Prime Minister
The Bellwin scheme will operate in its normal way, so there will be a threshold, but we are putting in place an alternative scheme that does not have a threshold or a maximum and minimum and that will be available through the DCLG.