House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Before I turn to Question 1, on behalf of the Government I wish to pay tribute to Sergeant Gavin Hillier of the Welsh Guards, who tragically died in an accident during live-firing exercises in Wales earlier this month. Sergeant Hillier’s distinguished service throughout his career was a tribute not only to his own dedication to duty but to his family and to his regiment, who continue to prepare for operations in Iraq later this year.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for his close interest in this issue, which is also actively pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and other colleagues. The Ministry of Defence longer has any ongoing military requirement for the homes, which we therefore intend to hand back to Annington, thereby helping to meet obligations under our agreements. I regret that, despite the MOD’s producing a significant package of support that we hoped might assist Annington to allow our tenants to remain in situ in many, although not all, cases, that was not a course that Annington felt able to pursue.
Gareth Bacon [V]
I join the Minister and, I am sure, the whole House in expressing sympathy for the family and friends of Sergeant Hillier.
A number of my constituents in Biggin Hill are keen to remain in their homes; is there no way that Annington Homes can facilitate that? If not, given that we are still battling the covid pandemic, is there any way in which the Minister can provide for a longer notice period to help to provide my constituents with greater certainty at this very difficult time?
Jeremy Quin
I am pleased to say that I have some good news for my hon. Friend and his constituents. I am pleased to confirm that, mindful of the representations made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, of the fact that we are talking about packages of houses rather than single units and of the ongoing covid restrictions, we will be extending the notice period to 31 March 2022. That will mean that civilian tenants will have received more than 18 months’ notice in total. Furthermore, Annington has confirmed that it has no in-principle objection to selling the properties to local authorities or other social housing providers. I stress that any such deals would be a commercial proposition between the social housing providers and Annington, but I hope that the additional time provided may help to enable such transactions to be progressed. I shall write to my hon. Friend and other affected MPs on this subject today.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The defence estate optimisation portfolio is a 25-year multibillion-pound investment in modernising MOD basing. It provides resilience and ensures that our service personnel can train in centres of excellence alongside those beside whom they will fight. We routinely review and assess the programme in the light of evolving requirements, including the contents of the integrated review. However, the fundamental drivers of the programme are unlikely to change.
Christian Matheson [V]
The decision to site the entire Army presence in the north-west at Weeton barracks, putting all our eggs in one basket, will damage the operational and recruitment footprint of the Army in the north-west. Were the Government to retain the Dale barracks in Chester, that would provide easy access to the southern part of the north-west, the north part of the midlands and north Wales, so will the Government please look again at the decision to sell off the Dale barracks and let them retain their historic role in the City of Chester?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman has in the past spoken with passion about the retention of Dale barracks, and he does so again. We continue to speak to local stakeholders about alternative uses for the site, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that no disposal will take place before 2027 at the earliest. I also assure him that the armed forces will continue to be able to provide support to the north-west and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
What steps has the Ministry of Defence taken to ensure the sound financial sustainability of the defence estate, given that the National Audit Office found in 2016 that the estate would have an £8.5 billion funding shortfall over the next 30 years? A series of National Audit Office reports have shown that the defence estate faces a serious shortfall in investment. It is clear that there is a direct link between poor infrastructure and increasing risk to military effectiveness. What steps has the Minister taken to reverse this decline?
Jeremy Quin
I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that £18 million a year is spent on single-living accommodation. Additional funding has been provided through the £200 million package announced in July last year, and the frontline commands intend to invest £1.5 billion in new build and upgrade programmes to accommodation over the next 12 years. It is an issue that we are alive to and on which we focus. It is not within the top 12 reasons why people leave the Army, as stated in the surveys, but it is incredibly important. We wish to look after the welfare of all the people who serve defence. I do not wish to say anything further about future funding, because that will be covered in announcements in due course, but we take the issue very seriously.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The threat of cyber-attack on UK interests is real. Every day, we witness malicious interference from adversary states and hostile actors. We are continually protecting our systems and have previously called out activity from Russia, China and Iran. Our defensive cyber programmes are delivering on an extensive suite of capabilities, but cyber defence is only part of our approach. A core element of broader deterrence is integrating our offensive cyber-capabilities into our military operations.
Antony Higginbotham
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I particularly welcome the fact that the National Cyber Force will be based in the north-west of England. In saying that, may I urge the Secretary of State to look sympathetically at hosting it in Lancashire? We already have a really strong track record of supporting our armed forces, from the thousands of men and women who sign up from our county to manufacture the Typhoon and, hopefully, the Tempest in the future.
Mr Wallace
I certainly hear what my hon. Friend says. As another Lancashire MP, I am conscious of the good news which the Prime Minister announced that the force will be based in the north of England. Obviously, we will go through the processes of selecting where it is to be based. I think of the lessons that we learned when Bletchley Park and its successors moved to Cheltenham, as opposed to a big city. The impact that that had in levelling up the area is something on which we should all reflect. It is incredibly important that, in our whole levelling-up agenda, we focus not just on cities but on towns as well.
Mark Logan [V]
Our Prime Minister and Secretary of State are backing the north by developing the National Cyber Force here. Some say that it should be in Manchester, but others say Lancashire. Surely Bolton is the place for it, with a foot in Greater Manchester, but our heart firmly in Lancashire.
Mr Wallace
It is tempting to ask for Bolton as well as Warrington to be returned to Lancashire following the reforms of the early 1970s. I must declare that I was once a secretary for the Friends of Real Lancashire. I think, Mr Speaker, you were probably a co-secretary with me at one stage. I hear my hon. Friend loud and clear. The strengths of these mill towns is clear. Whether it be Bolton, Wigan, Warrington, Preston, in my constituency, or Chorley, their contribution to Britain’s industrial base and the next generation, which is obviously cyber, should not be undervalued. I will certainly listen to all the arguments put forward. The National Cyber Force is a mix of GCHQ and the Ministry of Defence. We have a proud record of supporting the MOD and defence in the north, and I look forward to that continuing.
Ruth Edwards
I welcome the weekend’s announcement that a full-spectrum approach will be taken to the UK’s cyber-capability. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the integrated review will include a strategy for working with industry, great and small, so that robust cyber defence can be maintained across our entire economy?
Mr Wallace
After the Defence Command Paper is announced on Monday, a week today, the defence industrial strategy will be launched the following day, which will give us an opportunity to indicate investments not only in our more traditional industrial base, but in the new and future domains, such as digital, cyber, space and so on. This is incredibly important. Britain is one of the world leaders in both applying our cyber-technology and investing in it, and I predict that the strategy will have something to say about that.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
May I, on behalf of the official Opposition, offer my tribute to the service of Sergeant Gavin Hillier and say to his family, his friends and his comrades that our condolences are with them?
I certainly welcomed the weekend news that the integrated review will commit the UK to full-spectrum cyber, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) has just said, although I strongly feel that announcements of important Government policy such as that should be made in Parliament and not in the press. Is not the wider security lesson from cyber and other grey-zone threats that more civil and military planning, training and exercising is required? Given that some countries are well ahead of us, will the integrated review catch up with the need for full-spectrum society resilience?
Mr Wallace
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I would take issue with it on one thing, and that is about us catching up. I was the cyber-security Minister—I was the Minister of State for Security—for a considerable period of time. Britain actually led the world both in NATO, where we were the first to offer cyber-offensive capability, but also through our programmes. The national cyber-security programme spent billions on enhancing capability right across not just military, but predominantly the civil sector. The National Cyber Security Centre is a first; there are almost none in Europe.
We are one of the first to have such a centre to be able to advise business, private individuals and the Government how to keep themselves strong and secure. There is always more to do and there are lessons to be learned around the world, but Britain has a lot of innovation and strengths in cyber-security. It is a dangerous world out there in cyber. I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one of the ways to deliver this is to ensure that we constantly work with our friends and allies.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that while the cyber-threat to critical national infrastructure can paralyse a society that is then subject to attack by more conventional means, we also have to maintain the methods and equipment to counter-attack anything involving conventional military force? Is he satisfied that the integrated review, while recognising the role of cyber, also recognises the continuing role of conventional defence?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point; we absolutely recognise that. The important thing about the Command Paper and the integrated review is learning the lessons of today. The lesson that we learned from Syria was that when we tackle Daesh, we tackle its cyber-offence and cyber-campaign in tandem with the military campaign that we used to take apart its leadership and the evil tasks that it was setting out to cause attacks. It is absolutely the case that there cannot be one without the other, but we should also recognise that the growing vulnerability of our forces and civil society to cyber as we become more dependent on cyber means that we have to take a very strong lead in defending against that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Veterans can access the same services provided by the Ministry of Defence, no matter where in the world they live.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer, because the covenant rightly offers to veterans provisions in areas such as education and family wellbeing, having a home, starting a new career, access to healthcare, financial assistance and discounted services. What I would like to know, however, is what the Ministry is doing to ensure that the undertakings that we give as a nation are actually delivered for veterans who now live overseas. Is there a specific budget for this vital work to ensure that those veterans are accessing the services that they qualify for?
Johnny Mercer
There is not a carve-out in the budget for veterans who live overseas, but we are committed to ensuring that the armed forces covenant works equally for them as it does in this country. We are introducing the Armed Forces Bill in the coming months to legislate for the first time to ensure that discharge of duties cannot result in disadvantage from local authorities in health, housing and education. I look forward to the hon. Member supporting the Bill.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Defence regularly monitors several metrics to gauge service personnel satisfaction levels, including for accommodation and pay, via the armed forces continuous attitude survey.
Alan Brown [V]
The Army has been instrumental in the fight against covid, from assisting with logistics to being directly involved in testing the vaccination programmes; yet the reward for army personnel is a pay freeze at a time when low pay is one of the factors that causes people to leave the armed forces, as Government studies should show. I ask the Minister, why was Dominic Cummings awarded a huge pay rise, yet armed forces personnel are not deemed worthy of one?
Mr Speaker
Minister, I do not think you are going to respond to that point.
Johnny Mercer
No; I do not have responsibility for the Prime Minister’s advisers, clearly. On satisfaction around pay, I am clear that pay is one of the reasons that people stay in the military. If the hon. Member looks forward to the integrated review, we will be looking to announce a direction of travel on this matter in due course.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I send our condolences to Sergeant Hillier’s family.
The issue of pay rises and satisfaction more generally has been a bone of contention in the House for many years. The numbers speak for themselves; four in 10 serving personnel do not think that the pay they receive reflects the work they do. Why?
Johnny Mercer
The crushing irony of our people who work in Scotland having to pay more in tax and therefore take home less pay and the hon. Gentleman raising this point is not lost on those who serve. Pay is a one of a number of factors that people speak about when the armed forces continuous attitude survey comes through. It is by no means the primary factor. We are constantly reviewing it and I am comfortable that we offer a world-class package to our people.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Yet again, the Minister is rather poorly briefed. The lowest-paid members of the armed forces in Scotland actually pay less in tax. If he wants to talk exemptions, that is a power that lies in the Treasury; it is not a tax power that lies with the Scottish Government. But let me press him on this: when the integrated review is published tomorrow, will it contain something—anything at all—to reverse the trend on satisfaction, and will he apologise to the armed forces, who have had a kick in the teeth with their pay rise being paused, given everything they have done for everyone over the covid crisis?
Johnny Mercer
Let me be clear: this will be the first strategic review to have a specific address to our people. They are our finest asset. They are rewarded not only financially but through the choice of career on offer to them. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read that when it comes out and I am more than happy to have a conversation with him after that.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs champions our veterans’ mental health and wellbeing needs at the heart of Government. This month, NHS England launched Operation Courage, bringing together three NHS England veterans’ mental health services with a single point of access. Op Courage is truly a game changer for veterans in the UK, including in the north-east.
Rosie Cooper [V]
The Royal British Legion has said that the current extortionate charges to Commonwealth veterans to settle in the UK are unfair and should end. We completely agree, so what is the Minister doing to end this unjust treatment of those who have risked their lives for our country?
Johnny Mercer
Let me be absolutely clear: that is a policy that started under the previous Government. This is the first Government who have promised a pathway to residency for those who serve. We will deliver that. We are looking to consult in the coming months. This has been a long-term injustice for our foreign and Commonwealth service personnel and under this Government we are going to correct it.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
There seem to be some really good schemes that have been awarded funding under the Positive Pathways programme, but what is the Minister doing to ensure that veterans know about these schemes, and how can we be sure that they are not just a short-term engagement with veterans but really offer the seamless route of care and support that is talked about in the documentation?
Johnny Mercer
One of my biggest challenges in this role is not the fact that there are not pathways of care; it is getting people to understand that and to really be able to access fantastic, world-class healthcare and career advice and transition for a seamless progress from the military into civilian life. It is an ongoing effort and I welcome the hon. Lady’s efforts to help me with that.
Gill Furniss
The extra £10 million allocated in the Budget to supporting veterans’ mental health is a welcome step that the Opposition have been calling for. However, there is still a large disparity between physical and mental health support, and this extra money works out just at an extra £4 per veteran. Covid-19 has impacted heavily on veterans’ charities’ ability to raise funds and conduct their vital work. Will the Minister therefore commit to protecting our protectors and ensure that the funding is there for veterans to get the support that they need?
Johnny Mercer
The £10 million announced by the Chancellor in the Budget was another important commitment, but we have also seen a greater commitment in the past few weeks with the launch of Operation Courage. It is the first integrated, single front-door approach to mental healthcare in our NHS for our veterans. It truly is a game-changer, and I urge veterans up and down the country to make sure that they are fully aware of what it offers. I will be going from this place to ensure that every GP practice and every NHS trust in the UK is part of that programme to ensure we do our duty by those who serve.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Five years ago, the Government announced that veterans could access the state-of-the-art £300 million Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, but it has seen just 22 people in the past three years. What steps will the Minister be taking to widen veteran access to these facilities and make a meaningful difference to the day-to-day lives of those who have sustained serious injuries during their service?
Johnny Mercer
I have commissioned a review into veterans’ access to the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre. It is an important project. To be clear, in its original specification, it was a national rehab centre, but I recognise that there are opportunities for veterans to access world-class healthcare there. I have asked the veterans community and others to go away, do a piece of work and understand the ask. We will then address that with the DNRC, and I hope we can find a path through the middle to ensure we are looking after those who have served.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The work of our armed forces in supporting the covid response is popular around the country and popular in Parliament, too. Defence has supported the NHS through the construction of Nightingale hospitals, PPE distribution, planning and logistical support, scientific advice, testing and vaccine delivery. Currently, the Ministry of Defence is providing 199 medical personnel to regional NHS trusts, and 321 general duties personnel are providing a range of support tasks, including support to the ambulance services. Some 1,600 defence medical professionals are also embedded in the national health service.
Elliot Colburn [V]
I would like to pay tribute to the armed forces personnel in Carshalton and Wallington for all they have done to help tackle coronavirus. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the hundreds of defence personnel across London who have been seconded to hospitals throughout the duration of the pandemic, fulfilling medical and general roles? Will he also outline the plans the MOD has for continuing that offer of support in the coming months?
James Heappey
I certainly join my hon. Friend, as I hope will the rest of the House, in thanking defence personnel for supporting the NHS across London over the past year. Those thanks should also recognise the NHS and frontline workers whom it has been our great privilege to work alongside at the strategic level here in Whitehall, all the way down to those in wards and in the back of ambulances across the country throughout the pandemic.
Besides MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—support for specific tasks, Defence has an enduring presence within the NHS for training and personnel placements. Work is being done to expand that for future opportunities, given the experience of our people working alongside the brilliant NHS clinicians throughout the pandemic.
Laura Trott [V]
Will the Minister join me in thanking the military personnel who set up the asymptomatic testing sites in Sevenoaks and Swanley? The 35 Engineer Regiment managed the whole process swiftly and efficiently, and has made it as pleasant as possible to visit. They deserve to be recognised.
James Heappey
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the fabulous work of the 35 Engineer Regiment and the Kent resilience unit, which supported Kent County Council to deliver its community testing programme and to establish the Sevenoaks asymptomatic testing site. Armed forces personnel have been working tirelessly across the United Kingdom to help tackle this pandemic, and I know she is not alone in wanting to pass her thanks on to all those who have done such amazing work.
Dr Hudson [V]
In times of crisis, such as foot and mouth disease 20 years ago, flooding catastrophes and now the coronavirus pandemic, the armed forces have been deployed effectively to keep us safe by working closely with the emergency services, the NHS and local authorities. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the thousands of UK armed forces personnel who, aside from keeping us safe, are ready to be deployed in national times of crisis and have bolstered the vaccine effort, supported hospitals, assisted with covid testing and much more?
James Heappey
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I wholeheartedly join him in recognising the consistency and excellence of the support that the armed forces have provided to the United Kingdom both in the past and throughout the covid-19 pandemic. It is worth mentioning that, throughout times like this, they are not just working on homeland resilience but continue with the many jobs they have to do overseas to keep countries safe. It is an extraordinary effort, and it is right that they should be recognised in this way in the House.
Steve Brine
Will the Minister join me in thanking the 35 military personnel who continue to support the frontline team at South Central ambulance service, which serves my constituents? Will he confirm that the MOD will continue to be there by their side as we move towards the end of all national restrictions on 21 June?
James Heappey
I, of course, join my hon. Friend in thanking and acknowledging the fine work of the armed forces personnel supporting the South Central ambulance service, as well as those who have been supporting ambulance services in the north-west, London and Wales. Supporting the covid-19 pandemic response remains Defence’s main priority, and I can confirm that Defence will continue to provide support while our assistance is requested and the requirement endures.
Andrea Jenkyns [V]
Last summer, I met members of our armed forces in my constituency of Morley and Outwood who were undertaking tests for people who may have covid. These brave men and women are British heroes, and throughout the pandemic, they have done everything possible to keep the people of our great nation safe. Will the Minister detail the steps that are being taken to strengthen support services for our armed forces and their families so that we can show them the same support that they have shown us?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right to notice just how extraordinary the work of our armed forces has been. They have accepted great risk during the pandemic in doing the things we have asked them to do, which will have been of some concern for their families. While they have often been deployed at short notice, we have tried to make sure that the welfare provisions for them are as good as they can be. We also recognise the demands of service life and the impact that they can have on the lives and careers of family members. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has done excellent work on the armed forces families’ strategy and action plan, and we are looking to develop those ideas fully over the next few months.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
We have established a support package of 14,400 personnel who are on stand-by to support covid-19 and winter resilience tasks. Those personnel have a range of diverse capabilities, including planning, logistical and medical. Approximately 700 personnel are currently deployed in support of the covid-19 vaccine roll-out.
Geraint Davies [V]
I would like to give my massive thanks to all the military and defence personnel who have done such a fantastic job in establishing our field hospitals and in the vaccination programme; they certainly deserve a pay rise. Of the 250 teams of vaccinators promised in December, how many have now been deployed, and how many in Wales?
James Heappey
Forty two of the 252 available vaccination teams are now deployed as part of the vaccine quick response force. In Wales, 34 medical personnel are directly supporting the administering of vaccines, with approximately 150 personnel helping to co-ordinate and operate vaccine centres.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The number of personnel currently serving in the Army as full-time trade trained strength is 76,350. That is supported by 26,920 Army reserves.
Steven Bonnar [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer. For years, the Ministry of Defence has staggered from one recruitment crisis to another as it has struggled and failed to meet its personnel targets, including the broken promise of 12,500 personnel to be based in Scotland by 2020. The Government are now set to cut a further 10,000 soldiers. Can the Minister confirm whether any regiments are due to be disbanded completely and whether these further cuts will pertain to Scotland, which was promised thousands more personnel, not thousands less?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to pre-empt the announcement next week. He will have heard my colleagues say already that these are things he just has to wait seven days more to understand.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs champions our veterans’ mental health and wellbeing needs at the heart of Government. This month, we launched Op Courage, bringing together three NHS England veterans’ mental health services with a single point of access, something we promised to do when we were established 18 months ago.
Chi Onwurah [V]
But waiting times for face-to-face appointments under the veterans’ transition, intervention and liaison mental health service was 37 days in 2020 against the Government’s own target of 14. North-east charities, such as Forward Assist and Anxious Minds in Newcastle, do fantastic work to support veterans in civilian life, but they have been overwhelmed with demand. Does the Minister agree that care for the mental wellbeing of our armed forces veterans must begin before they leave the armed forces, and what is he doing to ensure that they are better supported in that transition to civilian life?
Johnny Mercer
I do not recognise the waiting times the hon. Member relays to me, but I am happy to write to her about what I understand them to be. Let me be really clear that with the funding that has gone into veterans’ mental health—£16 million written into the long-term plan for the NHS, rising to £20 million by 2022-23—I am absolutely determined that world-class veterans’ mental health care will be available in this country. Op Courage, which we launched last week, is the start of that, and we will continue with that progress.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
Last week, we saw Meghan Markle speaking out about how her pleas for support for her mental health crisis were dismissed. While obviously the military is a very different institution, military charities continue to see an increase in demand for mental health support, although people do still struggle to speak out. What steps is the Minister taking to help reduce the stigma around mental health in the military and veteran community?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for all the championing she does in this area. Mental health has come on in leaps and bounds, particularly in the last five to 10 years. Actually, this year we are introducing mandatory mental health and fitness training for our armed forces personnel, which they will undergo every year. We are fundamentally changing our approach to mental health, fundamentally making it easier for people to come forward. It does take courage, but I encourage all those who have mental health concerns to speak up. There is help available, and they can get better.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Ministers have regular discussions with the Submarine Delivery Agency on the progress of the submarine dismantling project and the MOD holds regular discussions with the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which is satisfied with the safety performance at Rosyth dockyard.
Douglas Chapman [V]
I thank the Minister for his response. Any delay in the submarine dismantling programme is of grave concern to my Dunfermline and West Fife constituency, where we accommodate many of these redundant submarines. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s commitment to endorse the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee in 2019 still holds, or will his Department continue to move the goalposts to guarantee that the removal of these boats will remain a taxpayers’ nightmare forever?
Jeremy Quin
I believe I am right in saying that we have now adopted all the recommendations of the PAC report, and we remain committed to continuing to decommission these boats in a safe and swift way. There were, and I have written to the hon. Gentleman, some small delays due to covid, but they were minimal, and we are continuing with the programme and are committed to continuing to do so.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Armed Forces Bill includes measures to reform the service justice system. This includes the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner. In addition, we have commissioned an independent review of policing and prosecutorial processes for dealing with serious criminal offending overseas.
Miss Dines
As my hon. Friend knows, there are many service personnel and veterans in Derbyshire Dales, and they expect to see real justice in the service justice system. Can my hon. Friend say what else, other than what is in the Armed Forces Bill, is going to be brought forward to protect justice in the system?
Johnny Mercer
There is a suite of measures in the Armed Forces Bill. The most significant thing we are introducing is a serious crime unit, which will ensure that our investigators are skilled, capable, and have all the tools they need to conduct investigations of a standard that will withstand ECHR compliance tests and such things. We totally understand the need to address not only that issue but the legal side of this matter through the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. We are determined for uniform to be no hiding place for those who commit offences, and as we go forward, we will improve the standard of those investigations. These provisions will be a serious step towards doing that.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The review by the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee into medallic recognition for those who participated in the UK’s nuclear test programme concluded that it did not meet the level of risk and rigour required for the reward of a campaigning medal or class. That independent process operates to strict criteria, and the outcome in no way diminishes the contribution of veterans. The Government remain grateful to all who participated.
Catherine McKinnell
Our nuclear test veterans were sent to the south Pacific in the 1950s at great risk to themselves. They have heard decades of warm rhetoric about their crucial role in the country’s defence during the cold war and beyond, but they lack formal recognition. Recently, a constituent wrote to me:
“My dad was a veteran who was present at two of the grapple tests on Christmas Island in the 1950s. Sadly, my dad is no longer with us and never got round to seeing the Government award a medal or compensation to the veterans.”
Does the Minister share my concern that no more nuclear test veterans such as my constituent’s father should pass away with their contribution left unrecognised?
Johnny Mercer
Their contributions are not unrecognised. We work hard to ensure a programme of support for those who have become ill as a result of their exposure to nuclear tests. This is a consistent process that we are always refining, and the review I undertook eight months ago tightened up that support. The medallic system is outwith the control of Ministers and always has been. It is rightly in that position, but I am determined to continue to do all I can to support this cohort of nuclear test veterans.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Our people are our finest asset, and the Government will continue to invest in our extraordinary armed forces personnel. We are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to have the world-class armed forces it deserves. I will publish further details of my plans on 22 March.
James Daly
Will my right hon. Friend outline what consultation has been undertaken with our military personnel ahead of the policy changes that will be announced as part of the integrated review and defence Command Paper?
Mr Wallace
From the very beginning of the integrated review and defence reform process, we have engaged with the chiefs and many members of the armed forces across all services. We have been informed throughout that process by defence intelligence and other intelligence products, to ensure that our plans match the threat that we face, as well as the capabilities that we should give to the men and women of our armed forces.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
We greatly value everyone who serves in our armed forces, wherever they come from, for their contribution to the security of our nation. Non-UK personnel can settle in the United Kingdom after four years’ service, and I am pleased to confirm that we are extending the time before discharge so that applicants can be submitted from 10 to 18 weeks before they leave. In addition, an imminent consultation is due, and I urge Members to contribute to that and to try to solve the current ongoing issues regarding Commonwealth veterans.
Dan Jarvis
Pay up or pack up: that is the shameful choice presented to our Commonwealth servicemen and women. I am aware of the strength of feeling that the Secretary of State has on this issue. Will he confirm when we will see the public consultation? Will the reforms promised apply to veterans and families, as well as to serving personnel?
Mr Wallace
First, may I place on record my apology to the hon. Gentleman for the delay in responding to his correspondence? That should not have happened and I apologise for it. The consultation is imminent, and we will schedule it in as soon as possible. Once it has been published, I will be happy to sit down with as many Members as possible to discuss their views on what we are proposing and on whether the measures should go further. We can take it from that point. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am keen that whatever we do is fair for all veterans, whether Gurkhas, or serving UK national or Commonwealth personnel. We must ensure equity, but at the same time I understand the strength of feeling in the House. Those who contribute should be recognised.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
Defence remains able to assist other Departments where appropriate and, through prudent planning, has continued to provide support when required throughout the pandemic. Mitigation measures such as testing of key personnel and adaptation of working practices have ensured that Defence has maintained both its UK operational and contingent readiness, as well as being able to generate the forces we require for our commitments overseas.
Stuart Anderson
As a proud veteran, I am delighted to see what our great armed forces have done throughout this pandemic. They continue to go over and above. Will my hon. Friend go over and above in honouring our armed forces by seeing that they have everything they need in the integrated review to stand proud on the world stage?
James Heappey
I look forward to the announcement later in the week and next Monday, but I have a strong suspicion that it will be jam-packed full of opportunities for our men and women to serve at home and around the world in really fulfilling roles that keep our country safer for the future.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Included in my responsibilities is the duty to uphold the duty of care to our workforce. We were all appalled by the reporting we saw of the incident involving members of the RAF Regiment at the weekend. The RAF police are investigating the incident and the victims have been offered our full support. The Chief of the Air Staff and I had a discussion about the incident over the weekend and he has, with my support, acted quickly. He has removed officers from the immediate chain of command without prejudice pending the findings of the police investigation, and the unit involved, the Support Weapons Flight, will be disbanded with immediate effect. Bullying, harassment and discrimination has no place in our armed forces. I will not tolerate it and nor will the Chief of the Air Staff.
Debbie Abrahams [V]
What proportion of servicemen and women are currently deployed in UN peacekeeping, what was it last year and how is it set to change over the next three years?
Mr Wallace
I can write to the hon. Lady with the exact proportions. All I can say is that there has been a significant increase recently, with the deployment to Mali of our forces to assist in the United Nations mission there. We also have a number of forces deployed in Somalia, assisting that fragile state in trying to come to terms with the consequences of the civil war. The Government are determined to continue to contribute to UN missions wherever we can, lending military support—not necessarily operational support, but in the logistics, the enabling and humanitarian aid.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Russia is rearming, Daesh is regrouping and China is nudging us out of military and trade partnerships across Africa, yet we are about to witness a shocking reduction in our conventional hard power and full-spectrum capabilities. That is overshadowed by the fanfare of announcements promoting a tilt towards niche capabilities, including electronic warfare and autonomous platforms. Yes, we must adapt to new threats, but that does not mean that the old threats have disappeared. Severe cuts to our infantry regiments, main battle tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and Hercules C-130s will worry our closest allies and delight our competitors. Regarding the F-35 jets, does the Secretary of State agree that cutting back our order from 138 to 48 will mean that, if required, we could never unilaterally operate both carriers in strike mode simultaneously?
Mr Wallace
I have listened to my right hon. Friend’s consistent messaging over the last few months. I think the thing that we can all agree with is that, as he said at the weekend,
“we must modernise—but first let’s agree the threat—& then design the right defence posture.”
That is exactly what we have been doing. Obviously, in the Ministry of Defence, we have made sure that we have been doing that in conjunction with our serving personnel, our allies and the threats. I think playing by the Ladybird book of defence design is not the way to progress.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Why are Britain’s full-time armed forces still 10,000 short of the numbers that the last defence review, in 2015, said were needed to meet the threats and keep the country safe, which the Defence Secretary’s Government pledged to meet?
Mr Wallace
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman. We are 6,000 under. The strength is 76,500 from the 82,000 that was pledged. He will of course know—it is well documented—that under the previous coalition Government and Conservative Government there was not a satisfactory outcome by the recruiting process. That has now been fixed. Until the covid break, we were on target to fulfil the pipeline and target for that recruiting. We have to make sure we continue to invest in that. That is why we are investing in people. We will continue to invest throughout the process and next week there will be announcements that put people at the heart of our defence review.
John Healey
The Secretary of State may want to check the numbers. I was talking about the full-time armed forces, not the full-time Army numbers. He has rightly said before that our forces personnel will go to war alongside robots in the future, but robots do not seize and hold vital ground from the enemy. They do not keep the peace or rebuild broken societies, and they do not give covid jabs. Size matters and no Government can secure the nations with under-strength armed forces. Is it not the truth that over the past decade we have seen our armed forces run down—numbers down, pay down, morale down—and that all the indication from stories ahead of tomorrow’s integrated review is that Ministers are set to make the same mistakes as in the last reviews, with our servicemen and women paying the price for cuts and bad defence budgeting?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that for the past three or four decades we have had that characteristic, where Government after Government have been over-ambitious and underfunded the defence policy. His Government did it. The Governments before mine have done the same things. I only have to point him, as I do during at every defence questions, to the National Audit Office report into the processes of his Government in 2010 and our previous Governments to show that the biggest problem is that we have been promising soldiers, men and women of the armed forces equipment they never got, or numbers gains when just tying them up alongside. That is not the way to confront an enemy. The way to confront the enemy is to invest in the people, give them the right equipment to take on the threat, and make sure they are active, busy and forward. As a soldier, being active, busy and forward is what keeps you engaged and in there.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Mr Wallace
I am sorry that that has been my hon. Friend’s experience. I think in the public sector it is cyber-security. In the intelligence services I worked with when I was Security Minister and in key parts of the armed forces, such as the Signal Regiment, there are higher proportions of women. I think that is something on which the state can lead. That is why the state signed up and sponsored the CyberFirst campaign, designed to stimulate among girls at school an interest in cyber and to invest in them. Hopefully, we are seeing an increase in that. But she can rest assured that with the next stage of the defence review she will see us making sure that, loud and clear, the sign “women are welcome” will be put above the door.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The hon. Lady refers to two bits of potential industrial action. I have written to her about RAF Leeming in the last month. Obviously, it is a source of concern when employers and employees fall out, but I am not going to get into discussions on the specific action involved. We urge all those involved to come to an agreement.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The UK Government are committed to working with the Government of India and increasing our efforts to combat shared threats. In particular, the UK is focused on increasing bilateral maritime co-operation in the Indian ocean and on ensuring a closer defence industrial relationship in line with Prime Minister Modi’s made in India policy. We are also committed to uplifting our defence education and training relationship to enable us to work together more effectively. I am certain that my hon. Friend and our friends in India will be hugely excited by what may follow in the integrated review.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Jeremy Quin
I am not going to prejudge in advance of the announcements that are going to be made. They will all be made in the next eight days or so. The hon. Gentleman will be able to see for himself, but I assure him that we have gone through the numbers very closely and there is a lot of new money coming into defence—a £24 billion increase in the amount of money being spent on defence. We can see an awful lot of benefit coming through to our armed forces and our personnel.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
Many constituencies and many constituents will benefit from it. I know my hon. Friend is a fierce advocate for Leonardo helicopters in his part of the world. In that particular case, we really value our strategic partnership arrangements and recognise the contribution that they make to UK prosperity. We will shortly be publishing the findings of our review into the defence and security industrial strategy, setting out our strategic approach to a number of sectors.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question. First and foremost, I can give him some reassurance that not only are we continuing to move our submarines from the south to the north to invest in basing in Scotland—for submarine basing, and submarines pose just as lethal a threat to our adversaries as any surface fleet—but we continue to patrol the high north, recently in the Barents sea, and earlier in the year when we returned for the first time since the cold war, joining NATO allies to make sure that those vital trade routes are invested in. From my point of view, the key place for a ship is at sea doing its job on operations. The bases are very important, but let us remember that the way we protect our coast is by being out at sea.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is right to ask about the actions of the ICC. We of course respect the independence of the ICC, but we expect it to exercise due prosecutorial and judicial discipline. We continue to engage with the ICC and international partners to make those points.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Under Op Courage, the new NHS pathway for all veterans’ mental health, there is an ability to monitor waiting times in almost real-time data, and I am absolutely committed to meeting those targets. There is significant investment going into it. I will always argue for more investment in something that has historically been underinvested in for so long. But I am confident that, as we stand here today, we have a world-class offering of mental health provision for our veterans, and it is incumbent on all of us to get that cohort to understand where that help is, to understand what the care pathways are and to have hope, because they can get better and they will be looked after.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
Mr Wallace
The recent conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrated with brutal clarity the devastating impact of unmanned aerial vehicles, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and traditional artillery when combined to produce a lethal cocktail of precision, lethality and range. The destruction of Armenian forces throughout the battlefield, not just on the frontline, demonstrated the vulnerability even of armoured forces on the modern battlefield. This includes our own forces, which is not something that, as Defence Secretary, I am willing to ignore any further. I will set out further details in the future review.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Mr Wallace
The hon. Member will know that I held a debate in the House as a Back-Bencher about that very debt and the need and determination to repay it, as it is a stain on Britain’s honour from when we dealt with this in the 1970s. It is definitely the intention that we comply with any court orders that are made against us, and we continue to do so, but we have to ensure that whatever we do is in line with both this law and the sanctions law that we have to observe as well.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
Jeremy Quin
Warton plays a key role in the UK’s combat air sector and Tempest is the future of that sector, with over 1,800 highly skilled engineers already involved in the programme, going up to 2,500 next year. As the Prime Minister has made clear, this Government are committed to investing in the future of our combat air strategy.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
Johnny Mercer
The Armed Forces Bill is an important opportunity to enshrine the armed forces covenant. I understand that for some it goes too far and for some it does not go far enough. I say to the hon. Member that it is the start of the process and the start of a conversation to ensure that the experience of being a veteran is levelled up across this country, and I look forward to working with her in the years ahead.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Jeremy Quin
I hope we may have found a technical solution that would enable base-dependent sites to be dealt with to allow sales to social housing providers if the parties agree. Our advice is that the transfer of supply can generally be effected relatively rapidly, and we are willing to share this advice with Annington, which will need to be satisfied that it can perform connections to mains networks safely and efficiently with tenants in situ.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
I am aligned with my right hon. Friend’s views. The Secretary of State has worked tirelessly on this issue to try to correct the historic injustice of war widows’ pensions. We continue to examine all possibilities, including the ex gratia scheme and all the other ideas that my right hon. Friend has come up with in his tireless campaigning. We will arrive at a solution. Like I said, the Secretary of State is committed to resolving it, and we will get there in the end.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Government maintain that every F-35 built has 15% UK content, but I understand that the MOD’s definition of “content” includes work carried out for UK companies by US subsidiaries. Will the Minister therefore publish how he defines UK content in the programme, so that I can decide what is done in the UK and what is done in the US?
Jeremy Quin
I have received a large number of parliamentary questions from the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe that I have answered that question as part of them. If not, I will make certain that it is clear to him. It is 15% by value, and we are proud of the contribution that is being made by UK manufacturing to the F-35. I will make certain that that is covered again.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code is clear that
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
I know that you believe this principle to be fundamental to the proper role of Parliament and the accountability of Ministers. We look forward to the Prime Minister’s statement tomorrow on the integrated review, yet over the last week there have been a series of detailed media briefings about decisions in that integrated review. With the Defence Secretary in his place, can you offer guidance to the House, ahead of the follow-up Command Paper on Monday and the defence industrial strategy on Tuesday, so that we do not have the same serious disregard of the ministerial code and disrespect for Parliament?
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We have indeed seen a steady drumbeat of media stories promoting radical changes to our defence posture, but the Defence Committee has not received any of those briefings, despite frequent departmental requests. What troubles me the most is the MOD’s decision to share with the media the desire to increase our nuclear stockpile with the purchase of 200 W93 US-made warheads. I am a firm supporter of continuous at-sea deterrence, but changes to our non-proliferation policy deserve proper oversight in this House and should not be used a sweetener to overshadow dramatic cuts to our conventional defence posture. May I ask for your guidance on how we can encourage the MOD to brief the Defence Committee—perhaps in the Ladybird book form that the Defence Secretary likes to promote—and to ensure that any announcements on CASD are made in this Chamber first?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to both right hon. Gentlemen for giving me notice of their points of order. “Erskine May” states that
“The Speaker has made it clear that the media should not be informed about the content of statements before they have been made to the House”.
When a statement is made, Members will of course have an opportunity to ask about any advance briefing given to the media, but my position is clear: I want important policy announcements to be made first to this House. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the Chair of the Defence, Committee as well as this response. I expect that that response will be shared with all Ministers and that they will act accordingly. Thank you.
I suspend the House to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement by the Home Secretary, I need to inform the House that because charges have now been brought in the Sarah Everard case, legal proceedings are now active for the purposes of the House’s sub judice resolution. That means that reference should not be made to the case, including to any details of those against whom charges have been brought. It is, however, in order to discuss the relationship between the covid-19 regulations and the right to protest, for example. I now call the Home Secretary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the tragic death of Sarah Everard and the events of Saturday evening. I would like to begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with Sarah’s family and friends at this unbearable time. I know that every Member of this House will join me in offering her loved ones our deepest sympathies. While this is a horrific case, which has rightly prompted debate and questions about wider issues, we must remember that a young woman has lost her life and that a family is grieving.
Let me turn to this weekend’s events. I have already said that some of the footage circulating online of Clapham common is upsetting. While the police are rightly operationally independent, I asked the Metropolitan police for a report into what had happened. This Government back our police in fighting crime and keeping the public safe, but in the interests of providing greater assurance and ensuring public confidence, I have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct a full, independent lessons-learned review. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has welcomed this and I will await the report and, of course, update the House in due course.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge why Sarah’s death has upset so many. My heartache and that of others can be summed up in just five words, “She was just walking home.” While the specific circumstances of Sarah’s disappearance are thankfully uncommon, what has happened has reminded women everywhere of the steps that we take each day without a second thought to keep ourselves safe. It has rightly ignited anger at the danger posed to women by predatory men, an anger I feel as strongly as anyone. Accounts shared online in the wake of Sarah’s disappearance are so powerful because every single one of us can relate to them. Too many of us have walked home from school or work alone only to hear footsteps uncomfortably close behind us. Too many of us have pretended to be on the phone to a friend to scare someone off. Too many of us have clutched our keys in our fist in case we need to defend ourselves. And that is not okay.
Women and girls must feel safe while walking our streets. That is why we have continued to take action. Our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill is on track to receive Royal Assent by the end of April, and this will transform our collective response to that abhorrent crime. It builds on other measures that we have introduced, including the controlling or coercive behaviour offence and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s law, which enables individuals to ask the police whether their partner has a violent or abusive past. We have also introduced new preventative tools and powers to tackle crimes including stalking, female genital mutilation and so-called upskirting, but we can never be complacent. That is why throughout the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, we have accepted amendments from hon. Members from political parties across the House. The Bill now includes a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, outlaws threats to disclose intimate images and extends the controlling or coercive behaviour offence to cover post-separation abuse. This is in addition to the Bill’s existing measures, which include a new statutory definition of domestic abuse that recognises the many forms that abuse can take—psychological, physical, emotional, economic and sexual—and, of course, the impact of abuse on children, as well as new rules to prevent victims from having to go through the pain of being cross-examined by their abusers in family and civil courts.
We all know that action is needed to improve the outcomes for rape cases, and we are currently developing robust actions as part of our end-to-end review of rape to reverse the decline in outcomes in recent years. At the end of last year, in December, I launched the first ever public survey of women and girls to hear their views on how we can better tackle these gendered crimes. On Friday, in the wake of the outpouring of grief, I reopened that survey. I can tell the House that as of 11 am today, the Home Office had received 78,000 responses since 6 pm on Friday. That is completely unprecedented, and considerably more than the 18,000 responses received over the entire 10-week period when the survey was previously open. I am listening to women and girls up and down the country, and their views will help to shape a new strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, which I will bring forward to the House later this year.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which we will shortly be debating, will end the halfway release of those convicted for sexual offences such as rape. Instead, under our law, vile criminals responsible for these terrible crimes will spend at least two thirds of their time behind bars. Our new law will extend the scope of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 with regard to the abuse of positions of trust—something that predominantly affects young girls—and it will introduce Kay’s law, which will encourage the police to impose pre-charge bail with appropriate conditions where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. We hope that that will provide reassurance and additional protection for alleged victims in high harm cases such as domestic abuse. I note that the Opposition will be voting against these crucial measures to support victims of violent crimes, including young women and girls.
The Government are providing an extra £40 million to help victims during the pandemic and beyond. Last month we launched a new Government advertising campaign, #ItStillMatters, to raise awareness of sexual violence services and ensure that victims know where to get help.
Over the past year, during the coronavirus pandemic, the police have been faced with an unenviable and immensely difficult task—one that, for the most part, they have approached with skill and professionalism—of helping to enforce regulations, as determined by Parliament, with one crucial objective in mind: to save lives. On 6 January, this House approved those changes by 524 votes to 16. Sadly, as of Sunday 14 March, more than 125,500 lives have been lost to this horrible virus. It is for that reason that I continue to urge everyone, for as long as these regulations are in place, not to participate in large gatherings or attend protests. The right to protest is the cornerstone of our democracy, but the Government’s duty remains to prevent more lives from being lost during the pandemic.
There will undoubtedly be more discussions of these vital issues in the days and weeks to come, but we cannot and must not forget that a family is grieving. I know that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House are with Sarah’s loved ones at this truly terrible time.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House to make a statement and for advance sight of it. We come together at a time of national grief and what must now be a time of change. The news of Sarah Everard’s death is heartbreaking for us all and our thoughts are with her family and friends. Although I of course appreciate the legal sensitivity of the case, reports around its circumstances are extremely distressing.
The reaction to Sarah Everard’s death throughout the country has been extraordinarily powerful and moving, led by the passionate voices of women and girls who are rightly demanding action and change. It cannot be right that so many women continue to fear for their safety on a daily basis, whether on the streets or at home. The testimonies that have been shared highlight the unacceptable levels of abuse and misogyny—harassment on the streets; women walking home with their headphones turned off so that they can listen for threats, keys between fingers; women being told to stay home after dark to avoid attackers. Let me be clear: it is not women who should change their behaviour; it is men and wider society that need to change.
At times like this, it is vital that people are able to have their voices heard—in, of course, a way that is lawful and covid-secure—yet this weekend in Clapham things clearly went very wrong. I share the anger about the policing and the scenes that we saw. It is right that the Mayor of London has shown leadership by calling on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate. The Home Secretary asked for a report from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and I hope she will publish it, because transparency is so important. Will the Home Secretary also publish the minutes of the advance meeting that was held on Friday, as mentioned by the Minister for Crime and Policing in the media this morning? Will she confirm what communication she personally had with the Metropolitan police prior to the events on Saturday?
Although Saturday’s event was a vigil, not a protest, the scenes from Clapham should be a red warning light to the Government: Ministers should not be rushing through laws that crack down on protest. The truth is that the Government are failing to address violence against women and girls and Ministers even want to curtail their right to protest about it. It is a chronic failure of the Government. Meetings and the reopening of surveys are nowhere near enough—and we understand that the Minister for Women and Equalities will not even be attending the meeting this evening.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that recorded rapes doubled between 2014 and 2019—doubled. The crime survey for England and Wales showed that more than 2 million people experience domestic abuse in a year, yet only a tiny fraction of perpetrators are charged and charging rates are falling. The justice system sends a perverse message that murdering someone at home—which predominantly means men killing women—is a lesser crime than killing someone in the street, because it hands out shorter sentences for domestic homicides.
The 296-page Bill that we will consider later contains the word “memorial” eight times and fails to include the word “women” once. The Government’s message is that they want to lock up for 10 years people who damage the statues of slave traders, when rape sentences start at half of that. I say to the Government that unless this changes—unless there is action on homicide, on street harassment and on stalking—the Bill will risk becoming an abuser’s charter that just allows violence and injustice on our streets and in our homes to continue unchecked.
Ministers have been on the airwaves today struggling to find aspects of the Bill that will make a difference to addressing violence against women and girls. Let me take just one example: Ministers have pointed to whole-life tariffs for rape. When the Home Secretary gets to her feet, will she say how many rape convictions have resulted in life terms? The answer is hardly any. Today, the High Court ruled in favour of the status quo on rape. It is a status quo that is shameful and that the Government must change. The figures show that 99% of rapes reported to the police in England and Wales result in no legal proceedings whatsoever—99%. It is effectively a get-out-of-jail-free card and it is appalling.
It does not have to be this way: this could be a time of national unity when we decide to come together as a country to put forward protections. Either the Government can change course and take the necessary action, or Ministers will find themselves on the wrong side of history once again.
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but at a time when the country is mourning a significant loss and there are moments of great unity,
I am quite sorry to hear his tone, particularly regarding the Government’s record on and commitment to tackling violence against women and girls.
The right hon. Gentleman will be well sighted—more than aware—of the significant contributions of all Members of this House to the Domestic Abuse Bill, which has been under debate, scrutiny, challenge and amendment for a considerable period of time, and is in the House of Lords right now. I emphasise that we are committed to addressing violence against women and girls at the highest level. Look at the work of this Government over the last decade; I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for all her work, as she was the one who really set the bar high in legislation. That work includes not just the DA Bill, but all the measures to address female genital mutilation, and violence against women and girls, and all the money and support that has been put forward for charities. This Government are building on those measures, and no one can ignore that simple fact.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will be debated this afternoon, and he specifically mentioned rape and rape convictions. The Bill is a criminal justice Bill as well as a policing Bill, and he will be very mindful of the work that the Government are undertaking right now through the end-to-end rape review to completely reverse the decline in outcomes that we have seen in recent years; this Government are increasingly very honest and upfront about that decline in outcomes. We are working with all relevant parties, including the Crown Prosecution Service. We want to change the direction there. There is much more work to come and that will be published in due course—shortly, in fact.
To say that the Bill does nothing for women is completely wrong, especially when it comes to sentencing, because it will end the halfway release of those convicted for sexual offences such as rape. Instead, our laws will go after those vile criminals, and they will spend at least two thirds of their time behind bars. It is worth reflecting that it was a Labour Government in 2003 who made automatic halfway release mandatory for all standard determinate sentences, regardless of whether the offender had been convicted of a violent or sexual offence. The Bill that the House will debate later will reverse that policy.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no specific mention of women in the Bill. That is another accusation that I reject, primarily because it is a criminal law and sentencing Bill, which applies equally to everybody. The Labour party knows that it is in line with the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, neither of which, as Bills that related to criminal justice and sentencing, mentioned women.
There are many other measures that we will discuss later in the passage of the Bill, but I want to come back to the points that I made in my statement. It is right that I have had many discussions with the Metropolitan police and specifically the commissioner on Friday and over the weekend in relation to preparations and planning prior to Saturday evening. My comments are public and on the record regarding what has happened and, quite frankly, the upsetting images of Saturday evening. A review is now being conducted by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. It is right that that takes place. No one should prejudge anything in terms of conduct until we absolutely see what has happened through that report. The police are, rightly, operationally independent.
All of us in this House—this is not just about the Government—want to work to drive the right outcomes, so that women feel safe. Laws and legislation will absolutely do that; there is no question about that. But this is also about behaviour and culture—that is culture across society, and that is culture with men as well, and we should be up-front about that and never shy away from being honest in discussing that. Right now, all Members should have in their thoughts and prayers Sarah’s family and friends at this particularly unbearable time.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. She is right to remind us that behind the events of Saturday lies the tragic death of Sarah Everard, a bright young woman dearly loved by her family and friends. I join my right hon. Friend and other Members of the House in saying that my thoughts and prayers are with Sarah’s family and friends at this time. We want justice for Sarah. We also want women to be able to feel and be safe on our streets and in their homes.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that the Government’s excellent Domestic Abuse Bill reaches the statute book next month, as anticipated, but also recognise that legislation is not enough? If we are going to eradicate violence against women and girls, we need a change of attitudes. That is about dealing with perpetrators and changing their behaviour but also teaching young men and boys about respect for women and what is or is not acceptable in a relationship.
Priti Patel
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work and leadership around domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. She is absolutely right that the Domestic Abuse Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that all Members of the House should feel proud of, in terms of the work that has come together across the House. She is also right about the cultural and behavioural aspects that must be changed. All of us have to be conscious of that. As a mother bringing up a young son, I think that respecting women and girls, treating everyone fairly with equality and understanding that there are no barriers in demonstrating that respect to one another and, importantly, tolerance of one another is absolutely vital.
There is so much more work to do. Legislation can only go so far. We can never, ever be complacent. The Government and both Houses share the determination and desire to do so much more when it comes to protecting girls and women, and we must be united in our strategies. This is not about just saying, “There’s a survey taking place.” We must all contribute to that. In fact, now that the survey has been reopened, I very much hope that Labour Members will contribute to it, to help us have a united and coherent approach—a one voice approach—to how we can support women and girls and prevent violence against women and girls.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
The murder of Sarah Everard has truly shocked and saddened us all, and I join others in sending our heartfelt condolences to Sarah’s family and friends at this time. “She was walking home”—a sentence that resonates with all women. This tragedy serves as a stark reminder to women, who assess every aspect of their daily lives in fear of sexual violence, assault or abhorrent crimes at the hands of men. I once more take this opportunity to urge the Prime Minister to ratify the Istanbul convention without further delay.
Across the UK this weekend, women reclaimed the streets in protest and to pay tribute to the life of Sarah Everard. Police responding have received widespread criticism, and questions must be answered about whether the actions were necessary and proportionate to protect people and prevent public harm. The public health crisis has made restrictions necessary and public gatherings inadvisable. While the police face difficult decisions every day, it is impossible to watch the footage of the events at Clapham common without shock and concern that the policing appeared heavy-handed and disproportionate. It is therefore right that the chief inspector of constabulary has been asked to conduct a review. In Scotland, this incident would have been examined by the Independent Advisory Group—experts with a specific remit to ensure that the use of powers is consistent with human rights principles and legislation.
In terms of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the right to protest must remain a fundamental human right. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the chief inspector’s review will focus on human rights as well as policing matters?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for her sentiment on the tragic death of Sarah Everard. If I may, I will come back on a number of points. The hon. Lady is absolutely right on the role of the inspectorate, and we will wait for that review and, obviously, I will report back. It is worth reflecting, once again, that this has been a difficult and demanding period for the police, with the impact of coronavirus restrictions—we know why they are in place. On the point about protest, I am very conscious that we will have the debate later this afternoon as well. This Government absolutely support freedom of expression and, clearly, the whole issue of the right to protest is fundamental to our democratic freedoms. Without wanting to pre-judge the debate or the future discussions on the Bill, let me say that the legislation will, of course, speak about the police using powers in terms of how they would manage protest, but it is also worth reflecting that this will be updating legislation—the Public Order Act 1986—that was enacted more than 30 years ago. So this will be very much part of the discussion we will be having in due course.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I join my right hon. Friend and voices from right across the House in paying my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and loved ones. It is a truly heartbreaking situation, which I know has allowed many women to find the strength to share their own experiences, and I was really moved to hear that 78,000 people have now responded to the reopened consultation. I am encouraging many others to do the same and share their voice. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we really want to get the best outcome and make our streets feel safer for everyone, we have to listen to all voices—both men and women, and people of all political persuasions—to ensure that we are truly working together to deliver the change we need?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her questions. She is of course absolutely right; this is a collective effort, for everyone to be part of shaping future strategy, policy and legislation. We can do that together, which is why it is unprecedented and incredible that 78,000 people have responded to the survey. We are really pleased about that, because we do want to encourage people to contribute. As you have heard me say, Mr Speaker, I encourage all Members of this House to play their role and join that contribution.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I join in the expressions from across the House of deep sympathy and condolences to Sarah Everard’s family following her tragic death? Women across the country have been moved to talk about the experiences that we all share, and that no one should have to endure, of feeling threatened and unsafe on our own streets. Eight months ago, I put forward measures to deal with repeat perpetrators of abuse and stalking: to be able to register them; and to be able to prevent the problem where they move from one victim to another, no one keeps track and they get away with it. At that time, Ministers said that those measures were not needed. Has the Home Secretary looked at this again? Will she work with me, Baroness Royall and Paladin to make sure we can bring in these strong measures, take action against repeat perpetrators and keep more women safe?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the points that she has been raising and the measures at large. There is something about perpetrators and their serial offending that has to be addressed—there is no question about that. Of course this does link predominantly to many of the criminal justice outcomes and the wider debate that this House will be having, not just later today, but over future weeks. I will be very candid: we will look at all measures, and rightly so. We should be doing everything possible to keep women safe—and indeed everybody safe. The behaviour of serial perpetrators and offenders is deeply corrosive and damaging, and obviously it has dreadful, dreadful implications and consequences. So we will be happy to continue not just to look at these measures, but, right now, with the violence against women and girls consultation that is under way, to engage with others and follow up on these points.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]
It is clearly unacceptable for any woman to feel unsafe walking the streets. Can I propose some practical measures that the Home Secretary might adopt? Can she introduce a fund to roll out much more CCTV around the country, which will help to make our streets safer for people and bring evidence where there is a crime committed? Can she stop taking people off the DNA database? There are huge numbers of crimes—sexual assaults, rapes and murders—where there is DNA evidence available but no match. The more people on the DNA database, the more chance of getting these people off our streets and rightly convicted. Can we increase the sentences for people convicted of sexual assaults and rapes? Can we stop the automatic early release of criminals who are still considered a threat to society? These measures would help to make our streets safer for everyone.
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his practical suggestions. We are doing a lot on CCTV, and we do have the Safer Streets fund, which he will be very aware of. He has raised a number of areas, and I suspect that if he were to join the Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, he could absolutely contribute to that and make those points there.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I join Members in continuing to extend our thoughts and prayers to Sarah Everard’s family. My constituents have reacted with justified anger to the Metropolitan police’s treatment of those in attendance at this weekend’s vigil to commemorate Sarah and all women who lost their lives to gender-based violence. It is bitterly ironic that an event intended to highlight the issue of public safety for women was blocked on the grounds of public safety. What happened this weekend is a reminder of what happens when police try to completely bypass the views of the communities they serve. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the police’s high-handed approach got the balance between public safety and the right to protest completely wrong? Does she agree that the police’s heavy-handed treatment of female protesters was wrong? Will she now accept that her Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is ill-conceived? My constituents are very angry about what has happened and want to know what the Government will do to reassure them that they will proactively address violence against women and girls and deep-seated forms of institutional discrimination in the UK police.
Priti Patel
I understand the sentiments that the hon. Lady is raising on behalf of her constituents and obviously recognise the constituency that she represents and the terrible, tragic events that have taken place. All our thoughts are clearly with Sarah Everard and her family. Of course, the Metropolitan police themselves had been involved with the vigil that was planned and spent a great deal of time with the organisers, and the Metropolitan police have been very public about that. I am not going to repeat my comments about seeking greater assurance and ensuring public confidence in policing, hence the reason why Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is now conducting a full, independent “lessons learned” review. I think that is absolutely appropriate. My comments about Saturday evening are on the record and well known.
With regard to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, that is a manifesto Bill that this Government were elected on, and we will of course participate in its Second Reading later on this afternoon. It is not ill-conceived at all. The British people voted for it. We live in a democracy and this Government will work to deliver on it.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I welcome the announced in-depth review of the criminal justice system when it comes to rape and sexual assault. Does my right hon. Friend agree that every part of the criminal justice system has to play its role in bringing perpetrators to justice and better supporting victims? A lot of rape happens within marriage, and it is not the best situation when people have married under the age of 18 to a man who is much older. Will she also look at that to see how we can stop that sort of situation arising?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would like to pay tribute to her for all her work and campaigning on this particular issue. Of course, she is absolutely right that this about the criminal justice system from an end-to-end perspective—from policing right through not just to charging, but to conviction. That is effectively what the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is about, which is why it goes across two Departments.
The rape review is fundamentally important because obviously the numbers have not been going in the right direction. We have to understand the lessons as to why charging decisions have been how they are, and the impact on witnesses and victims themselves, including, with victims, the attrition that takes place when it comes to going to court. A lot of work is taking place in this area.
I should also mention in dispatches that the Prime Minister leads the crime and justice taskforce. This is one of those fundamental issues, again across Government—not just the Home Office, but across the MOJ—where we are bringing core elements together with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and working with the CPS and working with the Attorney General. These issues are absolutely integral to the entire system.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
I send my condolences and thoughts to the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this most difficult of times.
The scenes of women being forced to the ground, restrained and arrested simply for holding a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Everard and in condemnation of violence against women and girls were utterly disgraceful. Of course the Met Commissioner Cressida Dick must resign, but what personal responsibility does the Home Secretary herself have for the terrible handling of this peaceful vigil? Did the Home Secretary speak to the Met commissioner in the run-up to the vigil, and if so, will she tell the House now what guidance and advice she gave the Met police in advance of the vigil?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that those scenes were distressing and upsetting. There is no question about that at all, and I have already spoken about the measures that are now in place for getting assurance about the way in which the Metropolitan police conducted its operations. It is rightly operationally independent, and the independent lessons learned review is obviously now taking place.
I had been in touch with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday and throughout the weekend, and we have had extensive discussions on planning and preparation for the vigil. I should, however, emphasise that on Friday there was legal action under way, so until that legal action had been determined—and of course the commissioner and the Met police themselves were engaging with the organisers of the vigil—there were various plans that the police were working on. I will be very clear, though: on Friday my views were known, and they were based on the fact that people obviously wanted to pay tribute within the locality.
We need to bear in mind that we are in a pandemic—we cannot forget that; we are in a health pandemic—but for people who live locally and out on a daily basis or passing through, laying flowers is absolutely the right thing to do, and we saw many people doing that. Of course, as I have said, those scenes on Saturday evening were upsetting. That is the reason why I asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to provide a report on the event itself and what happened, and now why we have a lessons learned review into the operational effect and the impact of what happened.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
Like colleagues across the House, my condolences are with Sarah Everard’s family and friends.
All women should feel safe, and no offender should think they can abuse women on the streets or anywhere else. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all reports of allegations of abuse must be seriously and more rigorously investigated, and that there must be confidence in the justice system that it will do this and that it will support victims? Will she confirm that she intends that there will be such confidence in the justice system after the consultation on the violence against women and girls strategy?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Much of what we are discussing right now speaks to greater assurance and public confidence in the criminal justice system and of course, as Members have touched on already, in policing and the events on Saturday evening. It is vitally important that, through the VAWG consultation and the development of the strategy, we look at this not in an isolated way, but end to end. We need to look at the entire system, right down to the types of abuse and harassment that girls and women are experiencing. We need to look at the root causes and behavioural factors to understand why perpetrators and individuals are behaving in a particular way. We need to look at why abuse is taking place and at how we as a country and a Government tackle those issues. That does impinge on the criminal justice system. All our work is based on driving better outcomes—the right outcomes—so that, when criminality takes place, we can ensure that the perpetrators of crimes are receiving the tough sentences that they deserve.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I join others in extending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and to the families of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and countless others who have lost their lives because of male violence.
I acknowledge the particular policing challenges at a time of covid restrictions, but the Met is still obliged to follow the Human Rights Act and execute its powers proportionately and only when necessary. It is clear to everyone that it got it terribly wrong on Saturday night. Does the Secretary of State therefore not see that handing over yet more draconian powers to the police when they have so badly misjudged this situation would be both foolish and dangerous? A Bill that criminalises protests that are noisy and have impact effectively means cancelling this country’s long-standing right to peaceful protest altogether. Finally, will she stand in solidarity with the women arrested over the weekend and call for the withdrawal of any fixed-penalty notices that were issued because of the Met’s disproportionate response?
Priti Patel
I will not go over my comments about the police on Saturday evening. Those points have been made. I absolutely disagree with what the hon. Lady said, but we will discuss it further on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill later this afternoon. The fact is that, as a country, we believe in freedom of expression, free speech and the rights of people to express themselves freely through protest—managed protest—in the right way. The police always engage with individuals and organisers. We will debate this during the course of the Bill, but I am afraid that the hon. Lady has completely misrepresented the proposals that we are putting forward.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The murder of Sarah Everard was a shocking event and I feel terribly sorry for what the family has gone through, made even edgier really by the fact that there have now been charges levelled against a police officer. We require police officers to protect everybody, particularly women. However, I received a note—
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be talking about the suspect at this stage.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was not going to refer to him other than just in passing.
The reality is that my right hon. Friend has announced that she will have an inquiry into those terrible events on Saturday night. They were shameful, but it ill behoves politicians to get up and pass judgment on what happened without having all the evidence. I was contacted by a female police officer today to tell me what happened to her on that night. She was threatened and told that she, not Sarah Everard, should have been murdered. She was also manhandled. I simply say that both sides should be dialling this down, not trying to raise the temperature by calling for resignations.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks—his point was well made. I, too, have been written to by many police officers expressing very similar sentiments from their own experiences. The point about not pre-judging is absolutely right. The police have operational independence. Obviously, as Home Secretary, I called for a report. I have now received that report, and an independent review is under way. It is right that we have that review, yes, for assurance purposes, but also to strengthen public confidence in policing and, obviously, for all Members of this House to hear the full facts of what happened in due course.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I take this opportunity to extend my personal sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this horrific time.
In June 2020, I proposed a domestic abuse register for the early identification of abusive men as a means of preventing death and injury. The Minister for Safeguarding rejected that, claiming that current systems for preventing violence against women were adequate. The National Police Chiefs’ Council also objected, on the grounds of cost and its capacity to manage such a register.
I sense that the Government now recognise that the current system is failing women and that a properly funded, staffed and supported register for serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators is urgently needed. How will the Home Secretary ensure that such new proposals and funding properly account for the different legislative landscape in Wales, so that women in Wales are not excluded from future protections, which I hope are on their way?
Priti Patel
I think this is an important moment for this House and for all colleagues when it comes to Domestic Abuse Bill measures, which have been extensively debated in the House. The right hon. Lady has clearly spoken about Wales and the authority and responsibilities there. We are absolutely working across the devolved Administrations, because we want consistency of approach.
It is right that we all work together to support women, and the Domestic Abuse Bill will absolutely do that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Safeguarding has worked extensively with all colleagues in the House on the issue that the right hon. Lady raises, but the fact of the matter is that we want that Bill to receive Royal Assent. It should do so very soon. We need that to happen to safeguard more and more women and give them the protection that they desperately need from their abusers.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I went to Clapham common bandstand yesterday evening to pay my own respects. I, like Members across the House, send my greatest sympathies and sadnesses to Sarah’s family.
I believe that it is highly regrettable that Members of the Opposition demand that the first female Commissioner of the Metropolitan police resign in this situation. May I ask my right hon. Friend what she is doing to ensure that the facts are understood properly before premature conclusions are made on people’s actions?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the sentiment that he has shared with the House this afternoon. I agree entirely with his comments. Alongside that, of course, he asks what I am doing. I have commissioned the inspectorate of constabulary. It is important that we have the full facts in addition, to supplement the lessons learned review. I come back to the point that I really, strongly recommend that colleagues do not prejudge. The images were upsetting—of course they were upsetting—but alongside that, it is right that we see the full report in due course and that we hear the facts as they come out.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I add my condolences to the family and friends of Ms Everard, and all those who have been affected by this most hellish and tragic of murders.
Turning to the events that we saw on Clapham common on Saturday evening, I think Members are entitled to ask the question, what on earth was the Metropolitan police thinking? What on earth happened to police discretion? What on earth happened to proportionality, to flexibility, to empathy, to any sense of self-awareness, given the circumstances that surrounded that hellish murder? Every ingredient of good policing, in my view and in the view of many of my constituents, appeared to be completely absent from the policing activity on Clapham common.
The defining image that will stick in the collective mind of Britain will be of Patsy Stevenson being almost sat upon by three police officers while being detained. I must say that if I saw one of my adult daughters treated in that way, I would find it impossible to contain my anger. May I ask the Home Secretary, therefore: how quickly will this report be made available? How expeditiously can she act to rectify what is an appalling wrong?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman’s comments are very strong, but in response to his question, he knows, and the House knows, that I have commissioned a report from the inspectorate of constabulary. I have asked for the report to be concluded in the next fortnight. We will obviously then update the House in terms of findings and recommendations.
I think it is worth reflecting that in terms of what happened on Saturday, for approximately eight hours there was peace around the bandstand. People were respectfully paying their respects, laying flowers, grieving and showing support and empathy in a way in which every individual would want to in offering their sympathies and condolences. That is why we need to look at the review to see effectively what happened operationally, and then if lessons need to be learned, they will be post the report.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
May I also offer my condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to hear this afternoon that the Opposition are actually opposing the provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which wants to increase sentences for rapists? There is a dichotomy there that is a bit absurd, is it not?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be very frank, I was quite surprised when I heard that was the position that the Opposition were taking. This is a criminal justice Bill. It will increase sentences for individuals and perpetrators who perpetrate the most horrendous, appalling sexual offences and crimes against women, children and citizens. It is an important Bill, as I have already said. It was key to our manifesto, and the British public voted for it. This Government and our party in government are absolutely determined to strengthen our laws and the criminal justice system so that we can put away those individuals who cause harm to individuals and increase sentences.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
Our thoughts and prayers are with Sarah Everard’s family. The Home Secretary will be aware that the whole nation was upset by the images of women who had come to a peaceful vigil about violence against women finding themselves wrestled to the ground and handcuffed by police officers. The statement by the Metropolitan police sought to justify what happened on Saturday by talking about
“the overriding need to protect people’s safety”.
Is she aware that some people are puzzled by the idea that you can make people safe by manhandling them and handcuffing them?
In relation to the policing Bill, which the House will be debating later, the Home Secretary herself has made it clear that it is expressly designed to crack down on peaceful protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. She described the peaceful protests by Black Lives Matter as “dreadful”. Can she understand why many people in this country believe that giving the police even more powers to crack down on peaceful protest can only lead to more distressing scenes like those the nation witnessed on Saturday at the vigil on Clapham common?
Priti Patel
With respect to the right hon. Lady, I urge her not to be so judgmental with regards to the events on Saturday evening until we see the report that comes from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. She will have plenty of opportunity to discuss protest and police powers during the passage of the Bill, but I would like to say this: in recent years, we have seen a significant change in protest tactics, which has led to disruption and also to violence and people’s lives being endangered. I look forward to the debate with her on this particular point later on, but she is absolutely wrong in her characterisation of the measures we are introducing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the next speaker, I just say that I am very keen to ensure we get everybody in during this important statement. I ask colleagues to be fairly brief with their questions and their answers as well.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I will try my best, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary rightly said that the right to protest is a cornerstone of our democracy but, as she also said, on 6 January the House voted for swingeing powers to control protests for the period of the coronavirus restrictions. May I ask her to work with concerned Members across the House to ensure that the legislation we are about to pass protects that right of peaceful protest and stops only serious disruption?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will continue to engage with all colleagues on this. It is a really important point, and I know how hard it has been for many colleagues in the House. Of course, the regulations, with their implications and the restrictions they have brought in, will be subject to debate in the House going forward.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I would like to pay my deepest sympathy and respects to the family of Sarah Everard and her many dismayed and grieving friends. I welcome the reopening of the violence against women and girls consultation. It is evident that the Home Secretary recognises the genuine and justified strength of feeling about women’s safety that lay behind the vigil on Clapham common, so surely it was just wrong of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to refuse to reach agreement with the organisers and find a way so that the vigil could go ahead safely.
Does the Home Secretary agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the law on protest during the covid pandemic needs to be clarified so that protests can go ahead, but do so safely? The Joint Committee has drafted regulations that will be published with our report later this week. Will she undertake to consider them seriously with a view to laying them before the House?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her comments. I think everyone across the House has expressed shock, grief and, obviously, concern about the images from Saturday evening. There is no dispute there whatsoever. I will, of course, look at the report when it is published and I will be more than happy to have discussions with colleagues about it. We are in a pandemic, and this has been a very difficult period. It has been difficult for the police as well—I am the first to acknowledge that. We have asked the police to do unprecedented things, and they have had unprecedented powers throughout the pandemic based on the need to protect public health. With the incredible work of the vaccine roll-out, and as we ensure that that carries on smoothly and we move through the Prime Minister’s road map and plan of easements, one would now hope that we can work together collectively, yes, to live with coronavirus but do things differently.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
I join colleagues across the House in sending my heartfelt condolences to Sarah Everard’s loved ones. I am shocked at the way in which Saturday night’s vigil was policed. The situation demanded sensitivity and compassion—something which was evidently lacking. But I am also shocked that what started as a peaceful and important vigil turned into a protest, with photographs showing ACAB—“all cops are bastards”—signs. I am concerned that a young woman’s murder could be hijacked by those who would seek to defund the police and destabilise our society, making it even harder for women to come forward and report assaults. Will the Home Secretary confirm that nothing will deter the Government from delivering stronger legislation to protect women and girls from harm?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for the points that she made. She is absolutely right. We will continue to do everything in our strategies, policies and laws going forward to protect women and ensure that they are safeguarded in the right way. She also made the very important point that a peaceful vigil on Saturday turned into some pretty ugly scenes. We will wait for the report. There is no question but that where there are lessons to be learned, they will be learned. Where individuals were acting inappropriately, in the way in which she said, that will also be subject to some consideration.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
First, I would like to put on record my thanks to Kent police for their incredibly difficult work in the ongoing investigation into the tragic death of Sarah Everard. In order to seriously tackle violence against women and girls, it is vital to put women at the heart of legislation. However, in today’s policing Bill, women are not even mentioned. With that in mind, and with rape convictions at a shocking all-time low, how will the Home Secretary ensure that women can come forward with confidence that they will be believed and that they will receive justice?
Priti Patel
If I may, I too would like to thank Kent police for all the work they have done in conjunction with the Metropolitan police in the investigation associated with the Sarah Everard case. This has been a very difficult time across policing; there is no doubt about that.
I am not going to come back in detail to those points, because I have covered many already in my statement. I speak with conviction in my determination, as does every member of this Government, when it comes to safeguarding women and to our strategies and approach to violence against women and girls. As I have repeatedly said, I would welcome all Members joining us in a cross-party effort to do much more to give women and girls the confidence to come forward.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
This House criminalised the freedom of protest. It was this House—us—not Dame Cressida or the Metropolitan police, who criminalised the freedom to protest collectively. We are up to our eyeballs in this. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agree that now is the time to decriminalise freedom of protest—not tomorrow, not next week, but this afternoon or this evening? Let us get people back on the streets and allow them to get things off their chest again. Protest is a safety valve.
Priti Patel
I understand entirely the sentiment that my hon. Friend has emphasised this afternoon. The Prime Minister has laid out a road map, and I appreciate that my hon. Friend would love me to say right now, “Let’s just do this and change things immediately,” but we are still in a pandemic and we are following the guidance that has been put in place. Obviously, it will be subject to debate over the next week or so, and I am more than happy to continue to discuss this with my colleagues.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Peaceful assembly must be an absolute right in this country, and the actions of the police on Saturday were deeply troubling. I would like to highlight the use of kettling, in particular. Many disabled people and disabled people’s organisations have long raised concerns about the use of this controversial crowd control tactic, which in the past has been used for up to 10 hours, with serious potential health implications. What does the Home Secretary have to say to the many disabled people who fear this disproportionate policy?
Priti Patel
In response to the hon. Lady’s question about operational tactics—of which kettling is one, based on a police assessment around a situation, a protest or an event—the police themselves make judgments and decisions about the tactics that they use as part of their operations.
The hon. Lady raised an important point about disabled people who wish to express themselves by participating in protests. Of course, their needs can be met by working with the police, and many organisers talk to the police about the groups of people and the characteristics of individuals who are coming out to protest. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. She will be well aware of the approach that the police take in engaging with organisers over protests.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I would like to put on record my sympathies to the family and partner of Sarah Everard.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. In the last few months I have been working with Our Streets Now on the issue of public street harassment: vile and explicit language that is aimed at women with the purpose of degrading them. It is often aimed at children—schoolgirls. I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s strategy later this year, but will she consider, as part of that, introducing legislation that might address the issue?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have met many schoolgirls who are a part of that campaign. We will consider all options as part of the VAWG strategy.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
On Sunday, I shed a tear, along with so many other women, at the gates of Queen’s Park, where ribbons and tributes had been left in memory of Sarah Everard, and for Moira Jones who was raped and murdered there in 2008 and all women who have experienced abuse at the hands of men. May I ask what the Home Secretary is going to do to change the toxic culture we have that diminishes and minimises women’s experience, and to challenge the whole spectrum of men’s behaviour so that my daughter and all young women can grow up without living their lives in fear?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady has an opportunity to join us. She has heard me speak today, as all colleagues have, about the need to contribute to our VAWG strategy. This is not about the work of one individual; this is about what we do collectively, together, in terms of cultural norms and a change in behaviours. We all have a role to play and I urge her to join us in that effort.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and extend my heartfelt condolences to Sarah Everard’s family at this time. Does she agree with me and my constituents that it is frankly absurd for the Labour party to call for tougher sentences against rapists while, in the same breath, opposing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which delivers exactly that?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend sums it up perfectly. I completely agree with the sentiment she has just expressed.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
Last week on the Armed Forces Committee we heard about prosecuting crimes, including rape, through the military courts. One statement stood out for me. It was:
“our servicepeople are thoroughly good people, but they drink too much, something goes wrong and they end up in court.”
What discussions has the Home Secretary’s Department had about that attitude towards victims of male violence, and does it reflect a general attitude to women that we saw on Saturday on Clapham Common?
Priti Patel
First, no it does not reflect a general attitude to women, and no one should pre-judge or make assumptions of that nature. The hon. Lady makes a very important point, though, in terms of the armed forces work and the work that has taken place across both Departments. Our Minister with responsibility for safeguarding has done extensive work on this particular issue with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and that will of course continue.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
May I express my condolences to Sarah Everard’s friends and family? I thank the Home Secretary for reopening the VAWG consultation and for requesting the lessons learned review into Saturday night’s policing. She has shown that she is determined there will be action, not just words. Some 78,000 responses so far is absolutely enormous. These are women who do not have confidence in the system at present and we desperately need to instil confidence for them. It will take an enormous effort in shifting cultures, coming together and working collectively to make sure we achieve that aim. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those women are going to have their voices heard on the justice taskforce, which looks suspiciously like an all-male room?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for her points, and obviously the importance and significance of the VAWG consultation and the fact that that has been reopened. Let me give her an assurance that the crime and justice taskforce is not a male show at all. I am obviously a part of that, as is the safeguarding Minister. There are many other agencies and parties involved, including the first female Metropolitan police commissioner, so there are a range of voices. Again, I urge people not to be too judgmental and assume that all the work that takes place in government is just by men, because it is not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Again, just a reminder to colleagues that we need to be quite brief in our questions if we are going to be able to get everybody in, which I want to do. I am sure the way will be led by Kim Johnson.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I would like to add my thoughts and condolences to the families of Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and all women who have died violently. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that if you are black, disabled or a trans woman you are disproportionately more likely to be a victim of violence? That is not emphasised in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. What steps is she taking to rectify that?
Priti Patel
We want to prevent anyone from becoming a victim of crime. It should be not just our conviction and determination, but our collective imperative, to ensure that no one becomes a victim, and particularly anybody from the groups to which the hon. Lady referred.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) [V]
May I, too, send my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard, and I echo the comments made about the events of Saturday evening? Nobody should feel threatened when on our streets, and the best way to prevent violence against women and girls is to tackle the root causes of that violence. New Government research has identified viewing pornography, particularly violent pornography, as an influential factor in harmful sexual behaviour towards women and girls. How will my right hon. Friend reflect that finding in new Government policy?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful and important point about those behavioural aspects and their links to pornography. I know she has focused on that issue, and I would very much like to discuss it with her further as part of our work to protect women and girls from violence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
My heart goes out to Sarah Everard’s family and friends during this horrific time. A year ago on International Women’s Day, I introduced a private Member’s Bill to make misogyny a hate crime. In light of the recent horrific events, and the continued failure to prevent violence against women and girls, will the Government commit to adopt my Bill and to end some of the continuing injustices against women?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will know that the Law Commission is considering that area, and its consultation closed in December. I will work with the House and report back on this whole area, and I will continue to work on that with the safeguarding Minister.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I am proud of a Government who, since 2010, have put women’s safety at the heart of their policymaking. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill puts women at the front and centre of this Government’s policymaking when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right, and I again pay tribute to everybody who has worked on that landmark Bill, which will lead to the protection of more women and children from domestic violence. We want the Bill to receive Royal Assent.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]
The tragedy that befell Sarah Everard is a cue for rethinking so much, including readopting and designing out crime principles in our built environment. As one small Asian woman to another, may I ask that in all new housing developments, and in the reappraisal of the low-traffic network road changes that are due, consultative consideration of women’s safety and fear of crime is mandated, so that appropriate natural surveillance is built in? We must avoid creating nouveaux ghettoes, where perceptions leave women trapped and vulnerable.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes such an important and interesting point about designing out crime and threat, particularly from public spaces. A lot of work is taking place right now to keep the public safe in public places, and that is something we will look at.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
I have been contacted by several constituents in Bosworth who are concerned about events over the weekend. On one hand some are concerned about the police’s conduct, and on the other hand are concerns about mass gatherings during a pandemic. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made about the fact that this is an operational issue for the Met, versus the fundamental framework of the law? Taking that forward, will she reassure my constituents that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will protect the rights of those protesting and the right of the police to be safe, but also set out the responsibility of those protesting not to cause serious disruption, and that of the police to act proportionately?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. He is right in some cases, but I think in the interests of time, we will come back to some of these points shortly when we discuss the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
We now live in a country where domestic violence has soared but prosecutions have plummeted, where rape has effectively been decriminalised because prosecutions are at their lowest ever level and where stalking a woman gets a shorter sentence than fly-tipping. This is the record of the Home Secretary and her Government. Is she proud of it?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made earlier, including the fact that I disagree with the points that she has just made.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A quarter of all police forces are either already actively recording or trialling recording where crimes are motivated by a hatred of somebody’s sex or gender. Where they do this, the police have better intelligence to track and prevent violence against women and women report more confidence in coming forward to report assaults and harassment. Will the Home Secretary and her Government drop their opposition to amendment 87B to the Domestic Abuse Bill tonight in the House of Lords in order to require that all police forces follow this best practice in England and Wales? That will finally put us on the road to equalising misogyny as a hate crime, as it should be.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady will have to follow the debate in the other place later on. As she will well know, there is extensive debate and discussion on this issue.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I would also like to add my condolences to the family and friends of Sarah Everard. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Domestic Abuse Bill showcases this Government’s commitment to protecting and listening to victims of domestic abuse, who are mostly women, so that we can tackle this abhorrent crime effectively? That goes alongside the increased funding we have given to organisations such as North Devon Against Domestic Abuse in my constituency, which does so much to support the victims of this dreadful abuse.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will not go through the measures I touched on earlier. Clearly, the Domestic Abuse Bill is a landmark Bill that will absolutely change outcomes on domestic abuse and increase support to women who have been victims of it.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
My thoughts are also with the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this desperately sad time. On the same day that the suspect in the Sarah Everard investigation was arrested, UN Women published survey results showing that 97% of women aged 18 to 24 have experienced sexual harassment. While we wait for the reviews and investigations into the events of Saturday night, will the Home Secretary work with the Metropolitan police to mandate that every officer serving undertakes training on misogyny and sexual harassment so that young women living in London have confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously and that they will receive an appropriate response from the police when reporting this aggression, which causes women everywhere to be fearful every day in our streets and public spaces?
Priti Patel
When it comes to police training, I think it is important to reflect on a lot of the work that is already under way across all police forces, not just the Metropolitan police force. The College of Policing has extensive work taking place in this area, which is also subject to a lot of the work that takes place at the National Crime Agency Board.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
I also extend my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s friends and family. Does my right hon. Friend agree that preventing violence against women is partly about what we do with boys? That means teaching them that what is often depicted on TV, online and in video games is not acceptable behaviour, as well as simply restricting what they see through the forthcoming online harms Bill.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is another Bill that will come to the House in due course. This is about cultural aspects and the behaviours we inculcate in our children, including how our boys grow up and the things they are exposed to. This will be subject to much discussion and we welcome the views of my hon. Friend and others in the consultation we have just reopened.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) [V]
I send my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s loved ones and all those who have lost loved ones to violence, including Bibaa Henry’s and Nicole Smallman’s loved ones, who have been really struggling recently. Sir Patrick Vallance said that
“it is clear in the SAGE papers…that outdoors is much lower risk than indoors”
and that
“it is difficult to see how”
outdoor events
“can cause a spike.”
So public health was not really the primary, driving factor, but even if we do accept that some of the restrictions were needed to safeguard public health, as a Parliament—as a defender of free speech—we need to be careful about restricting the rights of people to express their views. Saturday showed us the mess of not allowing people to organise properly and what happens when the police are confused about their powers. The general public did not vote to have their democracy removed and their voice silenced. Can I ask the Home Secretary who she is consulting when suggesting additional, draconian police powers?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Lady to comments that I have made extensively this afternoon about covid restrictions, but also the fact that, when it came to the events on Saturday—the vigil—extensive dialogue had taken place between the Metropolitan police and the organisers.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I know the Home Secretary will agree that there are very many serious questions to be answered about the policing of the vigil on Clapham common on Saturday evening. However, does she not also agree that it is quite wrong to conflate that with the perfectly reasonable provisions in the Bill that will be debated later this afternoon, which will prevent disruptive protests of all kinds that prevent people from coming into Parliament, ambulances from getting on their way and ordinary people from going about their everyday business? That is a completely different matter and the two should not be conflated.
Priti Patel
That is absolutely right, and I thank my hon. Friend for his point and comments. There is, conveniently, far too much conflation taking place when it comes to examples of protest. This will be subject to debate later today during the passage of the Bill, but he is absolutely correct on that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Much of the debate over the last few days has focused on how we secure women’s safety in the public domain. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is equally important that Government policy secures women’s safety in private settings, including women’s refuges? And does she agree that Government should prioritise upholding single-sex spaces, services, provision and roles for women and girls where single-sex provision is permitted under the Equality Act 2010?
Priti Patel
The hon. and learned Lady makes important points about violence that takes place at home and the need to safeguard women. This is exactly what this Government have been doing—particularly over the now soon to be 12 months under coronavirus and this pandemic—through the money that we have been putting in place for refuges and providing support, but also by giving awareness and places where people can go to demonstrate, express themselves or let the police know that they have been a victim of abuse. This work will continue. It is so important, and I should conclude by saying that as we unlock through the road map on coronavirus, we should be prepared for more people to raise some unpleasant experiences that they have had, and they will be supported through policing and by this Government.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
Homicide rates among women have shot up under this Government. The impact of Sarah Everard’s murder is devastating in Hornsey and Wood Green, where hundreds of women, men and teenagers from all corners of my constituency have written in to express their grief and anger. What urgent action will the Home Secretary take to convince us that they take violence against women and girls seriously? Until there is a credible response, I am putting the Home Secretary on notice that women in Hornsey and Wood Green will not be patronised and silenced.
Priti Patel
No one should be patronised or silenced, which is why we have reopened the VAWG consultation, and 78,000 people have responded since 6 pm on Friday evening. I urge others to come forward as well. Perhaps the hon. Lady would also like to encourage her constituents to do so. There is much more work that we can do collectively to drive better outcomes to stop violence against women and girls.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. We will have a two-minute suspension to allow for the necessary arrangements for the next business.
National Bus Strategy: England
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I would like to make a statement about bus services. Britain is often described as a railway nation, but if we have a national form of public transport, it is definitely the bus, carrying more than 4 billion passengers a year in England—more than twice as many as rail—over a vast network. No other type of public transport comes close for convenience, affordability and popularity. If anyone needs persuading of the bus’s value, surely the 2020 experience has provided us with the evidence we need. Without buses operating day and night, many key workers would have been unable to get to work, so we owe a debt of gratitude to the bus industry and, in particular, to the magnificent bus drivers for keeping this country moving.
Covid has shown that buses provide Britain with far more than just a means of travel. There are a lifeline for millions. In normal times, they help students to get to college, they help those without work to attend job interviews, they help the elderly to get to the shops and they help us all to get about. They are crucial for the survival of our high streets, for rural businesses and for the planet, too. For many disabled people, they can be an accessible way to stay mobile. In all these ways, buses are not just an industry but almost a social service. Fundamentally, they help us to level up the country.
Buses can and should also be the transport of choice, in my view. London, Brighton and Harrogate have already proved this, with frequent modern services and dedicated lanes attracting millions of journeys a year from the private car. We want to do that everywhere throughout the country, yet in most regions outside London services have been in decline for decades. Successive Governments before this one have failed to prioritise buses, either with sufficient investment or with a workable plan. That is why this Government are taking action to revitalise bus services, and why today we have published the national bus strategy for England outside of London, with its bold vision for the industry to reform the way it has managed to deliver tangible benefits for passengers, and this is all backed by £3 billion of Government investment.
Covid has hit the bus sector hard, as it has all transport, but it is also provided an opportunity to put better bus services at the heart of the community. Throughout 2020, bus companies and councils have had to co-operate as never before to keep services running for key workers. Now we want to harness the same sense of partnership and change the way the industry fundamentally works by putting the passenger and the environment first.
Passengers want simpler fares, more routes and services, easier information and greener buses, and this bus strategy reflects people’s lives. In cities and towns, this means that travelling when we want and where we want becomes easy to do on a bus. We expect councils and operators to bring in simple, cheap flat fares with contactless payment by card or by phone. Up-to-date information should be available immediately on our phones, on board the buses and at bus stops. We want closer integration of services and ticketing across all forms of public transport, so that people can seamlessly travel from buses to trams to trains and we end the absurd situation where different operators do not recognise or accept each other’s tickets. We want to have much more of the “turn up and go” type of service—the kind of frequency that means you do not even have to look at the timetable before you get on the bus—and more services in the evening and at weekends.
In rural areas and out-of-town business parks, we sometimes need to be able to provide buses that are available on demand from an app on your phone. Today, I am pleased to announce £20 million of investment from our rural mobility fund to trial on-demand services in 17 different locations, including minibuses booked via an app that people pick near their home at a time that is convenient to them.
I want anyone who happens to be disabled to be able to confidently travel when and where they want, so this bus strategy will make sure that all local services have audible and visible “next stop” announcements. We will consult this year on improving access to wheelchair space and priority seating for those who rely on them. A series of new bus passenger charters will define precisely what all bus users can expect in their particular areas.
Before covid, the way in which buses were organised made it hard to arrest the decline in bus ridership—a decline that has been going on since the 1960s. The pandemic has brought councils and the industry together, and we want every local transport authority in the country and its bus operators to be in statutory enhanced partnerships or in franchising arrangements throughout. The franchising system is used in London. For example, Transport for London sets the routes and the fares, but that will not be appropriate everywhere. That is why enhanced partnerships will be required, whereby the operators and the councils reach negotiated agreements on how buses will run, with local authorities taking greater responsibility for bus services, whichever solution they choose.
By 30 June this year, we want all local authorities to commit to one of those two options, with the bus operators’ support. We will need that commitment if they are to receive further emergency funding from the covid bus services support grant. I can confidently predict that they will all be on board. Local authorities, in collaboration with operators, will then produce bus service improvement plans by the end of October this year.
These plans are pretty ambitious. By looking at the best bus services around the world and striving to match them, we expect to see how bus priority can best work without increasing congestion. We want to create plans for fares and ticketing, and we want to see how they will deliver urban, town and rural users to the bus network. Future Government financial support will depend on local authorities and operators coming together under an enhanced partnership or franchising agreement. For our part, we will work with councils to introduce bus priority schemes this year, and we will roll out marketing to attract millions of new passengers to the network—people who have never used buses before.
The strategy also sets out our road map to a zero-emission bus fleet. Bus operators have invested £1.3 billion in greener buses over the last five years, which has been supported by £89 million of Government investment, and we will commit to delivering 4,000 zero-emission buses. I expect to release funding for the first all-electric bus city very soon. However, only 2% of England’s bus fleet is fully zero-emission today, so after our historic move to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, this bus strategy sets out our plans to end the sale of new diesel buses in England too. We have launched a consultation to decide how and when that will happen.
This strategy marks a new beginning for buses. We will not only stop the decline that has been going on historically for decade after decade; we want to reverse it by making buses a natural choice for everyone, not just for those without any other travel options, and we want to put the passenger first. We want to build the stronger road partnerships that I have been talking about by channelling £3 billion into better services. Such a sum has never been seen before in respect of bus investment and will help us to transform buses throughout England and, by doing so, to transform our country, too. I commend this statement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I also thank those in the bus and local public transport industries for the work they have done, over the course of a very difficult year, to make sure that our country can keep on moving.
This strategy should have been used to revolutionise the bus industry, but I am afraid it lacks ambition and does not even touch the sides of the cuts and rocketing prices that passengers have witnessed over the past decade. It should have been used to ensure that funds were properly directed to deliver a radical transition to a zero-emission fleet—something that the Prime Minister promised more than a year ago—and to create new green jobs in the bus and coach sector, to give operators and manufacturers the boost that they so badly need.
Let us look beyond the headlines. The Secretary of State says that he wants buses to become more frequent, cheaper and greener. First, on buses being more frequent, the reality is that this Government have overseen the loss of 134 million miles of bus routes over the past decade, and some 3,000 local authority-supported bus services have been cut over the same period. In every year since 2010—year on year—passenger journeys outside of London have fallen. It is the Secretary of State’s Government who have made bus journeys less frequent in the first place. How will he ensure, specifically, that there are not just a few more services on routes that are already well served, but a reversal of the 3,000 bus cuts that we have seen over the past decade? How many of the 134 million bus miles lost will be returned by this investment?
On the second test, in respect of buses being cheaper, the Office for National Statistics has reported that in January bus inflation was up by 21% on the previous year. Although a price cap is welcome, the cost of transport is already forcing people off buses. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure not just that fares will not rise disproportionately in future, but that they will be brought down to a reasonable level that people can afford, so that they will choose to travel by bus?
The final test is for transport to be greener. It is more than a year since the Government promised 4,000 zero-emission buses, but they have not even started yet. That is nowhere near ambitious enough when we consider that there are 32,000 buses in England alone. Even with a one-to-one replacement, that could leave more than 28,000 buses that are not zero-emission. Incidentally, many of them will be serving areas that are being considered for clean air zones because of deadly levels of pollution.
It is a year since we were promised a transport revolution, and it has been a year of reannouncements. Although the pandemic can be blamed for some of the fall in passenger numbers we have seen, the Secretary of State knows full well that the past decade has really weakened the foundations of bus services in this country.
Let me turn to another announcement: council and operator partnerships. Councils throughout the country face a budget black hole of £15 billion, and this announcement, which throws in even more responsibility without funding in place, could weaken their position even further. Like many, I back the extension of London-style franchise powers throughout the country, and I sincerely hope that once the announcement is put into practice, that will be the reality for passengers throughout the country. I also support councils that want to do it themselves, which is why we back the establishment of municipal bus companies—incidentally, something outlawed by this Government in 2017. The Government have indicated that that may well be revisited, but my question to the Secretary of State is, why wait?
It is clear that we drastically need a bus service that is fit for the future, yet until we see those measures on the ground we cannot even begin to claim to be ambitious and to have a green bus strategy that meets the demands of local people and the immediate post-pandemic needs of the industry, or that addresses the huge challenge of stopping climate change and meeting our objectives. The real legacy of this Government is laid bare for all to see: the loss of key routes; rocketing ticket prices; and just 2% of the bus fleet zero-emission vehicles. It is on that record that the Government will be judged.
Grant Shapps
Predictably, the hon. Gentleman is not entirely satisfied. He said that the investment should have been bigger and that we should have been investing more in zero carbon, and he criticised many other aspects of the strategy. In fact, we did not even need to wait for the bus strategy, because he issued his press release to tell us all this ahead of time—before the strategy was even out and before he could possibly have known what was in it. I hope that he has now had the opportunity to read it. If he has, he will have seen that it is an extremely ambitious plan. It is the most ambitious plan to change our buses from any Government right the way back to the 1980s.
It is not as if the 1980s were the start of the decline; I think I am right in saying that we saw a decline in bus ridership from the ’60s onwards, from about 15.5 billion down to 5.5 billion. We know that people have switched to cars in that period of time, which is why this bus strategy is so ambitious and is trying to hold no punches in saying, “We need to realign the way we operate. We need to ensure that buses are more convenient and therefore more reliable. When they are, people are much more likely to take them.” As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that is a formula that has operated very well in London under successive Mayors—although, I must say, it was expanded under the previous one—and has ensured that buses are clean and reliable, and that people do not even need a timetable. He asked about the reliability and regularity of services; that is what we want to get to. We also would not be putting £3 billion in if we did not expect, as the bus strategy says, to make buses more affordable. It is central to our vision that they are not just practical, but the affordable means of transport.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about greening up the bus network. I am as enthusiastic as him; he knows that I am—I drive an electric car and I want to see our transport system decarbonised. He mentioned that we announced a year ago our ambition to have 4,000 electric buses. He is absolutely right that that is what we wrote in our manifesto. As he would expect, we are delivering on that. The £120 million mentioned in the bus strategy today will go towards the first 800 of those buses. That comes on top of money that has already been invested by the industry in creating more electric buses. We are starting to see those buses on the road, including—I think I am right in saying—a couple of thousand in London, as well as elsewhere in the country. It is starting to happen and we are going to ensure that we meet our manifesto commitment of delivering 4,000 by the end of this Parliament.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned municipal bus services. I am not living in some world where I think there is only one way to do this. That is why we are talking about bus franchising and enhanced partnerships. He will be interested to know that the service in my area, though not a municipal bus operation, is actually run by the local university, the University of Hertfordshire, which owns a bus company called Uno. That is the kind of creative idea that we want to see developed by the national bus strategy. The hon. Gentleman’s local authority, every other local authority and all Members in this House will have the opportunity to ensure that their local area is able to deliver against the bus strategy to improve services for everybody in a way of which he would approve.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the bus strategy, and thank the Secretary of State and the Buses Minister, Baroness Vere, for taking ideas in. The Secretary of State is right to look at best practice by local authorities; he mentioned Brighton. What can we do to ensure that best practice becomes normal practice, and what more investment can be given to local authorities to ensure that there is a buses champion in each local transport authority?
Grant Shapps
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution to this debate, not just with the point he has just made in this Chamber, but in his work with the Transport Committee in pushing for a bus strategy, which we are proud to deliver today. He asked specifically about how he can shape that and about local authorities. We are giving £25 million to local authorities to come up with this plan by 31 October, and we expect every local authority in the country to be part of that. Not only that, but we want Members in this House to work with their local authorities, as I have done with the Beeching reversal plan, which has been very popular. MPs have helped to lead that, and I expect that my hon. Friend will want to do that in his area as well.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Let me start by thanking the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement, and by welcoming both the tacit admission that decades of bus deregulation has failed and the long awaited publication of the national bus strategy for England, which the Prime Minister has billed as a revolution. The only problem is that revolutions are usually fairly quick affairs, whereas we have been waiting a year for this strategy and it might take another year for the various consultations to run their course.
Bus services are, of course, devolved, but as I have said many times in this place, the bus manufacturing sector is on its knees—hundreds of jobs have already gone. We are lucky to have three world-class bus manufacturing companies in Switch, Wrightbus and, in particular, Alexander Dennis, but we have yet to see a penny of the £3 billion committed last spring, and in the past 12 months almost no zero-emission buses have been delivered outside London or Scotland. Very shortly, there will be more zero-emission buses in the town of Kilmarnock than anywhere outside London. The Scottish Government have gone on with the job, with their Scottish ultra-low emission bus schemes, which are extremely popular with both operators and manufacturers. With those schemes having shown just how quickly domestic demand for new, green, British-built vehicles can be stimulated in the about six-month lead time for manufacturing, how will the Government ensure that their commitment to 4,000 green buses actually results in new vehicles being delivered this calendar year, not next year or the year after?
The Prime Minister spoke of getting young people on to buses, an aspiration shared by the Scottish Government, who have just committed to providing free bus transport to all under-22s as part of a plan to encourage lifelong public transport habits—that is action, not words. Will the Minister commit to a similar policy in England? Scotland has led the way in transport decarbonisation in the UK, but we must do more, so will he confirm that 100% of the funding provided for the strategy will be Barnettised? Will he put a precise figure and timescale on it?
Grant Shapps
I welcome what I think was a warm welcome to the idea of the English bus strategy. With all these things, I like to work in co-operation and make them work for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why, for example, I put money into dustcarts in Glasgow that are hydrogen-run. I believe there are a dozen of them doing fantastic work and helping to develop the hydrogen economy. It is not quite as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman makes out; we all know that we can produce a hydrogen vehicle, but we also have to produce the hydrogen in a green enough way so that it is not in itself a polluting activity. A whole supply line is required for that, which is why in England I have assigned Teesside as the first hydrogen hub in the country, in order to help bring all those technologies together for all the different forms of transport.
I want to answer one question directly: the Barnett formula is attached to this, and the moneys will flow from that in the normal way.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the Government’s ambitious new bus strategy, which will be critical in improving West Yorkshire’s connectivity. A key issue facing Wakefield is the lack of a unified bus franchise; the main bus services to Huddersfield are run by Yorkshire Tiger, a different franchise from Arriva’s Metro franchise, which is the main operator in Wakefield, and this means that tickets are not transferable. I know our fantastic West Yorkshire mayoral candidate Matt Robinson is championing this issue. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outline what steps will be taken to unify these bus franchises and provide West Yorkshire with an integrated, London-style bus system?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as is Matt Robinson. People want to be able to jump on a bus, jump off another one and get on a third one, regardless of which company happens to be running them, and for them to be integrated with rail services and, where relevant, trams as well. That is very much at the heart of our plan. He will be pleased to learn that the bus strategy requires and insists that local authorities come up with a plan that allows people to buy a ticket that they can use many times, with a cap so that they are not overcharged for making many journeys.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
Like other Members, I welcome the release of “Bus Back Better” and many of the provisions contained in it, but why does the Secretary of State commit himself to review only the part of the Bus Services Act 2017 that prohibits local authority ownership when the strategy highlights so many great examples of good practice? Why can he not go further and scrap those provisions?
Grant Shapps
I welcome the hon. Lady’s welcoming the strategy. She mentions the Bus Services Act 2017 and—we have already had an exchange on this—the extent to which local authorities can run bus services. She should know that I do not mind who runs these services: I just want them to run properly. I want passengers to be able to get the buses when they need them, where they need them, and as efficiently as possible. I will look at all these matters in the context of what delivers the best services, and nothing else.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
As chair of the all-party motor group, which includes responsibility for all vehicle manufacturers, I am concerned about the UK bus and coach industry, including companies such as Alexander Dennis and Wrightbus. The sector has seen a loss of 1,000 jobs in the past year. Why has it taken so long to introduce this plan, given that it is almost four years since I drove an electric bus here in Warwick and Leamington at the headquarters of Volvo Bus and Coach Sales? The products were there four years ago—why have they not been adopted earlier?
Grant Shapps
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a keen follower of electric technology, particularly in the heavier vehicles. Although electric cars have proved themselves and we are seeing a large number on the road, bigger vehicles still have issues of weight of battery versus range and therefore availability, so in part it is the technological side that needs resolving. A lot of money is being invested in zero-carbon buses—we are not saying that they have to be electric or hydrogen. I think he will be very pleased to hear the zero-carbon city announcements that I will be making shortly.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the bus strategy, which will make a huge difference to rural communities such as Penrith and The Border. Rural buses are a lifeline to many as they are so important for connecting communities in our large geographical area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that Cumbria County Council makes full use of these Government funds and should work together with bus operators to make more routes viable and improve our local services, thereby assisting in the fight against rural isolation?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He will be interested to hear that part of this strategy is £20 million for rural bus services to try out different approaches. I am pleased to say that of the 17 local authorities that are being provided with some of that money, Cumbria County Council is due to get £1.5 million. I hope that he will work with it to deliver better services for all his constituents.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome any strategy that will continue to support buses. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s mentioning Brighton several times. Brighton & Hove Buses might be in private hands but it is still run with the ethos of a municipal bus service. We would love to have a hydrogen hub in our area, in either the port of Newhaven or Shoreham. Can he reassure me about cross-border services and ensure that there is a duty for local authorities to co-operate so that pricing does not jump about and we can have through pricing between authorities?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman makes good points. I am very keen that crossing over some usually totally invisible line between one local authority and the other does not mean that the service stops and tickets run out. He is absolutely right. I will be paying special attention to that issue in various different local authorities’ plans in October.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Earlier in this Parliament, working with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Conservative colleagues, we secured funding to save the X41 bus service running between Ramsbottom and central Manchester. Will he confirm that Bury Council, Transport for Greater Manchester and bus operators will have access to further moneys and support under this strategy, ensuring that everyone in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington have access to high-class bus services together with an increased number of routes?
Grant Shapps
I can certainly confirm that this bus strategy is very much in line with the type of thing that my hon. Friend and his residents in Ramsbottom and elsewhere want to see happen with the X41 bus. It is very important that we join all this back together, and that people can reliably get these buses in the evening, back out of towns and cities to the more outlying areas. I do not think that he will be disappointed with what he reads today.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I welcome many aspects of this statement today and say to the Secretary of State that he has effectively delivered the obituary for the failed deregulation of bus services outside London. Given that there will be a local choice between enhanced partnerships and franchising, will he look at trying to remove some of the time-consuming barriers to getting that franchising that local transport authorities have to go through? Finally, when it comes to reforming the grant system, will he ensure that the money is actually paid to the local transport authorities so that it can be spent in line with local priorities?
Grant Shapps
Let me take that in reverse order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are times when it would make a lot more sense for the money to go to the local authorities. However, for the sake of speed during this crisis, I have not wanted to add further complications, as the bus support grant has been literally a lifeline to various areas. This strategy will enable more work on the suggestions that he makes. With regard to franchising, and on his first point, we can talk about what happened in 1986, some 37 years ago, or we can talk about the future. This bus strategy and I want to talk about the future.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
I welcome the steps outlined in the bus strategy to help operators and local authorities deliver frequent, more reliable, easier-to-use services. More comprehensive bus services will be needed, especially in rural areas such as East Devon, to protect both socially necessary and economically necessary routes and services. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to help people get the bus to work any time of day?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to point out that, particularly in rural areas such as East Devon and in many other parts of the country, the social value of a route is often missed by the current formulas. That is one reason why, with this bus strategy, we have launched a £20 million fund to develop rural services that work better. A lot of that is about making sure that, to have that certainty, the service is more regular and is funded, even at times when it requires public support to be funded. There are other innovative ideas, including, for example, having buses available on demand. People are used to using an app to call a taxi. Why should they not be able to do that to have a bus route go via them in order to get to where they want to go? There are many very innovative ideas, which will be very applicable in rural areas as well.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
As the Member of Parliament whose constituency includes the Wrightbus factory, which has carried out pioneering work—it was the first to produce the hydrogen bus for the UK and the battery diesel bus—I have been pushing the Prime Minister on this for some time. I welcome the statement and the plans to buy British-made buses, but there are many shovel-ready projects available for zero-emission buses across the UK. Under the current plans, the roll-out will not be until 2022? What are we waiting for? Why cannot we get on with it? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell his officials that they have a mission to get this money out the door, to get it into shovel-ready projects, and to buy British buses without any further delay.
Grant Shapps
I share the hon. Gentleman’s impatience, but the money is for this year. That £120 million for those zero-carbon buses is to be spent on the introduction of those first buses for this year, so I do not recognise any particular reason to delay. We are in touch with all the bus manufacturers, and we wish them well in their progress.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the national bus strategy as another key spoke of the levelling up agenda alongside lifelong learning, the levelling-up fund and transport more generally. This is really about delivery, not dogma, and I am glad to see the options available for local authorities as well as the integrated and social nature of some of the funding available. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will look at services in places in my constituency such as Burnhope and Weardale, which really need extra bus services later in the evenings, for potential pilot schemes?
Grant Shapps
One of the biggest points about buses is that people want to be able to get them in the evening and at the weekend. When people go somewhere to meet with somebody—those days will come again—buses should not just stop so they cannot get a bus home. That is exactly when they are needed to run. There is new hope for my hon. Friend’s constituents in Burnhope and Weardale in this bus strategy.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Spending on bus services in London is £60 higher per person than it is in South Yorkshire, where we have seen funding fall by 40% in the last decade. Any strategy is welcome, but what we really need is investment. What funding can our region expect and by when?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is almost the fundamental point of the strategy. We recognise that London gets fantastic bus services, and we want the rest of the country to get some of it as well. The share is of £3 billion. I cannot give her the precise figures today, but I look forward to her local authority’s doing the work and coming back to me. By October, we should have numbers to talk about.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]
I am hugely excited about the opportunities that today’s announcement bring. However, when I have previously shared initiatives from the Department for Transport, the comments page underneath has said something along the lines of, “I’d settle for a bus from Hesketh Bank to Tarleton.” Will the Secretary of State give me and the people of South Ribble the confidence that communities, businesses, educational establishments and industry will be able to input their needs to transform Lancashire’s bus services?
Grant Shapps
That is absolutely right. I will say how I want this to work. I want Members in this House to have real input into it. Therefore, as a plan is being developed by a local authority, MPs should be on the authority’s shoulders, looking over and making sure that the new business park is included—or indeed anybody who lives in Hesketh Bank and Tarleton—to ensure that they get their services. It will be for local Members to ensure that that happens.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
The north-east has suffered from under-investment in transport for too long. In 2019, it was revealed that over £3,600 of spend was planned per head for London and just over £500 per head for the north-east. The Prime Minister has said the strategy is an act of levelling up, but we know that phrase is a smokescreen for gifting money to areas that do not need it but happen to have a Tory MP. Will the Secretary of State tell us what criteria will be applied to ensure that this £3 billion is shared fairly among our regions?
Grant Shapps
First of all, I agree, and I just said, that London has been getting a very nice bite of the cherry with its buses, and we want the rest of the country to get the same. That is the point of launching this strategy. I am afraid that I do not recognise the second point that the hon. Member made. She may be getting confused by the fact that hard-working great MPs who lobby for their local areas may just end up being successful in bringing services to their area. I have no doubt that she will join her area to that list as well.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Many rural communities rely on bus services provided by small, often family-run businesses such as Stanley Travel in my constituency, who have found it hard during covid because they do not have the resource to capital that some larger companies have. What specific help will be available to such companies to ensure that they not only survive but that those important local bus services continue?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As ever with the coronavirus, those small companies have had a tough time. It is worth mentioning that we put £240 million, and then £27 million a week, into supporting buses, so we have been pumping in a lot of money without which those services would not have been able to survive at all. Of course, individual smaller companies will have had access to things like furlough. The strategy overall is the sunlight at the end of this, because for the first time there will be a proper strategy that he and his local authority will be able to oversee. I am sure that there will be great opportunities for some of the smaller bus companies as well.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
Buses provide a lifeline for people in North West Norfolk, but rural areas have seen greater reductions in services. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Norfolk gets a fair share of this welcome new funding to not only rebuild but enhance services, with later buses and new links, as well as capital for improvements to speed up journeys alongside the coast?
Grant Shapps
Yes I will. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will fight for his constituents and his area. By hooking up with the local authority and working with it, we will have a very good look at the investment strategy that it puts together to ensure that he enjoys much better services in the future than his constituents have in the past.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We will have a short suspension to make arrangements for the next business.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 15th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Home Secretary, I want to remind the House of what was said earlier regarding the Sarah Everard case. Charges have now been brought in that case. The sub judice resolution does not apply formally when the House is legislating. However, I would urge all Members to exercise caution and not say anything about the detail of the case or the identity of those against whom charges have been brought that might affect any subsequent court case.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Just one week after celebrating the achievement of women around the world on International Women’s Day, I would like to open this debate by once again expressing my sadness at the horrific developments in the Sarah Everard case. My heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with Sarah, her family and friends at this unbearable time. This is also a stark moment to reflect on what more we can do to protect women and girls against crime, and the events of the last few days have rightly ignited anger at the danger posed to women by predatory men—an anger I feel as strongly as anyone.
This Government were elected just over a year ago on a clear manifesto commitment to support the police and to keep our country safe. It is vital that we continue to deliver on that promise to the British people, and our commitment to law and order is having a real impact across the country. There are already over 6,600 more police officers in our communities, thanks to the unprecedented campaign to recruit an additional 20,000 more police officers. Our crackdown on county line drug gangs is delivering results, particularly in London, the west midlands and Merseyside. The police have made more than 3,400 arrests, shut down more than 550 deal lines and safeguarded more than 770 vulnerable people. Last year, we saw the UK’s biggest ever law enforcement operation strike a blow against organised crime, with over 1,000 arrests, £54 million of criminal cash seized, and 77 firearms and over two tonnes of drugs seized. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will go further still in our mission to back the police, to make our communities safe and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
We ask our brave police officers to do the most difficult of jobs—they run towards danger to keep us all safe—and that is why I have worked closely with the Police Federation in developing this Bill. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the Police Federation, John Apter, for his constructive way of working since I became Home Secretary, admirably fighting for his members every single day. He has voiced his members’ concerns to me directly, and I have acted upon them.
This Bill will enshrine in law a requirement to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant, which sets out our commitment to enhance support and protection for those working within or retired from policing roles, whether paid or as volunteers, and their families. The covenant will initially focus on physical protection and support for families, officers and staff, and their health and wellbeing, with a duty to report in place to ensure parliamentary scrutiny.
Despite all that they do, emergency workers are still subject to violence and abuse. The statistics paint an alarming picture. There were more than 30,000 assaults on police officers in the year to March 2020, and over the past year we have all seen the reports of people deliberately coughing at our emergency workers, claiming to have coronavirus and threatening to infect them. There have been too many disgusting examples of police officers and ambulance drivers being spat at and violently attacked as they go out to work day after day to make sure that the rest of us are safe and cared for.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
This Bill doubles the maximum sentence for an assault on emergency workers. Does the Home Secretary therefore share my astonishment at the irony that the Labour party will now be voting against that provision?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having personally spent much time with our frontline officers, the very people who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe, I think that is a really stark point, and a reminder of which party is backing the police and which party simply is not.
Priti Patel
I will in just a second.
Having personally spent time with those on the frontline, I have also seen the impact of these incidents on officers and on their families. We cannot tolerate such acts, which is why the punishment must fit the crime, and the Bill will double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment.
Chris Bryant
I urge the Home Secretary not to play party politics with this particular bit. I introduced, as a private Member’s Bill, the legislation that she is acting on, and at the time I argued very strongly in favour of two years being the maximum sentence. I was dissuaded by the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who is now the Foreign Secretary; by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Home Secretary; and by a lot of Conservative MPs, who did not want to support the legislation at all.
I need to be persuaded that the Government have used the legislation that is on the statute book at present. For instance, the Home Secretary refers, quite rightly, to people spitting at police officers. It is disgusting and it is a form of assault, but unfortunately the sentencing guidelines still have not been updated since the introduction of my legislation to make sure that spitting is an aggravating factor and will be treated as an offence.
Priti Patel
There are many important points that I would be happy to debate about the police covenant and giving our police officers—the frontline men and women who keep us safe day in, day out—the protection that they and their family members deserve. The hon. Gentleman is right about the sentencing structure and guidance, but we have had support from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the assaults that I have referred to, particularly over the last few months in relation to coronavirus, when we have seen spitting and assaults on officers.
This Bill is a criminal justice Bill as much as a policing Bill. It is an end-to-end Bill to ensure that the sentence fits the assault and the crime. The Bill will double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment, recognising that our officers and emergency workers should rightly be protected. Having spent much time with those on the frontline and seen the impact and the sheer volume of these incidents, I think it is right that we have that provision in this Bill.
The Government fully recognise the professionalism and skills of our highly trained police officers, and that includes the specialism of police drivers. Too often, they are driving in high-pressure situations pursuing suspects on the road while responding urgently to incidents. Through this Bill, we will introduce a new test to assess a police officer’s standard of driving. Should an officer be involved in a road traffic incident, this new test will allow the courts to judge their standard of driving against that of a competent and careful police constable with the same level of training, rather than that of a member of the public, which is how it stands at present.
The Government back the police and will never allow those with an extreme political agenda, such as those calling for the defunding or abolition of the police, to weaken our resolve when it comes to protecting the police. We back the police and will do everything we possibly can to make our community safer.
I have heard the call of the British public for safer communities, and that means cracking down on violent crime, which has a corrosive impact on towns and cities across the country. That includes gangs peddling drugs, as a result of which law-abiding citizens live in fear and, tragically, teenage children are stabbed to death. This senseless violence has absolutely no place in our society.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I support entirely the need to make sure that sentences fit the crime, but is not the reality that courts have huge backlogs and are reluctant to jail people who should be in jail, because they know that our prisons are overcrowded? Does not this Government’s failure on courts and prisons massively undermine what the right hon. Lady says about sentencing?
Priti Patel
Absolutely not. The Government are determined in their resolve—through this legislation, and delivering on our manifesto commitments—to bring in sentences that fit the crime. This is an end-to-end criminal justice Bill. If the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members listen to this afternoon’s debate, they will hear about the measures that are being introduced, and about the Government’s longer-term response. That includes the wider work that the Government are undertaking with the courts and the CPS; the changes that we need to make not just to sentencing, but to our laws; and the support that we are giving to our police.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We do not want to waste police time. Over the years I have formed an unlikely alliance with people such as Peter Tatchell, particularly with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to ensure that we enshrine in law your ability, Madam Deputy Speaker, my ability, or anybody’s ability to insult people and cause offence. Thinking particularly of clause 59, will my right hon. Friend assure me that nothing in the Bill will have a chilling effect on the right to debate and, if necessary, cause offence?
Priti Patel
When it comes to freedom of expression, my right hon. Friend knows my views and those of this Government. Prior to taking interventions I spoke about the corrosive impact of violent crime across our towns and cities. Tragically, too many young children—teenagers—have been stabbed to death in towns and cities of the UK. Such senseless violence has no place in our society. I have met too many mothers whose children have been murdered on the streets of our city, and I have seen the raw pain and distress of parents grieving for their child, and the utter devastation they are forced to endure.
We are proud that this Government have put more police officers on the beat, but tough law enforcement can be only part of the solution. We must do much more to understand and address the factors that drive serious violence, so that we can prevent it from happening in the first place. Through the Bill, we will introduce a serious violence duty, which will work to bring public bodies, including the police and local authorities, to work together as one, to share data and information across our communities, and work together to save lives. I thank many of my predecessors for their work on that, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid).
I make no apology for finding new ways to protect our communities and save the lives of our young people. Whenever lives are tragically lost as the result of serious violence, we must do everything we can to learn from what has happened. Homicides involving offensive weapons such as knives make up a large and growing proportion of all homicides, yet no legal requirement is currently placed on local agencies to understand what has happened after each incident. We are therefore introducing the requirement for a formal review to be considered, where a victim was aged 18 or over and the events surrounding their death involved the use of an offensive weapon. The new reviews will ensure that we learn lessons from such cases, and produce recommendations to improve our response to serious violence.
Every time someone carries a blade or a weapon, they risk ruining their own lives and those of others. Every stabbing leaves a trail of misery and devastation in its wake. Our new serious violence reduction orders will help the police to protect our communities better, by giving officers the power to stop and search those already convicted of crimes involving knives and offensive weapons. The orders will help to tackle prolific and higher-risk offenders, and help to protect individuals from exploitation by criminal gangs. That is exactly what I mean when I say that we are making our communities safer.
There will be concerns about disproportionality, but our aim is for these orders to enable the police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in relation to known knife carriers. Unfortunately, data from 2018-19 indicate that the homicide risk for young black people is 24 times higher than that for young white people. That is appalling. As long as young black men are dying and their families are disproportionately suffering, we cannot stand back, and I cannot apologise for backing the police when it comes to stop and search. The Government will work with the police to gather data on the impact of the orders to deliver real and lasting results.
Victims and witnesses must have the full protection of the law while the police conduct their investigations. We will reform the pre-charge bail regime to encourage the police to impose pre-charge bail, with appropriate conditions where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, including where there is a real risk to victims, witnesses and the public. We hope that that will provide reassurance and additional protection for alleged victims, for example in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Since the Home Secretary’s Government first promised a victims Bill, there have been 1 million sexual offences and 350,000 rapes. This Bill is 300 pages long and barely mentions women or children. The explanatory notes do not mention women or girls once. Will she get to her feet and apologise finally for missing this fantastic opportunity to put victims at the heart of our criminal justice system?
Priti Patel
I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition when it comes to supporting victims. As the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on victims, I and this Government have absolutely put victims at the heart of all our work, as have my predecessors in all their work.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman can yell from the Back Benches, but it is important to remember that when it comes to protecting victims, there are many victims of different offences and different crimes. I think he and all Members of this House should recognise that this Bill will absolutely provide additional protections for victims in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse and many other cases.
These reforms will be named Kay’s law in memory of Kay Richardson, who was tragically killed following the release of her husband under investigation, rather than on pre-charge bail, despite evidence of previous domestic abuse. It is impossible to imagine the impact of such an horrific crime on the victim’s loved ones, and we all have a responsibility to do all we can to prevent more victims and more families from suffering as they have. That is the point and the purpose of this Bill—it is an end-to-end Bill.
Before Opposition Members start to prejudge any aspect of this Bill and this Government’s work on victims, there will be plenty of time to debate this Bill. There will also be plenty of time to debate the role of victims and how the Government are absolutely supporting victims.
An essential responsibility and a duty on us all is protecting our children. I am truly appalled and shocked by each crime and every case of hurt and harm against young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It is impossible to comprehend the motivation of those who perpetrate offences against children, and we have been reviewing the law in this area carefully to ensure that any changes we make are the right ones. Through this Bill, I intend to extend the scope of the current legislation that criminalises sexual activity with a child under the age of 18 by people who hold defined positions of trust to include faith leaders, sports coaches and others who similarly coach, teach, train, supervise or instruct a sport or religion on a regular basis.
This issue has some brilliant and long-standing champions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who even throughout her recent cancer treatment worked with me to ensure that we address this significant issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who continues to stand by the many victims who were abused as youngsters and who were failed and ignored by those who should have supported them. I also thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for her tireless work on this issue.
Through this Bill, we will also introduce an important measure to help bring closure to families whose loved ones have gone missing. The House will know the horrific case of Keith Bennett and the struggles his family have gone through to find his body since his murder. In 2017, the police believed they had a further lead when it came to light that Ian Brady had committed papers to secure storage before his death, but a gap in the law meant that the police were unable to get a search warrant to seize those papers.
I know this is an important issue—indeed, it has been raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others. I am therefore introducing new powers enabling officers to seize evidence that they believe may help to locate human remains outside of criminal proceedings, such as in missing persons cases, suicides and homicide cases where a suspect is known but cannot be convicted, such as where the suspect themselves has died. As I said to Keith’s brother, Alan, when I met him recently, I am absolutely determined to give the police all the powers they need to access any evidence that could help them to bring some closure in cases such as Keith’s. While I cannot guarantee that a loved one will be found, I can make sure that families are provided with every avenue that our legal system will allow in the pursuit of justice. This is why we emphasise the need to make our communities safer, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
The right to protest peacefully is a cornerstone of our democracy and one that this Government will always defend, but there is, of course, a balance to be struck between the rights of the protester and the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives. The current legislation the police use to manage protests, the Public Order Act 1986, was enacted over 30 years ago. In recent years, we have seen a significant change of protest tactics, with protesters exploiting gaps in the law which have led to disproportionate amounts of disruption. Last year, we saw XR blocking the passage of an ambulance and emergency calls, gluing themselves to a train during rush hour, blocking airport runways, preventing hundreds of hard-working people from going to work. Finally, I would like to gently remind the House that on one day last year many people across the country were prevented from reading their morning newspapers due to the tactics of some groups—a clear attempt to limit a free and fair press, a cornerstone of our democracy and society.
The Bill will give the police the powers to take a more proactive approach in tackling dangerous and disruptive protests. The threshold at which the police can impose conditions on the use of noise at a protest is rightfully high. The majority of protesters will be able to continue to act and make noise as they do now without police intervention, but we are changing it to allow the police to put conditions on noisy protests that cause significant disruption to those in the vicinity. As with all our proposals, the police response will still need to be proportionate. The statutory offence of public nuisance replaces the existing common law offence. Our proposals follow the recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2015. The threshold for committing an offence is high, with any harm needing to affect the public or a cross-section of the public and not just an individual.
We must give the courts the tools to deal effectively with the desecration of war memorials and other statues. Through the Bill, we will toughen the law where there is criminal damage to a memorial by removing the consideration of monetary value of damage. Those changes will allow the court to consider the emotional and sentimental impact, not just financial, so that the sentence can reflect the severity of harm caused. For what it is worth, that does not just mean statues. It will cover a range of memorials with low monetary but high sentimental value, for example gravestones, war memorials, roadside tributes to people killed in car crashes and the memorials to people who have been murdered, such as the Stephen Lawrence memorial. I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for their important work on this issue.
I am also clear that no one should have to put up with disturbances and disruptions on their doorstep. Unauthorised encampments can create significant challenges for local authorities, and cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. As we pledged in our manifesto, we will make it a criminal offence to live in a vehicle on land without permission and we will give the police the power to seize vehicles if necessary. I can assure the House that the new offence has been framed in such a way to ensure that the rights of ramblers and others to enjoy the countryside are not impacted.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
What consideration has the right hon. Lady given to the rights of generations of Travellers and Gypsies, who have often been around longer than some of our property laws, who might want to pull up on a roadside for a night? What consideration of their rights has been given in the Bill, which will automatically criminalise them?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was an extensive public consultation on this issue and all those points were considered at the time.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Home Secretary may remember coming to visit Wolstanton Marsh in my constituency during the election campaign. Residents around Wolstanton have long suffered as a result of the unauthorised encampments on the marsh. Will she join me in welcoming what the Bill will do for them? This is a manifesto pledge delivered.
Priti Patel
I recall a visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is right. Many colleagues, and many members of the public through the public consultation, made the point that unauthorised encampments cause misery and harm to those in the local communities affected by them. There have been many discussions with colleagues across the House on this point, and with local authorities, which more often than not bear the brunt of the costs and consequences, alongside the police.
In September, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor published a White Paper setting out our vision for a smarter approach to sentencing, and now we are introducing legislation to establish this in law. We need a system that is robust enough to keep the worst offenders behind bars for as long as possible, but agile enough to give offenders a fair start on their road to rehabilitation. Sexual and violent offenders must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes, helping to protect the public and give victims confidence that justice has been served. These offences are committed predominantly against women. Through this Bill, rapists and other serious sexual predators sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of four years or more will henceforth serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody. Rapists sentenced to life imprisonment will similarly serve longer in custody before they are considered for release on licence. The Bill also strengthens the framework for the management of sex offenders. In particular, we are legislating so that courts can attach positive requirements to a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual risk order so that, for example, a perpetrator can be required to attend a behavioural change programme.
The measures in this Bill build on those in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which will return to this House after Easter. Among the changes we have brought forward in the Lords is a new offence of non-fatal strangulation and the criminalising of threats to disclose intimate images. I know that these additions to the Bill will be welcomed by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). We have had discussions already this afternoon about violence against women and girls and what more we can do; these measures are fundamental to restoring confidence in the criminal justice system.
We also recognise that the reoffending rate for children is high, and that is why we are taking forward measures to provide courts with stronger alternatives to custody. In the Bill, we are providing custodial sentencing options for the most serious crimes, alongside alternatives that will allow youth offenders to be effectively managed and rehabilitated in the community. That will ensure that judges and magistrates are able to make the most appropriate decisions in the best interests of the child and of the public. In recognition of the fact that children now in custody are much more likely to have complex needs, we will introduce measures to enable the trialling of secure schools. They will be schools with security rather than prisons with education, and they will have education, wellbeing and purposeful activity at their heart.
The courts play a fundamental role in our criminal justice system. During the pandemic, we have seen the benefits of enabling participation in proceedings remotely or by live video or audio link. We want to put these temporary provisions on a permanent footing, giving judges better options to support the effective and efficient running of their courts and underpinning the principle of open justice. Our aim is to modernise our courts and tribunals so that there are more opportunities to attend and observe hearings remotely, shorter waiting times and less unnecessary travel. I can assure the House that these advantages will never be taken from the right to a full hearing in court. This will always be available where needed, and where the court considers it to be in the interests of justice. Trials will continue to take place in court. We also want to further improve accessibility to our justice system for people with disabilities.
Peter Kyle
At the moment, if somebody suffers a sexual assault or rape, they will wait two years before they have their moment in court. Will the Home Secretary agree to amend the Bill so that people who are victims of rape or sexual assault will be fast-tracked straight into the court system and will no longer have to wait two years?
Priti Patel
It is absolutely right that we look at every single measure and approach to ensure that victims of rape receive justice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the rape review is taking place and will soon be published.
We want to improve accessibility to our justice system for people with disabilities. Reasonable adjustments can be made for most people with disabilities to enable them to complete jury service. However, the law has to date prevented deaf people who require the services of a sign language interpreter from having an interpreter in a jury deliberation room with them. We are changing that to ensure that all deaf individuals are able to serve as jurors unless the circumstances of a particular case mean that it would not be in the interests of justice for them to do so.
As I said at the beginning, this Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to keep our country safe. That is what the British people rightly expect, and that is what this Bill will deliver, by supporting the police, by preventing and cutting crime and by restoring confidence in the criminal justice system, because giving people the security they need to live their lives as they choose is an essential part of our freedom. As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, we will build back safer and increase the safety and security of our citizens. This Bill will enable us to do exactly that, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I should inform Members that we will start with a time limit of five minutes, but it will go down very quickly to three minutes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The House meets today in the shadow of the tragic loss of Sarah Everard, and I know the whole House will be united in sending our thoughts to her loved ones at this time of unimaginable pain. In an incredibly moving tribute, her family said:
“She was strong and principled and a shining example to us all. We are very proud of her and she brought so much joy to our lives.”
Sarah was just walking home at night—a freedom that sounds so simple, it should be unquestionable. But in recent days, we have heard extraordinarily powerful testimony yet again from women across the country about the dangers they face all too regularly—women speaking of suffering vile harassment on the streets, being told to walk with keys between their fingers to protect themselves and being told they should stay at home. It is not women and girls who should be changing their behaviour because of danger. We must change as a society, and as men in particular, we must do better by listening and, most importantly, acting.
I want to turn immediately to the distressing scenes we saw at Clapham. I share the anger there is about the policing of this. Deep and profound lessons need to be learned, and there must be change. People should have been able to mark this moment peacefully and safely. We need to find a way for people to show solidarity safely and in a covid-secure way. As I mentioned in response to the statement earlier today, the Mayor of London has shown leadership on this, asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct an independent investigation alongside the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Saturday’s event was not a protest; it was a vigil. But there is no doubt that it brings into sharp focus the proposed measures in this Bill about curtailing the right to protest—the right to give public expression to deep feeling and the right to campaign for change. The scenes from Saturday should be a red warning signal to the House that rushing through ill-judged and ill-thought-out restrictions on the right to protest would be a profound mistake that would have long-lasting consequences and do great damage to our democracy. The right to protest is a cornerstone of that democracy.
On our statute book, we already have the Public Order Act 1986, together with other existing powers to police protests. It is of course right that protests should be peaceful and legitimate—nobody would suggest otherwise—but the Bill significantly expands the conditions that can be imposed on protests. Unbelievably, it includes
“the noise generated by persons taking part”
causing people “serious unease” as a reason to warrant police-imposed conditions. I do not know about Government Members, but the protests that I have been to have certainly generated a lot of noise.
There is also a penalty in the Bill for someone who breaches a police-imposed condition on a protest when they “ought to have known” that the condition existed. That would have the effect of criminalising people who unwittingly breach conditions.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that no one should be able to block an ambulance from crossing a road or bridge, and that no one should be able to block a printing press from printing newspapers? If he does agree, why will he not vote for the Bill?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Because the existing laws deal with those issues. The Conservative party is not making the case for the additional powers.
The right to protest to those in power—including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who waves his Order Paper at me—is extremely precious. I declare an interest as a proud trade unionist and refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support from the Unite union and the GMB. Whether it is our trade unions or another group that wants to make its views known loudly in our streets, we curtail their ability to do so at our peril. The right to protest is one of our proudest democratic traditions, and that this Government seek to attack it is to their great shame. Our existing laws on protest strike a careful balance between legitimate rights and the need to keep order. Our laws on protest do not, and never should, seek to shield those in power from public criticism and public protest. We on the Opposition Benches will oppose a Bill that puts at risk the whole right to protest, hard-won by previous generations, that is part of the fabric of British democracy. In seeking to preserve the right to protest, we on these Benches stand in a long tradition of British democracy. It is this Government who seek to undermine those traditions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of parts 3 and 4 of the Bill undermines victims, the police force and the whole point of what the Government are trying to do to reform our criminal justice system and make it work for the people? The Government should withdraw parts 3 and 4 and get on with deliberating on some of the detail that could be half good.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Parts of the Bill could have been removed and we could have had a cross-party discussion on making the rest of it work. The Government have failed to take that approach.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that for him to vote against the entire Bill, much of which is extremely good and much of which the Labour party has campaigned for for many years, because he believes that there may be some curtailment of free speech—I do not believe that is the case—in one small part of the Bill, would be to throw the baby out with the bath water? Surely that is the wrong thing to do.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will come to other concerning aspects of the Bill in a moment, but it says a great deal that when I am talking about the great British tradition of the right to protest, it is a Conservative Member of Parliament who stands up to challenge it. That is quite remarkable.
Let me turn to what is needed to address the appalling issue of violence against women and girls. To our shame as a country, we see unacceptable levels of female homicides at the hands of men every year. Labour is committed to working on a cross-party basis to bring forward additional protections; to deliver on the inadequate sentencing for domestic homicides; and to address unacceptable and intimidating street harassment. Labour is committed on stalking, on improving rights for victims of crime, on better domestic abuse services and on recognising misogyny as a hate crime.
There are wider issues, too. On 29 January, I wrote to the Government, together with the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); the shadow Housing Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire); the shadow Minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); and the shadow Minister for victims and youth justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). We raised the awful practice of sex for rent—people coerced into providing sex in lieu of payment—and put forward proposals. We wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; not one of them has even bothered to reply. That shows that this is a Government who too often like to talk tough but who fail to take the action needed. In its current form, the Bill does not meet the ambition of the time and will be a terrible missed opportunity.
Peter Kyle
As a signatory to that letter, campaigning on this means a great deal to me. Actually, I contacted the two previous Home Secretaries and Amber Rudd, when she was Home Secretary, set a workstream up to tackle this issue. It has been cancelled. We have been trying very long and very hard to give protection to those 30,000 women every year who are propositioned for sex in return for rent. Is it not time that this cross-party offer is taken up?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. The cancellation of that workstream is entirely wrong. I say to the Home Secretary that the offer is open on that. The letter has been sent to the Home Office; reply and engage with us on the Opposition Benches.
Priti Patel
I am actually not aware of that workstream being cancelled or the letter, so I would be more than happy to come back to the House and follow up with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle).
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for that, and when the Home Secretary returns to the Home Office, I would be grateful if she could dig out the letter and respond. That would be extremely useful—it was sent on 29 January, for reference.
Chris Bryant
As my right hon. Friend knows, I, and I think we as a party, support clause 2, because we believe that emergency workers should not be subject to the terrible assaults that there have been over the years. But this does pose a problem, because a lot of women who work in shops are subjected to exactly the same problems and are often terrified to go into work. We had a terrible incident in the Co-op in Penygraig less than a year ago. Is there not a job of work that we need to do to make sure that all workers, but in particular women workers working in shops, are also protected?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I will come on to that issue in a moment, when I have some proposals to put forward.
Ministers risk sending out an awful message on the level of importance that they attach to violent crime. The Government want a maximum penalty of 10 years for damage to statues. No Government should ever send out a signal that the safety of a statue carries greater importance in our laws than the safety of women, but, as currently drafted, this Bill would allow someone to receive a sentence of up to 10 years for attacking the statue of a slave trader when rape sentences start at five years. That does not reflect the priorities of the people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The shadow Home Secretary should well know and should honestly tell the House that the maximum sentence for rape is life.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I asked the Home Secretary earlier in the statement to tell me how many people convicted of rape were actually sentenced to life imprisonment, and she could not answer the question. The answer is hardly any. Ninety-nine per cent. of reported rapes do not even get close to a court, and then we hear the Minister trying to come to the Dispatch Box to boast about the rape statistics—absolutely appalling.
Peter Kyle
My right hon. Friend and the whole Labour party and Opposition agree that protecting private and public property is incredibly important, but it is about balance. If an angry mob throws a statue into water and then turns around and throws a woman or a child into water, can he tell us which one, if the Bill passes and goes into statute, gets the longer sentence?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance that is being put on statues over women, and the Government should be ashamed. This comes at a time when—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In one moment, because I need to deal with the issue of the rape statistics that has been raised. We are seeing fewer people being prosecuted and convicted for rape than at any time since records began, and that is at a time when the number of reported rapes is increasing. What message do the Government think that that sends to victims about coming forward? As I said to the Minister—he is a Justice Minister; he really should be concentrating on trying to deal with this problem—99% of reported rapes do not even get near a court. That is absolutely shameful. I say to the Home Secretary: think again about the Government’s priorities on this, make changes, such as end-to-end support for victims pre-trial and post-trial, and fast-track these trials through our system, instead of the two years that there have to be at the moment.
Steve Brine
If the desecration of our war memorials does not move the right hon. Gentleman, can I check this one with him? Two of my constituents lost their daughter when somebody impaired by the incorrect use of prescription drugs careered across the carriageway and hit her car head-on at high speed, killing her outright. In part 5 of the Bill, on road traffic, we introduce clause 64, on increased penalties for causing death by dangerous driving. Does the shadow Home Secretary support that and will he vote for it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do absolutely support that and I will come to it in a moment but, to deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he seemed to imply that I did not understand the value of war memorials. I absolutely do. The difference is that this Bill has now been extended to every form of memorial, including statues of slave traders. It really sums up the problem with the Government’s approach. If they genuinely wanted to introduce proportionate measures to protect war memorials, they could have done so and not introduced the measures that they actually have.
I come to the sentencing elements of the Bill. It is of course right to extend whole-life orders to cover the premeditated murder of a child. The tragic murder of Ellie Gould on 3 May 2019 highlights the failure of the justice system to impose strict enough sentences on those who murder in a domestic setting and the issue of the age of the killer. But this measure is insufficient. The current approach to sentencing seems to forget the context in which many female victims are killed—in the home, with a weapon taken from that location. The minimum tariff in such cases is 15 years, but it is 25 if the weapon is brought to the scene of the crime. That is a systemic problem; violence against women and girls seems to be seen as less serious than other forms of violence. This has to be addressed.
The Opposition also say that tougher sentencing on its own is not enough. We know that wider change across our society is needed, and we know that the Government who have decimated our public services over the past 11 years have totally lost sight of addressing the causes of crime as well, with the sadly predictable consequences of rising violent crime in every single police force area of England and Wales. The Bill is shamefully short of measures to address the unacceptable violence women and girls face. In that, it fails woefully to meet the urgent need for change.
James Gray
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my constituent, Ellie Gould, and her appalling murder two years ago. He is right to say that we campaigned for the issue of premeditation, as proved by taking a weapon to the scene, to be removed. I hope therefore that he will vote for the Bill this evening. There is one counter-argument to that, however. Abused women at home may well defend themselves with a knife, bottle or other weapon at home, and if that were to happen and it became premeditated, that defence would be lost.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With great respect, the hon. Gentleman identifies a complexity, but I think he agrees with me that that difference in the law—the 15 and 25-year tariffs—is not justifiable as it stands and needs to be equalised.
The need for overdue action brings me to elements of the Bill that have taken too long to introduce, but which we welcome. My hon. Friends, often working across the parties, have campaigned passionately on important issues and they have secured change. It is welcome that the Government have finally brought before Parliament the long-awaited legislation to increase the maximum sentence for assault on emergency service workers to up to two years in prison. I want to pay special tribute to the tireless work of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in securing this change. They have been campaigning since 2018. Indeed, on 27 April 2018, when the matter of two-year sentences was considered, the then Minister said that
“it would begin to create the kind of situation that exists in Russia, which I hope will never exist in the UK”.
He went on to say that such sentences would create
“a category of a superior form of human being with an entitlement to a quite separate form of protection.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1193.]
Those comments were, frankly, deplorable and the Government’s conversion to the two-year penalty is to be welcomed.
The pandemic has been a powerful reminder, not that one should be needed, of the extraordinary bravery and commitment that our frontline emergency workers have shown throughout. They have put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe day in, day out, even at the very height of the first wave, when tests and PPE were so shamefully hard to come by. Despite that work, emergency service workers have been subjected to a rising number of attacks in this past year, with a 31% increase in attacks compared with in 2019.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Recently in Wolverhampton, two ambulance staff were stabbed. I am watching you go through this Bill saying that you welcome and agree with so many things, so why on earth have you asked your party to vote against it? It just makes no sense.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I do not want to stop the debate for this, but you do not call the person who is speaking “you”. “You” means the Chair; the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Gentleman. I call the right hon. Gentleman.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I was not aware of your position on the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not finished my speech yet, so the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) will just have to wait for me to complete my argument.
As welcome as this measure is, the Labour party is clear that it does not go far enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, we need to consider the workers on the frontline of the pandemic who should also be given that level of protection. First, it does not cover the whole of the NHS family, so we are calling for protections to be extended to social care workers as well. Throughout the pandemic, the range of frontline service workers who put themselves at risk to serve our community has been clear.
Mr Perkins
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) has actually hit on something that might be helpful to the House. There are many aspects of the Bill that we all agree on. If only the really divisive aspects that the Home Secretary has put in were removed, could not the whole House get behind supporting our police, rather than going through the mess that we have in front of us today?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. The Government could press pause on the Bill and bring the whole House together.
Research has shown that, during the pandemic alone, one in six of our shop workers have been abused on every shift, with 62% of UK shop workers experiencing verbal abuse and almost being threatened by a customer. There have been awful examples of attacks on other frontline workers, who have been spat at, punched, verbally abused and intimidated. Labour is calling for wider measures to protect the pandemic heroes, extending protections to shop workers as well as other frontline workers. There is widespread support for this, with the additional protection for shop workers supported by organisations such as the Federation of Independent Retailers and chief executive officers from a number of major retailers, including Aldi, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, McColl’s, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and WHSmith.
I would also like to mention the work of the USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—which has been passionate in campaigning for its members to receive these vital protections and has generated well over 100,000 signatories on petition. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to frontline workers for putting themselves at risk to keep our country running. We should repay some of that debt with decent legal protection as well as decent pay.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making, in many parts of his speech, a very strong case for supporting the Bill, but he started by saying that he was not going to support the Bill because of one particular element. The Opposition were going to abstain at the end of last week; then they shifted their position. May I gently suggest to him that a decent way of doing this would be, if necessary, to abstain today, debate the amendments and decide on Third Reading whether the Government have moved at all? Would that not be more logical?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will always bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s guidance on parliamentary procedure, but we took a final decision to vote against this Bill. Let me say to Government Members that I will make it clear when I agree with the Government on something, but as I move on to other aspects of my speech, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there are other parts of the Bill that also cause deep concern; he need only wait for that.
Chris Bryant
I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the emergency workers legislation. One of the difficulties about the way in which it works is that magistrates courts can only sentence up to six months and the Government have still failed to change the law to allow them to issue longer sentences in certain circumstances. The danger is that increasing the sentence will make absolutely no difference whatever, unless the Government do what they could already have done in the last two years.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having understood the attitude of the Government in 2018, perhaps it is not surprising how slow this has been.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me make some progress; I have taken a number of interventions.
I come to the police covenant and frontline police officers across the country. Like the Home Secretary, I meet the chair of the Police Federation and work with him on a regular basis. Only in recent days, I met my local officers in Gwent—virtually, of course—with hon. Friends and listened to the work that they are doing. It is clear that throughout this pandemic frontline officers are putting themselves at risk to keep us safe, but across the board, frontline workers in the police, fire service, education and so many other areas are facing a pay freeze. Their efforts in this pandemic are being rewarded with a real-terms pay cut.
The police covenant is welcome but overdue—it is in this Bill, some three years after it was promised. It is right that the Home Secretary makes an annual report to Parliament, addressing key issues on physical protection, health and wellbeing, and support for families, but we will study this provision closely, in consultation with representatives from across policing. We will be arguing for protections including support for mental health, which is too often overlooked.
I turn to the toughening of sentences for those who cause death by dangerous driving. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) deserves great credit for securing these changes, together with other right hon. and hon. Members who signed the Bill introduced by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), last year. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), together with MPs from a number of parties. We support those proposals; too many people have taken lives and left families heartbroken, with insufficient punishment—that has to end.
On the extension of laws that prevent adults in positions of trust from engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18, sports coaches and faith leaders should be included in those safeguards. I give great credit here to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), with others, including Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I am sure everyone from across the House would send her our very best wishes.
James Gray
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House will be pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was in the Tea Room this afternoon and she tells me that her treatment is fully successful and she will be on her way to a full recovery shortly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is a wonderful intervention to take; I am sure we will all be delighted to hear that.
The Government could do more on the issue I was discussing. For example, tutors and driving instructors are not included, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look at that again.
Another area where some measures are welcome is in parts of the review from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham being implemented, but that review was published in September 2017, nearly four years ago; there are provisions for the pilot of problem solving courts, for recognising the remand of children as a last resort and for reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. On the issue of reform of the Disclosure and Barring Service, I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for his work in securing that change.
All those things are welcome and overdue, but we have heard such powerful testimony of the lived experiences and family legacies of the prejudice that black people have faced. Black people have bravely stepped forward to share their testimony of structural racism and the impact it still has. The Government cannot ignore the disproportionality that exists from start to finish in our criminal justice system and continue to take steps that make it worse. The Bill contains so-called serious violence reduction orders, which raise serious questions about disproportionality and community trust. As a minimum, the whole of the review by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, all 35 recommendations, should be progressed without further delay.
Similarly, the Government must look again at the sections of this Bill on unauthorised encampments. The proposals create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle. The loose way it is drafted seems to capture the intention to do this as well as actually doing this, with penalties of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. This is clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and the criminalisation would potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.
When Friends, Families and Travellers researched the consultation responses the Government received, they found that 84% of the police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. Little wonder that senior police officers are telling us that the changes in the Bill would add considerable extra cost to already stretched policing, while making situations worse. I ask Ministers to think of the signal they are sending. We have already had the discussion about how responding to letters to the Home Office quickly is not the Home Secretary’s strong point, but she will surely have seen the letter to her in January—possibly not, given her earlier answer—from nine different organisations, ranging from the Ramblers to Cycling UK. That letter sets out that these unclear proposals not only risk discriminating against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, but risk criminalising wild camping and even rough sleepers in makeshift shelters or tents.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is very generous to take so many interventions. Is it not the case that, notwithstanding the consultation, the Government have listened and have added the requirement to enter with a vehicle? There is no form of rambling I am aware of where one brings a vehicle on to land with the intention of residing there.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think the hon. Member needs to reread the Bill on the scope of the provisions, frankly, because it is extraordinarily loosely drafted.
Rights of access to the countryside were hard won through the protests of previous generations. I do realise that there is some ill feeling between this Prime Minister and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, but I did not realise that it ran so deep that he would be happy to see people locked up for naughtily running through a field of wheat. [Interruption.] If only she had all those years ago as well.
The Bill before the House could be a landmark Bill, and we must seize this opportunity for change. Yes, absolutely, there are measures in this Bill that we welcome—mostly because Labour Members have actually campaigned for them—but addressing violence against women and girls cannot be at the bottom of this Government’s list of priorities. If Ministers disagree with my interpretation, they must show it by their actions, and drop the elements of the Bill that suggest that attacking a statue could be a worse crime than rape, drop the elements of the Bill on protests, and revisit the elements that drive up disproportionality and the controls on encampments, which are discriminatory and unworkable. Instead, let this Bill be an opportunity for people to come together and seize the moment to drive through vital changes to address violence against women and girls. Whatever this Government say as the Bill progresses, we on these Benches understand and we hear the call for change. Labour will work to bring about that change, and I would ask all Members to work with us in that endeavour.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I join the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in sending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends.
There are elements of this Bill, which is a very large and significant Bill, that I really welcome: the action on unauthorised encampments, on serious violence, on people in positions of trust and on changes to sentencing. I particularly, of course, welcome the change to sentencing for death by dangerous driving, which reflects the change I proposed in my ten-minute rule Bill. It was supported, as the shadow Home Secretary said, across the whole of the House, because many Members of this House have constituency cases that have been affected by this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) indicated in his intervention. My desire to bring this forward was first brought about by the case—the very sad case—of my constituent Bryony Hollands, who was killed by somebody under the influence of drugs and drink, but there have been other constituency cases, such as those of Eddy Lee and Max Simmons. On their behalf, on behalf of their families and on behalf of all those affected by this, I say simply to the Government, thank you.
I would like to focus on a number of areas where I worry that there could be unintended consequences of the measures being brought forward by the Government in this Bill. I absolutely see the reason for bringing forward the serious violence reduction orders, but I welcome the fact that they are being piloted, because I think there could be unintended consequences in two areas. The first is in stop-and-search. Stop-and-search is an important tool, but it must be used lawfully and it must not be used disproportionately against certain communities. My concern is that we do not go backwards on improvements that have been made on stop-and-search, and that we actually ensure that we do not see this being used disproportionately and a disproportionate increase taking place.
The other area is girls in gangs, and I am concerned—I have had a discussion with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), about this—that we could see serious violence reduction orders against male members of gangs leading to their pressurising their girlfriends to be carrying knives, with the impact that would have on those girls. The way in which girlfriends of gang members are used to get at rival gangs is a worry and needs to be given more attention, and I do not want to see the position of girls being further exacerbated, unintentionally, as a result of these orders.
My second concern is about pre-charge bail. I can absolutely see that, as a result of the changes that were brought in previously, we have seen too many cases where people have not been put on bail, particularly where the crime was a serious violent crime against a woman. However, I ask the Home Secretary to look carefully at the nine-month period that is being set before the police have to go to the magistrates court for an extension of bail. Certainly, I would urge her to resist any suggestion that that should be extended, because we cannot go back to a situation where people are effectively left with their lives on hold, possibly for years, as a result of the operation of bail.
Finally, I want to raise one area that has already been raised: I do have some concerns about some of the aspects of the public order provisions in the Bill. I absolutely accept that the police have certain challenges, for example when people glue themselves to vehicles or to the gates of Parliament, but freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that might sometimes be. I know that there will be people who will have seen scenes of protests and asked, “Why aren’t the Government doing something?” The answer, in many cases, may simply be that we live in a democratic, free society.
I do worry about the potential unintended consequences of some of the measures in the Bill, which have been drawn quite widely. Protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate. The first area that I will mention is giving police the powers to deal with static protests in the way that they have been able to deal with marches. Those have always been differentiated in the past. The second is around noise and nuisance; some of the definitions do look quite wide, and I would urge the Government to look at those definitions.
The final area I want to mention is the power for the Home Secretary to make regulations about the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation…or…to the life of the community.”
It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable. I wonder whether the Government will be willing to publish a draft of those regulations during the Bill’s passage so that we can see what they are going to be and ensure that they are not also encroaching on the operational decisions of the police.
There are very important elements of this Bill, but I would urge the Government to consider carefully the need to walk a fine line between being popular and populist. Our freedoms depend on it.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
I can confirm that the Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow. That is not to say that there are not sections of the proposed legislation that we support or are satisfied with, but the Bill as introduced will not achieve what the Government say they want to achieve, will seriously curtail the rights to protest, will criminalise the way of life of Gypsy/Travellers, is likely to have a disproportionate negative impact on ethnic minority communities and women, and will allow the ridiculous and unjust possibility of a tougher jail sentence for someone who topples over a statue than for someone who does the same thing to a living human being.
There is one overarching thing on which I think we can all agree, and it is certainly the view of the Scottish National party: tackling serious crime has to be a priority. But rather than creating policy to elicit macho headlines about tougher sentences and who comes down hardest on crime, the bottom line for us is: what works? What reduces crime? When it comes to reducing reoffending, Scotland’s rates are the lowest they have been since comparable records began, because of our focus on community justice.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), knows that this tougher sentencing policy does not work. He once said:
“The evidence is mixed, although harsher sentencing tends to be associated with limited or no general deterrent effect.”
So why make that a central plank of the Bill? That is a question the UK Government have to answer. Why do it if it does not work?
Someone we should always listen to is the chief executive of Community Justice Scotland, Karyn McCluskey. She said:
“Community justice allows people who commit a crime to pay back to the community they harmed whilst addressing any underlying causes of crime such as addiction, homelessness and mental health issues.”
It is not hard justice, it is not soft justice; it is smart justice that genuinely reduces reoffending. I will say it again: Scotland now has the lowest reconviction rates since comparable records began 21 years ago.
I turn to the right to protest, which is a right. I know the Government have a bit of a disdain for international law, but article 11 of the European convention on human rights is the right to freedom of assembly and association. The Bill directly contradicts the rights of citizens to protest where, when and how they choose. If it goes through, there will be very few rights to protest in England and Wales at all, and that is unacceptable in a democracy—especially one that likes to claim to be the bastion of democracy and has a history of telling the rest of the world how to behave.
Let us not forget the rights of the people of Scotland to protest in England. While decisions about our lives are made in London, we, the people of Scotland, reserve the right to peacefully protest at the seat of power. Let me note some of the things that the people of Scotland have protested about in England: the Iraq war, over which Scotland had no choice; the obscenity of nuclear weapons conveniently stationed in Scotland, over which Scotland has no choice; and the wonderful women and their allies in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Allow me to quote Rosie Dickson from WASPI in Scotland, who called this
“truly a step too far for those 1950s-born women who have not only been unfairly denied their pensions by a Westminster Government but now also face having their human right to protest against it, without fear of arrest, removed.”
Of course, we in the Scottish National party intend for London not to be the seat of power for much longer. We intend to win our independence so that all the decisions governing the lives of the people of Scotland are made in Scotland, where the right to protest is respected. When the Government of an independent Scotland get it wrong, as all Governments do from time to time, the people will be perfectly entitled to tell them that. However, even if independence were happening next week, I would leave this Parliament still fighting for the right of every citizen to protest.
These draconian powers are wide reaching, We have heard a comprehensive analysis of most of them from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), so I will focus on just a few. First, we as Members of Parliament are accountable to our constituents, but now our constituents are to be told that they can protest and let us know of their disapproval, only we would prefer silent protests so we are introducing noise as a basis on which the police can intervene and impose any type of condition to stop them. Even if they do make noise, it will not matter. We will not hear them because we are putting in an exclusion zone around Parliament so far-reaching that what they have to say—their legitimate protest—will not fall on deaf ears; they will simply be so far away that it will not be audible. They will effectively be silenced. I want those people to know that I do not want them silenced, even if they are opposed to what I stand for. I want to be a Member of a Parliament that embraces democracy; the Bill is doing the opposite, and it is embarrassing.
Speaking of embarrassing, that word does not cover how the events of Saturday night felt for most of us watching them. I want to say something about what happened at Clapham common in the context of the police using the powers they already have and for us to think about how much worse it will get if the sweeping powers in the Bill are handed over to senior police officers.
First, I want to add my voice to those of the many thousands who are heartbroken for the family and friends of Sarah Everard. The torment that her family must be going through is something that nobody in this House would wish on anyone. I know we all share the despair. I attended an online vigil on Saturday night, but I understood why those women who met in person did so—particularly those who live near to where Sarah was taken. I got it. I know they were breaking regulations, and I would never encourage that, but they were in pain and they wanted to come together to help others also in pain. I do not know any woman who has not got a story to tell. Male violence against women takes such a heavy toll on all of us, and sometimes we need to be with other people.
Given the context of Clapham common on Saturday night, surely sensitivity should have been the watchword. I cannot imagine how frightened some of the women must have been, particularly given the circumstances. They have just had an alarming reminder that the police uniform does not give a cast-iron guarantee of safety and some of them find themselves on the ground, handcuffed, with knees on their back, flowers for Sarah trampled on, legs held down and unable to move at the hands of the police. Sarah Everard was just walking home; those women were just expressing their grief. If the current powers to curb protest can lead to what happened on Saturday night, imagine how much worse it will get if this legislation goes through.
I am deeply concerned about the attacks in the Bill on the way of life of some of our citizens. I am speaking, of course, about the Gypsy/Traveller community, who are among the most persecuted on these islands and among the most misunderstood. This Tory Government want to criminalise their way of life at the same time as the Scottish Government have produced an action plan entitled “Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers”. What a contrast! Why are this Government so intent on cracking down hardest on the most vulnerable in our society?
While we are on the issue of racism in society, let me come to clause 46 on memorials. Is it not interesting that this legislation that comes down hard on anyone damaging a memorial comes about shortly after a group of people in Bristol toppled a statue of someone who made his money from slavery? Would I have toppled the statue? No. But do I think slave owners should have lasting memorials to them? Definitely not. This Bill would increase the maximum jail sentence for someone convicted of this to 10 years: 10 years for damaging an inanimate and, to some, very offensive object, when it is rare to get anything like as much as that for damaging a living, breathing person or animal. It is interesting, isn’t it, that the toppled statue that I believe prompted some of this legislation was toppled as part of a Black Lives Matter demonstration, when black people and their allies finally said, “Enough is enough”? As soon as they organise to have their voices heard, legislation pops up to silence them. I find that very interesting. I have spoken this weekend to people in the Black Lives Matter movement who believe that this endangers their very existence. They are in no doubt that they will be targeted.
I have had a lot of emails about this in the past two days, and there will be many people watching who—believe it or not—do not normally tune into Parliament, so it is worth mentioning that this is Second Reading and the next stage is Committee, where the Bill will be scrutinised line by line, word for word, by Members from each party, where evidence will be considered, and where amendments may be proposed. One of the things we will want to pay particular attention to is clause 36 on data extraction from mobile devices. I know the Scottish Government have been speaking to the UK Government about safeguarding and some progress has been made. This is certainly something we will want to interrogate. We have to be exceptionally careful about the use of people’s personal data.
Let me turn briefly to stop and search. Although this will not impact directly on Scotland, I want to add my voice to those on the Opposition Benches who are saying “Enough is enough.” It is not just politicians who are saying that the impact on black communities is disproportionate and it is not just black communities who are saying it. Newly retired chief executive of the College of Policing, Mike Cunningham, has voiced his concern that existing stop-and-search powers are disproportionate to what he calls an “eye-watering” degree. We should be listening to him and to groups like Liberty, Amnesty and Fair Trials who have called for a review of existing powers rather than an extension.
If it is to be fair, the law must be foreseeable. We must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that any given action may entail. This Bill is peppered with ambiguous wording left to be defined by statutory instruments. For example, there are regular references throughout to “serious disruption” as a reason to criminalise somebody, but there is nothing in the Bill to define “serious disruption”, leaving it effectively to the Home Secretary to decide. I want to know what the Home Secretary’s definition is. I want the right to debate it. The Home Secretary and I interpret things very differently. She thought the Black Lives Matter movement was “dreadful” while I think it is magnificent, so her idea of “serious disruption” will likely be very different from mine. Yet we are signing over to her the right to come up with a definition that will not be debated and we are simply expected to accept that. It is not good enough. The Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow and scrutinising it very carefully when it comes to Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
This is a significant and large Bill, and it warrants serious scrutiny. It therefore deserves better attention, I submit, than some of the hyperbole that has regrettably been thrown at it in the course of the earlier speeches of this debate. It is reasonable to examine a Bill carefully as it goes through Committee. I have scarcely ever known a Bill that is not improved by careful examination from the time when it is brought in. To vote against the Bill tomorrow does not seem to me to be a mark of a responsible Opposition, and it is regrettable that Labour and the Scottish National party have gone down that route, particularly when they can see that there is much to agree with. Many organisations in the criminal justice sphere including NACRO, the Centre for Justice organisation, the Magistrates Association and others have welcomed measures in the Bill.
We need a sense of proportion about these matters. For example, the reforms to public order legislation certainly need careful consideration, but changes to the law around public nuisance were recommended by the Law Commission as long ago as 2015. This measure puts that law on a statutory basis, as the Law Commission recommended, but uses, perfectly understandably, terms and phrases from the old common law arrangements, which are well understood and well defined by case law in the courts. The idea, therefore, that the Law Commission is somehow part of some authoritarian plot seems to me to be risible, and better arguments can be made than that.
Being near the M25, my constituency has unfortunately had repeated unauthorised incursions into both publicly owned and privately owned playing fields, sports grounds and others. Proportionality and fairness also mean that there should be swifter and better recompense than the current situation permits for those communities that see much-valued community assets put out of use by unauthorised encampments.
On the sentencing elements of the Bill, sentencing is always a difficult matter, both in individual cases and in terms of policy. It requires a careful balance. Overall, the Justice Secretary and his team who worked on this part of the Bill have got it right. It is right that we strengthen provision to protect the public from the most serious criminals, but it is also right that we give greater attention to the need to rehabilitate. Basically, many of those who end up in the criminal justice system and, indeed, in prison have chaotic lifestyles, sometimes mental health issues, educational issues, social problems and, frequently, weakness and stupidity. Getting those people out of a never-ending cycle of reoffending, as the White Paper says, on which this part of the Bill is based, is not just in their interests, but, overwhelmingly, in the interests of the public, too. I welcome the provisions to give a more agile and sophisticated suite of alternatives to custody. It is important that alternatives to custody are credible to the public, because sentencing has to be credible, but also that they do not waste time in comparatively short prison sentences where little rehabilitative work can be done, and which are hugely expensive. They have their place in just limited instances. Those changes, therefore, are very welcome.
Changes to the provisions regarding spent convictions are very important for rehabilitation. The Justice Committee has called for that in previous reports. Recognising a distinct approach to sentencing of younger offenders is, again, something that our Committee has repeatedly called for, and I welcome that, too. Equally, raising the threshold for remanding children into custody is very welcome and I would have thought overwhelmingly supported.
There is much to support in this Bill, including the provision for charities to set up secure schools, a much better improvement on our current provision. I very much hope that this Bill will get its Second Reading and that we can then examine the provisions in detail. The final thing that we have to be honest about is that justice does not come cheap. If we are to make these important and radical changes to sentencing policy, we must invest in them. If we are to have alternatives to custody, we must invest properly in those alternatives. They will bring both a social and an economic benefit in the long run, but we have to be honest and spell that out at the beginning.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), a fellow Select Committee Chair.
The tragic death of Sarah Everard is obviously on all our minds. It has led women across the country to talk about our shared experiences of threats on the streets of our own towns and cities and also to express the anger that, more than 40 years after the first reclaim the night marches in Leeds, we are having the same debates all over again. In some areas, it feels like things have gone backwards. Five years ago, just 8.5% of reported rapes reached prosecution. In the last five years, that has fallen to just 1.4%. The Government have been reviewing this for two years, but in the meantime prosecution rates have got worse.
That reflects the broader near-collapse in the effectiveness of some parts of the criminal justice system. In the five years before covid hit, recorded crime rose by 40%, but the number of crimes being prosecuted fell by 30%. In just five years, hundreds of thousands fewer charges were brought, and hundreds of thousands more criminals are therefore getting away with their crimes. In West Yorkshire, recorded violent crime has shot up. The Government have passed lots of laws, but the number of people convicted of breaking them has fallen. There have been lots of changes to sentences, but fewer criminals are getting sentenced in the first place, so justice is not being done and victims are being let down. Over the last five years, the shocking truth is that it has got easier to be a criminal and harder to be a victim. We cannot let that stand.
There is an important debate to be had about the measures in the Bill, but I see nothing in them that will turn around those shocking figures, and that is what we should work across the House to do. We need the police covenant and stronger measures to support police officers and emergency workers who face attack. We need stronger sentences for the most serious of crimes, including whole-life sentences for premeditated child murder, which is one of the vilest crimes of all. I support those measures. The same should apply for premeditated kidnap, rape and murder, but that is not currently in the Bill. There should also be stronger penalties for rape and stalking, but those are not currently in the Bill. It would, I think, be wrong if we ended up with higher sentences for peaceful protest and public nuisance than for stalking. That would be to get the balance wrong.
I put forward measures last year based on Home Affairs Committee work to extend the register and monitoring provisions for dealing with sex offenders to cover repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking, to stop them moving from one victim to the next and destroying people’s lives because no one is keeping track or joining the dots. I hope the Government will accept Baroness Royall’s amendment in the other place. If they do not, I will table the same measures to this Bill, and I hope that support can be built for them.
There are further measures, which I hope first to discuss with Ministers, that I hope could increase the prosecution rate for assault and domestic abuse, where there have been such problems. The Government are right to place a duty on councils and the police to co-operate in tackling serious violence, but we should be explicit about including the youth service in that; that is not currently part of the Bill.
The Home Secretary will know, even from today’s debate, that there is cross-party alarm about some of the measures in the Bill that go against the British tradition of free speech and peaceful protest. In the coalfields, there is strong support for the work of the police, but people have long memories of things such as the policing of the miners’ strike, so there is also strong support for proper safeguards to protect peaceful protest.
In the Bill, several powers—the broad wording on noise disruption, even though we know few protests are silent, because people want their voices to be heard; the broad powers given to the Home Secretary on serious disruption; and the statutory public nuisance offences with sentences of up to 10 years for doing things that simply might risk causing serious annoyance—are too broad. Every one of us will have seen protests that we thought were seriously annoying, but we do not believe that they should have been stopped. We know, too, that when people protested outside the Iranian embassy for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the embassy could well have argued that the protests were disruptive to their activities or caused serious annoyance, but none of us would have wanted those protests to be stopped. I urge the Home Secretary to withdraw those measures, to re-consult on them and to try to build consensus not just on them, but on the other, wider, measures in the Bill, so that we can all support taking the action needed to cut crime.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a privilege to be called so early in this extremely important debate. As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, although I am a little puzzled, because most of the amendments to the Bill to make it better that she talked about would not be possible if, thanks to the power of her rhetoric, she persuaded the House to vote against Second Reading, since there would be no Committee stage in which to do that. I suspect that, even though she will go through the No Lobby, she actually hopes that the Bill will go into Committee.
I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on this outstandingly good Bill designed to make us all safer in so many different ways, but I want to focus on one small aspect of the Bill: the sentencing of minors in clauses 101 to 105. The Home Secretary knows well the case of my constituent Ellie Gould, and she kindly saw the Gould parents on one occasion. Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home by 17-year-old Thomas Griffiths in May 2019. It was the most horrible murder of the worst kind, with a knife found at the scene of the crime.
Griffiths’ 12 and a half-year sentence was shorter than it should have been for three reasons: first, because he pled guilty, and I am glad that he did; secondly, because he was a junior at the time of the offence, albeit he was 18 at the time he was convicted; and thirdly, because, rather than taking a knife with him to the murder, he picked one up in the kitchen. He none the less stabbed Ellie multiple times using that knife and then sought to pretend that Ellie had done it to herself. It was very much a premeditated crime—there is no question about it—but because he did not bring a knife to the scene, he only got 12 and a half years, rather than the significantly longer sentence he would have got otherwise.
I pay tribute to Ellie’s parents, Matt and Carole Gould, and a group of her school friends, who have been tireless in fighting to change the law in respect of a brutal crime of this kind. I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary for having listened carefully to them. Under clause 101, a 17-year-old who turns 18 during the course of the trial, as happened in this case, will now face a similar penalty to the one they would face if they had been 18 at the time of the crime. Until now, a 17-year-old was treated much the same as a 10-year-old, and of course, they are very different people. A sliding scale will now be introduced, so that a 17-year-old will be pretty much treated as an adult. That would have increased Thomas Griffiths’ sentence to 14 years. We also welcome the ending of the automatic review halfway through the sentence, which, apart from anything else, causes huge stress and trauma to the victim’s family.
However, the Bill does not address the third anomaly, which is that had Griffiths brought the knife to the scene rather than pick it up in the kitchen, his sentence would have more than doubled—he would have got up to 27 years, rather than 12 and a half. Surely a frenzied attack of this kind, whether it is done with the knife that someone brings with them or a knife that they find in the kitchen, deserves the fullest possible sentence in the law.
There is an argument that women who are victims of domestic abuse may carry out a murder in self-defence using a knife at home. Surely the criminal law could find a way of saying that murder in self-defence under those conditions is quite different from a brutal murder such as that of Ellie Gould. The Lord Chancellor has said that he will consider this matter further, probably outside the context of the Bill. None the less, I hope that such a differentiation will be made possible in the near future, because this is a very important matter, and it touches on the tragic case of Sarah Everard.
Nothing can bring Ellie Gould back. Nothing can assuage the grief of her parents. Incidentally, nothing can assuage the grief of Thomas Griffiths’ parents, who are also my constituents; they have lost their son in a very real way too. But strengthening the sentencing regime, as the Bill does, will at least mean some lasting legacy. It is, indeed, Ellie’s law.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said. The terrible outcome of the police ban on the Clapham common vigil in the wake of the tragic killing of Sarah Everard shows how wrong the Government are to try in this Bill to curb the right to demonstrate, so I hope they will think again about that. The anger of the vigil was about women demanding to be able to walk the streets without fear, and we must listen to those demands and act on them now in the Bill. This demand is not new. Along with women up and down the country, I joined the “Reclaim the Night” protests in the 1970s, but then women’s demands were not listened to by the men in the corridors of power. Now there are women in government, in the Home Office and in the Cabinet. There are women in all parties in Parliament. We are in the corridors of power, so we must use our power to deliver for women.
We all argued it would make a difference if we were here as women in Parliament. Now we had better prove it. We can in this Bill make it a crime to do what men do to women on the street every day and which makes their lives a misery. Kerb crawling is terrifying for a woman or a girl on her own, especially after dark. A man has no right to do it, so let us make it an offence punishable by taking away his driving licence. Following a woman on the street, filming her, trying to get her number and not taking no for an answer are harassment. Why should women and girls have to put up with it? Let us make that a criminal offence. I have tabled two new clauses, which have the backing of Members from all parties, and not just women, but men, too. I hope that the Government will accept them.
Too often when a woman is the victim of a sexual offence, all her previous sexual history is dragged up in court and it ends up as though she is in the dock, not the man. That is not supposed to happen, but it does, so we need to stop it. I have new clauses with cross-party backing to do that, too, which I hope the Government will back. Women do not want us to sympathise; they want action, and that is what we should do.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]
There is much in the Bill that I agree with, and much of that was set out by the Home Secretary in her opening remarks. I particularly agree with increasing the sentences for assaults on emergency workers to two years, which is an amendment I tabled back when the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 was first debated in 2018. It is always good when the Government come round to my way of thinking, so I hope as a result they will look favourably on my amendments when I table them, and we can save some time.
In the time I have, I will go through some of the things I would like to see in the Bill. As was mentioned earlier, I would like to see a specific offence for assaulting shop workers and other frontline workers. I used to work in retail, but it has been absolutely terrible to see the fact that during the pandemic, when shop workers have been going the extra mile to help us all, the number of assaults on them has doubled. We really need to do something about that, and I hope the Government will look favourably upon that proposal.
I am pleased to see some of the provisions for ending automatic early release for prisoners. I certainly support that, but I would like the Bill to go further. I would like to see the end of all automatic early release for prisoners, particularly those still considered to be a danger to the public. I would particularly like to see an end to all automatic release for those people in prison who assault our prison officers. Again, prison officers face a terrible burden in prison, with far too many assaults. If we were to say to prisoners that anybody convicted of assaulting a prison officer would lose their right to automatic release, that may well help those hard-pressed prison officers.
I would like to see the retirement age for magistrates and judges increased to 75. The Justice Secretary has said that he intends to do that, so this Bill seems a very good vehicle for that. I would like to see a sentencing escalator, whereby if people are convicted of the same offence more than once, they have to get a harsher punishment the second time than they had the first time, and a harsher punishment yet again if they commit the same offence a third time. The Government clearly accept the principle of that, because they have done exactly that with the covid fines. I hope they will allow a sentencing escalator for other criminal offences as well.
I would like to see magistrates’ sentencing power increased to 12 months, rather than six months. That needs to be done. I would like to see the word “insulting” removed from section 4 and section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 so that someone cannot be guilty of something if they simply insult people. There are many amendments I would like to see to this Bill that time does not allow me to mention this evening. I could do with a whole day on Report all to myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I do not think that is entirely likely to occur.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
Ask almost anyone involved in the criminal justice system for their priorities, and they will not say, “More new offences, types and lengths of sentences, and further layers of complexity masquerading as action”; they will point to the backlog in the courts, the lack of resources for everything from legal aid to prisons, and the systemic failure at every turn from investigation and charge, to trial and disposal. Some measures in the Bill are helpful, but parts are oppressive and downright dangerous. I refer particularly to parts 3 and 4, which amount to a sustained attack on civil liberties, free expression and movement by an intolerant Government who are increasingly careless of the rule of law.
Given the time restraints, I will set up the case against part 4 of the Bill. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma are the most discriminated against and marginalised ethnic minority in UK society—indeed, the action of Pontins management reminded us of that only days ago. The Bill targets those communities, and it criminalises what has hitherto been the civil offence of trespass on land. It makes the direct threat of imprisonment and heavy fines for matters that were previously resolved through negotiation or in the civil courts. The Bill threatens, not just for the act of trespass but for an intention to trespass, to seize and forfeit any vehicle involved in that trespass, which in the case of nomadic people means losing their home and all their possessions.
Only 3% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans are on unauthorised sites. The police response to the proposals was unequivocal:
“trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so…no new criminal trespass offence is required.”
No family willingly stops somewhere they are not welcome, and which has no running water, waste disposal or electricity. They do so for the lack of either permanent or transit sites. Only 29 councils in England provide transit sites—a mere 354 places.
Evictions will run for 12 months, and it is not difficult to imagine a concerted campaign to exclude Travellers from whole areas of the country, contrary to the recent judgment in the London Borough of Bromley v. Persons Unknown. The judge in that case concluded that
“the Gypsy and Traveller community have an enshrined freedom not to stay in one place but to move from one place to another.”
Preventing that potentially breaches both equality and human rights law, as the shadow Home Secretary said earlier. The Home Secretary may not care about any of this, but many people do. She would be well advised to drop these racist and draconian proposals from the Bill before it progresses any further.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Unlike the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), those of us who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies know only too well the problems caused by unauthorised encampments, and the deeply damaging effects they have on our local communities. The proposed offence refers to those who brazenly travel and set up unauthorised encampments, with total disregard for others. My constituents have often been subject to the disruption and difficulties caused by those in caravans who, without permission, set up on a village green, a playing field or agricultural land. Although I accept that that may not sound particularly troublesome in theory, unfortunately it is the behaviour and activities of those in the caravans that causes disruption, damage, and disquiet in our lovely rural villages and towns.
The Government’s proposals on tackling unauthorised encampments is a big step in the right direction, but of course more should be done. It does not discriminate against the vast majority of law-abiding Gypsy and Traveller communities, and neither should it, but it highlights the big issue of those who set up unauthorised encampments, and allows authorities to deal with that in a more effective manner.
I support the proposal in clause 46 to create the offence of desecration of memorials, and I would like the Government to consider creating a new offence of attacking the parliamentary offices of Members of the House. An attack on an MP’s office is an attack on the House and on the heart of our democracy. I should declare that I am the victim of such a crime. My office was violently attacked less than two months ago in what appears to have been a premeditated attack designed to intimidate my staff and me. Unfortunately, Leicestershire police, led by Chief Constable Simon Cole, have not been able to identify the assailant. This is the second time in less than 21 months that my office has been attacked. If we are to place value on memorials and statues, as we should, by creating this new offence, how much more important is the symbol of this sovereign body in each constituency—namely, the MP’s office bearing the portcullis? These are not inanimate historical objects; they are the living, breathing and supposedly safe workplaces of Members of this House across our country. I ask the Government to confirm that they take seriously these attacks against MPs, their staff and their parliamentary offices—even more seriously than attacks against statues. Accordingly, I invite the Government to consider my reasonable suggestion for a specific offence of attacking an MP, their office or their staff in their constituency.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In September 2018, my constituent, Jackie Wileman, was tragically killed by four known criminals who joy-rode a stolen heavy goods vehicle around Barnsley for days before hitting and killing Jackie on her daily walk and crashing into a house in the village of Brierley. The four men had 100 convictions between them, and one had already been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. At the trial, one man pleaded guilty and the other three were also convicted, but with plea deductions and time on licence, they all served between five and just over six years. The lenient sentences handed down to them following Jackie’s death led to her brother, Johnny Wood, bravely and tirelessly campaigning to scrap the maximum sentence for those who cause death by dangerous driving, so that no family would have to go through what they have gone through. Having fought alongside Johnny for this change in the law, and having raised the issue in the Chamber many times and having met the Justice Minister, I am in no doubt that Johnny’s powerful testimony has directly contributed to the sentencing Bill we have before us today.
The Bill, while strong on dangerous driving, also had the opportunity to support victims of other crimes. I met virtually with my constituent Claire Hinchcliffe a few weeks ago. She suffered 13 months of abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, who continued to stalk her after the end of their relationship. He was given a 12-month restraining order. The Bill could have strengthened sentences for crimes such as this, but it does not. It does not mention violence against women once. It fails to address this issue, yet it proposes to give the police extra powers and the right to limit peaceful protest.
The history of Barnsley demonstrates the issues with policing protests and public order. For those who lived through the 1984 miners’ strike and experienced abuse at the hands of the police, these new powers will rightly cause alarm. The state already has sweeping powers to police protests; it does not need any more. This is not about protecting the public; it is about getting cheap, easy headlines for a weak Home Secretary. I am pleased to welcome the provisions in the Bill that will finally deliver justice for Jackie, but I am disappointed that I cannot support the Bill in its entirety due to the fact that it threatens our right to peaceful protest and has no provision to protect victims such as Claire and the thousands of other women who are seeking justice.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the short time available, I will limit myself slightly. The Opposition’s position is somewhat illogical at the moment. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is by no means perfect. I hope that it will be corrected as it goes through. Will that happen? Certainly. I accept that there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and I think that these will be dealt with during the course of the debate. Overall, this is a good Bill, but Labour Members are going to vote against the protection of the police, the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime, and important measures on sentencing and release, on public order, on encampments—which bother a lot of my constituents—on youth justice, on secure children’s homes and academies, and on the management and rehabilitation of offenders. They will vote against all of that, yet they agree with much of it. That does not make any sense to me.
Tonight I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to something very important that is not in the Bill, and I want to make some progress on this. It is to do with the rising theft of pets, including dogs, much of which now includes violence. This is a really big issue; it is not prosaic by any means.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend—it is a big issue for my constituents and I am glad he has brought it up.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There have been reports of a huge, 250% increase in dog-theft crimes in a number of counties, particularly Suffolk. The Metropolitan police, who cover my area, report the highest number of dog thefts in the country. The number of stolen dogs registered on the DogLost website has increased by more than 170% since lockdown, and 2020 was the worst ever year for the theft of dogs.
We are not talking about some inanimate object; this is an animal, a pet who is part of the family like the other pets. Dogs also do hugely important jobs. Who secures this place by ensuring that we do not have bombs? Dogs. Who checks at customs that people are not importing drugs and other things? Dogs. Dogs are being trained to detect covid now, and they should have been brought into airports years ago.
The reality here is that it is very violent. The big point is that gangs are involved now. The prices of these animals have risen—we are talking about £5,000 or £10,000 for a dog—and the gangs are very violent. I have constituents who have been knocked to the ground and beaten and had their hands stamped on. There have been threats made against them, their home and their families. These are serious offences, yet right now it is almost impossible to get more than a slap on the wrist for this stuff—a fine of £250 or perhaps £500.
Dogs are not even listed in the Home Office classification—they are in among theft from the person, bicycle theft, shoplifting and other theft. Pet theft currently sits hidden from view under HOC49, alongside things that do not have a home, such as a wheelbarrow. This is wrong, it diminishes the crime and it means that many people who are devastated by pet theft, and often brutalised, have no recourse. As I said, even the sentencing side of it is very poor. We need to bring in much tougher sentences and it is important that we have a categorisation that includes dogs and other pets. We also need police to take pet theft seriously. One individual told me that when their dog was stolen, a police officer said, “Did you have anything else of value taken?” as though dogs were not of any value.
Microchips have to be put in by law, yet no vet has to scan to see whether or not a dog is stolen. That should change so we should bring that in. Other ideas include a ban on cash sales, as happened with scrap metal, to cut off such sales, and consideration of the reintroduction of licences for pet ownership.
Pet theft is a serious offence and I would like the Government, during deliberations on the Bill, to introduce changes to help people. Violence and the theft of animals are wrong. We should do something about it, and do it now.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Bill is a missed opportunity. I support some measures, such as those on the police covenant, on doubling the sentence for assaulting emergency workers and on toughening sentences for death by dangerous driving, but I have concerns about several others, including the proposed changes to the right to peaceful protest and the measures on unauthorised encampments, which are targeted at Gypsy, Roma and other travelling communities.
The absences in the Bill reveal the Government’s worrying priorities. The lack of the prioritising in the Bill of measures to protect women from violence and support them is a matter of deep regret. That the penalty for defacing a statute has been increased to 10 years—double the minimum tariff for someone convicted of rape—is offensive, and I hope the Government will think again on that. With that in mind, I send my sincere condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends—I can only imagine what they will be going through at the moment.
I wish to focus the remainder of my remarks on the absence of any measures in the Bill to repeal the Bail Act 1976, and on its impact on vulnerable women. Under the Act, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own protection, without that person being convicted or sentenced, and even when a charge cannot result in a prison sentence. Someone’s liberty can be removed without expert evidence or any formal investigation into their circumstances, and even without their having legal representation. It is reprehensible to deprive a vulnerable adult or child of their liberty because of shortcomings in social security support or mental health or other local services. The potential for abuse in the use of such arcane and outdated legislation is clear to see. It is a scandal and surely in breach of human rights legislation.
Following our recent inquiry on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), has recommended that the Bail Act be repealed. At a recent APPG meeting, I was struck by the evidence from a prison governor, who said that prison was the worst possible environment for a vulnerable person and would exacerbate their vulnerability. The shocking thing is that the scale of the scandal is not even known; the Government do not even collect data on the number of people detained under this legislation. After meeting the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and the Howard League a few weeks ago, I had hoped that this would be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Home Secretary could indicate whether the Government will be correcting this omission in Committee.
Finally, I want to express my concerns regarding the Government’s failure once again to undertake any equality impact assessment on the Bill. Given the Lammy review and the evidenced racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system, the Government’s rhetoric about Black Lives Matter rings hollow.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
I strongly support the points about pet theft made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I also strongly welcome the addition of faith leaders alongside sports coaches, both of which have been added to the list of professions in the Bill—that also includes teachers, social workers and doctors—for whom it is illegal to have a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17-year-old in their care. This is in line with the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and it is absolutely right.
I want to spend the rest of my remarks giving voice to the everyday experiences of one of my female constituents in her early 20s. The cumulative impact of these incidents amounts to very serious and wholly unacceptable antisocial behaviour of the very worst kind, which can lead to a severe lack of self-confidence and wellbeing.
Over the last year or so, my constituent has told me that she has endured: being touched inappropriately and called a prostitute by a strange man on her own doorstep; being continually cat-called while walking down the street; being groped without consent in a nightclub; being cat-called in a seriously offensive manner from the street while fully dressed in her own property; being harassed by a group of men in a pub; having her bottom commented on by an older man while filling her car up with petrol; having her figure loudly commented on by three boys while on the underground, with no one else in the carriage asking them to stop; being followed by a much older man in an unwanted manner over coffee after a church service; and having a man lie to her about his singleness, when he was married and asking her to meet under false pretences. If a young woman in today’s society is not free from sexual harassment in her own home, in public, in a pub, in a nightclub, at a petrol station, on public transport or after a church service, where indeed is she safe?
The tragedy is that these experiences are all too common for many younger women, and it is vital that male Members of Parliament call them out. Although there is so much that we properly expect of the law, the police and the courts, they cannot change a whole culture on their own. That is where our common community life, our families, and indeed every single one of us, has a role. It is up to all of us to set a culture to uphold the values of decency, respect and honouring women that should be commonplace. In particular, it is up to all of us—especially men—to challenge the unacceptable behaviour of other men. The behaviour that I described earlier is not manly anyway; it is cowardly, bullying, pathetic and wrong.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I start by offering my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. May her soul rest in peace.
Parts of Clapham Common fall within my constituency, and having lived in Brixton all my life, I have walked the same streets that Sarah did. My first job was at the Sainsbury’s supermarket on Clapham High Street and my sixth-form college, St Francis Xavier Catholic Sixth Form College, is located at the southern tip of Clapham Common at Clapham South. I have felt afraid, and I do not want my daughter growing up and making the same adjustments that I did—that all women do. In the past few days, I have been contacted by hundreds of women and men—young and old, grandmothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers—who live in Clapham and across my constituency of Vauxhall. Now they no longer feel safe.
Our streets and our public spaces should not be places of fear for women. We need to listen to women’s voices and we must believe what they are telling us. That includes making sure we listen to all women, including the voices of black women and trans women. Far too often, we do not hear the names of black women and minority ethnic women in the news or on social media, but sadly, many of them have been failed by the police and the criminal justice system. So I say the names of Blessing Olusegun, Joy Morgan, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and many others who have died on our streets. Only then can we start to heal the mistrust and put in place long overdue protections to protect all women. We must and we will reclaim the streets.
The Bill is wide-ranging and it contains a number of important measures that I welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their tireless campaigning on dangerous driving, protecting our emergency service workers, reforming the Disclosure and Barring Service scheme, and widening the law to prevent adults from abusing their positions of trust and engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18. These measures will make us feel safer.
However, the Bill is also a missed opportunity for much-needed reforms. It does not do nearly enough to address the urgent issue of racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, I am disappointed that the Government have missed an opportunity to focus on prevention by ensuring that the organisations that need the long-term funding to tackle serious violence and build trust with communities that feel they are sometimes viewed as the perpetrators when they are actually victims, are not included. That includes the many girls and young women caught up in violence associated with gang violence.
I want to focus the rest of my remarks on some of the other measures proposed in the Bill. Those who seek to control the expression of the right to protest—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady has significantly exceeded her time limit. She will have another opportunity at the next stage of the Bill.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
There is much that I welcome in the Bill, in particular that the Government have adopted recommendations made by the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse. I have a direct interest in this because I worked on it before entering Parliament. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that the inquiry’s recommendations have been brought into law. It is a powerful thing for the survivors to see the nightmares of their past informing the laws of the future, first, by extending the definition of “position of trust”. When we looked at sports coaches and religious leaders, what they shared was status not just in their sphere but in their community. The children they chose tended to be vulnerable in the first place. They built on the bonds of trust with families to establish extended periods with those children, often overnight, and they were willing to engage in extended patterns of grooming to do so. There are other categories of worker to whom that applies and I hope the Government will keep an open mind on that.
It is also a core finding of the inquiry that we are failing to properly protect children against the worst kinds of abuse because offenders can travel abroad and find impoverished and vulnerable children to seriously sexually exploit. So I welcome the extension of the sexual harm prevention orders to limit their ability to travel and to give the Secretary of State the right to list countries. We know and the National Crime Agency knows what countries that takes place in. However, to be effective we must also take action against social media companies, which all too often are allowing very violent sexual exploitation to be streamed across their platforms. The abuse happens abroad, it is consumed in the United Kingdom and, if we do not take the opportunity to address that in the online harms Bill, I do not know if we ever will.
Similarly, on managing terrorist risk offenders, I particularly welcome the new powers given to the Parole Board under clause 108 to restrict the release of those who may have been radicalised in prison. This goes directly to the lone wolf attack in Forbury Gardens, on the doorstep of my constituency, where the assailant had been released just 17 days before and it might have changed the outcome.
I want to close by saying something about violence against women. I cannot accept that this Government are not doing all they can to protect women in this Bill, but particularly in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is so rare to have two new sexual offences identified in one piece of legislation, together with the new offence of coercive control.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend speaks very eloquently about sexual violence against women and we would like to hear more from her.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
In the last week, a new conversation has crystallised about the safety and dignity of women and their ability to move around in public, and attention must be paid to their voices. I do not think the Bill is the place to rush through new measures or to bolt on new provisions, but I think the Government have an opportunity to begin an important conversation through their VAWG strategy, and I think there is a place for focused legislation on the issue at the end of the year.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Saturday night saw a peaceful vigil highlighting violence against women ending in scenes of women being forcibly restricted by men. It should have been a moment for women collectively to grieve the tragic loss of a life and publicly express their solidarity, but instead of a moment for reflection on the daily injustices faced by women, this weekend was a powerful reminder of the importance of our civil liberties and the right to protest.
Elements of the Bill are good. The Liberal Democrats support trauma-informed services and strengthening rehabilitation with the aim of reducing reoffending. We also support the police covenant, a measure that helps our police to be a better workforce. The Bill could be made even better by explicitly making misogyny a hate crime. We need to recognise the root causes of violence against women. In the same way that we recognise racial or religious discrimination and homophobia, we can recognise that hatred of women causes harm.
All that important debate is undermined by the part of the Bill on the policing of protests, which is an assault on our civil liberties and our democracy. The Government say they want to clamp down on the most destructive protests, but let us be clear that they aim quite literally to silence protest. The measure is a thinly veiled reaction to the climate protests that have taken place over the past couple of years around Parliament and in cities and towns across the country. The climate emergency has evoked strong feelings, particularly among young people, and it would be quite wrong to curtail their voices.
The whole purpose of demonstrations is to have one’s voice heard, to make an argument, to get the attention of those who make the law and to encourage change. Peaceful protest is at the heart of a liberal democracy. We have taken democracy for granted for a long time. Each generation has to fight for its freedoms. Each generation faces different challenges, but the diverse voices from all sections of our society should never be stifled or suppressed.
Liberalism exists to protect our freedoms, our democracy and our right to protest. If the Government were really serious about protecting women from violence, they would never attempt to silence their protests. That part of the Bill must go.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I want to concentrate on the provisions of part 4 of the Bill, which deal with the long-standing problem of unauthorised encampments. Part 4 effectively upgrades acts of deliberate trespass from a civil to a criminal offence. The campaign of those of us who have argued for that change for a number of years now was based on a similar change in the law in the Republic of Ireland several years ago; hence it has often been referred to succinctly as the Irish option. The move has become necessary because of persistent illegal incursions by some individuals, including some members of the travelling community, that have become an increasing problem in many parts of the country, including my home county of Essex, in recent years.
For the record, many Travellers are perfectly law-abiding and have good relations with the settled community. Unfortunately, however, some others are not, and there have been repeated examples of antisocial behaviour and even criminal damage resulting from illegal encampments in recent years in places as varied as village greens, sports grounds and industrial estates. As a civil offence, it has often necessitated local authorities having to go to court, at public expense, to have such incursions moved on, as well as sometimes being involved in the further expense of clean-up operations once illegal sites have been vacated.
Under this Bill, which I am proud to say fulfils a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment, police officers will be given powers to challenge illegal encampments of one vehicle or more. If people wilfully refuse to move on, they can be arrested with a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. Crucially, offenders can also have their property, including their vehicle or vehicles, impounded by the police.
I can assure the House that this important change in the law has proved very popular with my constituents, and I have received many messages of support since it was confirmed last week. In addition, it has also proved popular with the Essex farming community. The county adviser of the National Farmers Union, Dr Jake Richards, sent me this brief message:
“Dear Mr Francois, I am writing to thank you on behalf of the NFU and the farmers in your constituency for your support and for the Commitment from fellow Essex MP, Rt Hon Priti Patel, on Monday when she announced that changes to the law were being brought forward as part of a new major criminal justice bill to be introduced to Parliament imminently. The changes proposed will be most welcome by our Members.”
Our industrious Essex police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, also warmly welcomed adding these powers to the statute book.
In summary, I hope and believe that these tough new powers will act as a genuine deterrent to illegal encampments in future and should thus lead to improved relations between the travelling and settled communities. I congratulate Ministers, and the Home Secretary in particular, on having the courage to introduce them and, in so doing, fulfilling part of the manifesto on which we were elected in the first place.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I am particularly pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), because I intend to address virtually the same subject. Poole is a beautiful place. We attract people, and, unfortunately, we attract people with unauthorised encampments. Last summer, in Poole Park, the cricket pitch was camped on. There was Whitecliff, Sandbanks car park—there are many areas in Poole that face unauthorised encampments, which take away well-used local resources from children and grandchildren, and my constituents.
Part 4 of the Bill was in the 2019 manifesto. I am particularly pleased that the Government have grasped this issue and brought forward this legislation. My constituents could never understand how they had to have licences, obey the law and pay their council tax, but if they stepped on any area that was illegal, they would get arrested by the police, when there are people—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is the age-old clash between rights and responsibilities? In this case, they have responsibilities but they see others who simply claim they have rights.
Sir Robert Syms
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. What used to happen until recently was that people would turn up, and others would phone the local council, which would say that it could not do much about it. They would then phone the local police, who would say that they could not do much about it—indeed, there have been occasions when the local police have watched people go and set up unauthorised encampments—and then they would phone the Member of Parliament and let him know what they think about him, saying that the Government must do something. It is true that the local authority and the police have had more powers than they have been willing to use, but this is in the “too difficult to deal with” box, so people have just kept their heads down and hoped that, after a week or two, people would move on.
However, this does increase real costs to local authorities, which, apart from cleaning up sites, sometimes have to put special measures in to try to protect sites. Year after year, this costs council tax payers quite a lot of money, so I am very pleased that the Government have put these powers in the Bill. I hope that they survive their passage through the House. They will make a material difference to the quality of life of many of my constituents.
There are issues to do with Travellers that we need to address apart from unauthorised encampments. One of those is the poor educational qualifications that many of their children have—the Government need to pay attention to that to see what more we can do—and another is the health standards of many of these people, who do not access hospitals as easily as the rest of us.
Overall, what the Government are doing is very sensible. This is the sort of Bill that a confident right-of-centre Government should bring in to deal with law and order— not only with Travellers but with many other areas. Personally, I am becoming a great fan of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who instead of talking a good game are actually producing things in legislation that will make a great difference to people’s lives.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I welcome parts of this Bill, but there are glaring omissions, especially around violence against women and children. In Rotherham, and across the country, all too often victims and survivors of crime, especially sexual violence, lack confidence in the system, and this Bill was the opportunity to change that. There are far too many instances where sentencing is too lenient, or indeed where predatory or violent behaviours are not even criminalised.
I am relieved that the Government are finally reintroducing pre-charge bail conditions. Removing them in 2017 led to survivors living in fear of reprisals from their abusers. I also very much welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward the “positions of trust” provisions that make it illegal for faith leaders and sports coaches to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care. However, the Government need to extend this law to cover the likes of driving instructors, youth workers, police officers and private tutors.
I am pleased about the progress on extending the offence of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence to include the rape and abuse of a child, and on stronger sentences for commensurate harm. However, the Bill must be strengthened to address online sexual exploitation. Aggravating factors must be included, as has been done in Australia, when it comes to sentencing. The Bill should be amended to state that approaching a person with regard to child sexual offences also specifically includes doing so online or via other telecommunications.
The provisions on the establishment of a list of countries considered to be at high risk of child sexual exploitation or abuse by UK nationals need to include countries that are at risk from UK citizens who commit abhorrent crimes online. Too often, I hear of UK nationals remotely directing abuse of, often, Filipino children from their own homes. Currently, there is a loophole in the law whereby a registered sex offender can change their name through deed poll and then go under the radar of the authorities. Alarmingly, I recently uncovered the fact that over 16,000 sex offenders breached their notification requirements in the past five years, which means that they disappeared from the system set up to monitor them.
Finally, I am astounded that while the Bill makes several changes to procedures in courts and tribunals, the Government have not used it as an opportunity to further improve support for victims and witnesses of sexual abuse.
Tragic events of the past week have shown just how important this Bill is. For too long, abuse, and particularly violence against women and girls, has gone on unchecked and survivors have been left to deal with a system that is not only not working but often making their situation worse. Crimes against women often specifically occur because they are women. These crimes are not gender neutral, so the law should not be either. We must consider a definition in terms of making misogyny a hate crime.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The appalling events of recent days have caused great anger and anxiety. My inbox has many emails calling for curfews on men and many others calling for greater understanding that not all men are perpetrators. At such a difficult time, we must find the right balance between personal freedom and state intervention, but also recognise how vital it is that we teach our boys and our girls the profound importance of mutual respect.
In speaking in this Second Reading debate, I want to focus on a measure in the Bill that I think everyone can get behind—giving the police new powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. For my constituents, that cannot come soon enough. In late 2019, a plot of floodplain near Northampton was sold privately, and then, in the middle of 2020, it was auctioned off to potential developers. The sales were under false pretences because planning consent would never be granted on a floodplain. Then in August 2020, as local residents had feared, a large number of vehicles entered the site and set up an unauthorised encampment. From August to October, the local community was witness to huge piles of commercial waste entering the site and being dumped on the floodplain and in the River Nene, and multiple vehicles with no tax or MOT, some with false plates, entering and leaving the site. There were regular bonfires with acrid black smoke, and visible payment being taken for third parties entering the site to dispose of builders’ waste.
Local residents suffered verbal and racial abuse and antisocial behaviour, including rocks being thrown at passing cars, air rifles being shot, quad bikes being ridden at all hours and dogs running loose around the streets. Residents endured months of real fear and did everything they could to provide evidence to their parish and borough council and the local police. Finally, in October last year, the combined efforts of Northants police and the borough council got the Travellers off the land.
A political philosophy that has always chimed with me is that of John Stuart Mill. In setting out to describe the parameters of individual freedom, he said that we should all be free to do exactly as we like, provided that we are not impeding someone else’s freedom to do exactly as they like. That is a difficult balance to achieve in real life, but where the rights of communities versus the rights of Travellers are concerned, there can be no doubt that facilitating a Traveller’s way of life must not necessitate the misery and fear that was caused for my constituents. Many will be heartily delighted with this new measure, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to the huge majority across the country who want to see greater protections from unauthorised encampments.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a Trojan horse Bill, and the Home Secretary is Sinon at the gates of Troy saying, “I’m the only one left! Please let me in with this fantastic Bill that’s going to do all the things that you Opposition Back Benchers have been asking me to do.” Well, we see that hidden in the Bill, there are some nasty and pernicious laws. Many of the good things in the Bill could be achieved by either amending or bringing forward separate Bills, such as the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill, promoted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Instead, the Government have put forward a Bill that is so big, so expansive and so diverse that it covers two Departments, so that they can squeeze the good things in as well as those that deny the rights of people. If we allowed this to stand, every Government would do it, would they not? They would put pernicious rules into what, in public speaking, we call a “something sandwich”, where you put the bad in the middle and sandwich it with the good. That is what the Bill is. I will come on to what the particularly bad things are, but there are also great missed opportunities. I sat on the upskirting Bill Committee. We pushed amendments, and the Government accepted that they would explore bringing forward misogyny as a hate crime. Where is that in this Bill? That could have been included, and it is so disappointing that it is not. There are clearly missed opportunities.
Part 3 of the Bill is particularly problematic, and notably the use of the phrase “serious unease”. To tell the truth, I find myself feeling serious unease when certain Government Members speak and I disagree with them, but in a democracy, I can feel unease, disagree and even think that they are saying things that are offensive, but they are not criminalised. During the Brexit debates, in the main, the protests outside this place by UKIP and Brexit party supporters and by the remainers were eccentric and annoying to many of us at the time, but to me, it summarised the beauty of British democracy when those peaceful protesters, sometimes of opposing forces, were ringing bells and shouting into horns. Now there is the idea that the police could say, “You’ve gone a decibel over—you’re a criminal.” Many of the people on protests will not even know that the police have laid orders down, because it will not be widely known, so we will be criminalising people without them even knowing it.
I have not even got on to some of the really pernicious measures in the Bill, such as those on Traveller communities. If we had decent move-on sites and decent support from local authorities and made sure that we worked with the community, we could resolve the problems. Surrey has no move-on sites whatsoever—no wonder there are problems in that county. Those are the things we need to deal with rather than criminalising. The idea that someone in a layby over one night could be considered a criminal—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I was so carried away with the hon. Gentleman’s rhetoric that I did not notice he had exceeded his three minutes. I apologise to everybody else.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, which seeks to inject fairness into the criminal justice system and rights many wrongs currently in existence. The protection that clause 46 gives to war memorials and wreaths laid on them is admirable, and I am glad that the provision is being introduced. To desecrate a memorial is a particularly low thing to do and the law should reflect that.
May I also welcome the changes to sentencing powers to allow for life imprisonment for death by dangerous driving? In too many cases, the courts have been unable to deal with these matters effectively and consequently they have given inadequate sentences for even the worst incidents. That will stop, and we will all be safer as a consequence. I have to say, it would have helped if the Crown Prosecution Service had been more minded to lay manslaughter charges in many such instances. It seems to be only on the road that an offence can happen in which someone carries out a deliberate action that creates an obvious risk that is against the law, and yet the CPS is reluctant to lay manslaughter charges. That will change because of these proposals, which I welcome with open arms.
The serious violence reduction orders to be brought in by the Bill are truly groundbreaking. Knife crime is an evil that destroys lives and terrifies communities, but the Bill gives the police powers to make a difference. However, we do not want knives simply to be replaced as the weapon of choice by acid, so I ask the Minister to consider including the possession of noxious liquids in the provisions. That would build on the massive improvements that both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have achieved in reducing the number of such attacks.
Finally, we need to counter the serious misinformation that has been spread about proposals in the Bill to place conditions on demonstrations. The proposed extra powers are not a ban on protests—far from it. There must always be a right to protest, but there must always be rights for those going about their business, too. The Bill seeks to balance those competing rights. It will allow protests, vigils, demonstrations and marches, but not the blocking of bridges or stopping traffic and bringing cities to a standstill. Protests, yes; causing serious disruption to others, no. The Labour party’s voting against the Bill is totally wrong. The message needs to go out loud and clear that Labour Members are voting against provisions to extend sentences for death by dangerous driving, child killers, and serious violence and knife crime. They should vote for the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The last few weeks have been incredibly difficult for women across the country. Sarah Everard’s death is utterly tragic. My thoughts are with her family and friends, as well as with all those who have lost a loved one to male violence.
It is clear to me that Saturday evening in Clapham was supposed to be a peaceful vigil, not a protest. I have spent the last few weeks speaking to women overwhelmed by their feelings of grief and anger. I have spoken to those who feel a little less safe on our streets, those who worry about the world in which their daughters will grow up, and those for whom recent events have brought back their own experiences of trauma, harassment and violence. Campaigns such as the #MeToo movement have ensured that conversations on abuse and violence are finally reaching the mainstream discourse, yet women are not under any illusions. We have spoken out against male violence in all its forms for decades, and I am frustrated and appalled that only now are we being listened to. What is in the Bill for us? How does it protect us? How does it address the scandalous prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault? How does it make women safer on the streets? The simple answer is: it does nothing. Increasing sentences for serious crimes is important, but there is little point if criminals never get to court to be sentenced, as is the case in 99% of rapes. Instead of prioritising victims, the Bill curbs our rights. It makes it harder for us to protest when the Government get things wrong and put the protection of statues above the protection of women.
While I welcome the measures in clause 45 that will extend the existing positions of trust offences, some alarming gaps remain. I am hugely concerned that those provisions will not be applicable in all the circumstances in which they have the power to make a difference. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling, I am hugely disturbed that the provisions set out in clause 45 will not protect those in the wrestling industry. Colleagues may not be aware that wrestling was devastated by the #SpeakingOut movement, which documented horrific tales throughout the industry, including threats of rape and sexual abuse. Some of the victims facing abhorrent abuse have been children as young as 13.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that we do not want perpetrators of sexual offences to fall through a loophole in this legislation, yet because professional wrestling is not classed as a sport and as such does not have a governing body, it is at risk of doing just that. I urge the Minister to commit to meeting me and my colleagues in the APPG on wrestling to talk about the potential avenues to include appropriate protections for young wrestlers in this Bill.
Actions speak louder than words. To quote a heroine of mine, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on what would have been her 88th birthday:
“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.”
The Government need to recognise that we need to take that step, and that we are at a crossroads with a real opportunity to change the lived reality for women and girls in this country. I plead with the Minister to work with the Labour party to ensure that women and girls are safer on our streets and in their homes, to work with us to ensure that the right to protest is not reduced and that voices across the country are not silenced—to work with us to finally do the right thing.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
Now then, no one should feel unsafe in our country, and this Bill will be of great comfort to law-abiding British people who want to see greater powers for our police and tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and anyone else who thinks they are above the law. If you cannot live by the rules of our society, then you should live in a place that has a different set of rules, and that place is prison. The good news is that we are recruiting 10,000 extra prison officers and 20,000 new police officers, and we are building more prisons.
Post covid, people want to return to safe streets and safer neighbourhoods. This Bill does that. This Bill ensures that the victims of crime are put first. I find it strange that Labour is talking about tougher sentences for crimes against women, yet in December it tried to stop us deporting foreign rapists. One Labour MP said we should not deport those criminals in December as it was too close to Christmas. I disagree; I thought it was a great Christmas present.
Labour says that this Bill will remove the right to protest. Rubbish. This Bill will protect peaceful protests from being hijacked by trouble-causing agitators. Labour’s idea of peaceful protests are the ones we saw in Whitehall last year, where police were attacked, our flag was burned and memorials were damaged, while its own MPs looked on and said nothing. That was disgraceful.
We have a Home Secretary who is brave enough to tackle the issue of illegal camps. Those camps have made the lives of Ashfield residents a misery. When they are set up, crime rises, locals feel intimidated and the council is left with a massive clean-up bill. This Bill puts a stop to that nonsense. Police in Ashfield are doing a great job, but I know they are frustrated by short sentences and weak bail conditions. This Bill will give our police extra powers and the extra confidence they need.
I am confused that the shadow Home Secretary said tonight that he agrees with lots of things in the Bill, yet he will vote against it, proving once again that Labour is on the side of the criminals. Before lockdown, residents would often see me sat in the front of a police car going out on patrol and supporting our police, which is in sharp contrast to some Labour politicians, who have been seen in the back of police cars on the way to the station. It comes as no surprise to me that Labour will not support this Bill, after reading this week that there are 14 leading Labour politicians who have been arrested, imprisoned or under investigation in the past six months. There is no wonder we need more prisons.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We will try to get back to some sense of reality after the nonsense we have just heard.
This is a really important and wide-ranging Bill, and there are many aspects that I and my colleagues welcome. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their success in securing the “protect the protectors” aspects of this Bill; my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing reform of the Disclosure and Barring Service; and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for her work that has led to the dangerous driving reforms. All those things and more deserve support. It is a testament to the Home Secretary’s insatiable desire for conflict that a Bill that contains so many measures campaigned for and fought for by Labour MPs should still be impossible to support.
What a missed opportunity this Bill is. There is nothing that will make a significant difference on the issue of violence against women and nothing on victim support, despite what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the Tories being a party that supports victims. Indeed, it considers protecting statues a greater priority than protecting rape victims. The events of this weekend have brought into sharp relief where a civilised society must allow protest and support our police to keep our streets safe from criminals, not instruct them to arrest peaceful and grieving women.
We can easily see why this division is a political strategy of Conservative Members. Listening to speeches like that of the hon. Gentleman, it is very clear that they want to introduce elements that we will all agree with, and then introduce one or two elements that we cannot possibly agree with in order to say that we are preventing the good parts of this Bill. It is absolute cheap politics, and it is the politics of division. This is a Government who have frozen police pay, cut police numbers, and let criminals off the hook due to backlogs in the courts and overcrowding in our prisons. There can be no doubt but that they are no friends of the police.
Before I finish, I want to take a moment on someone who is a friend of the police—the police and crime commissioner for Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa. I was extremely proud that my county, Derbyshire, where less than 5% of residents are BAME, was the first area to elect a BAME police and crime commissioner. Five years on, we are even prouder. Hardyal promised he would set up a programme in every village and town in the county. Not only has he done that, but he has met residents right across our county, while fiercely fighting the corner of our dedicated police both in Government and in the media. He has never forgotten who he is there to represent, and if the police get it wrong, as they did when Derbyshire police published pictures of dog walkers in the Peak or fined people walking five miles from home, he has been quick to be the voice of the people, not hidden away from a difficult situation. I hope he gets people’s support on 6 May.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]
This is a substantial and impressive Bill. Many of the policies in it predate the 2019 general election and some featured in the September 2020 White Paper, so they are certainly not measures that are being rushed through. It is difficult, in the space of three minutes, to do justice to the 296 pages, 176 clauses and 20 schedules, so let me just name check a few of the parts I particularly support.
I support putting the police covenant into law at last and the increase in penalties for assaults on emergency workers. It is incredible that we are having to contemplate that. I support the allowance for police officers faced with dangerous high-speed car chases in pursuit of dangerous criminals who are done themselves for dangerous driving; they are just doing their job. I am pleased we are toughening provisions on criminal damage to memorials, especially military memorials. I support tougher penalties for causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving and tougher sentencing of child murderers. I support scrapping the early release of terrorist offenders, innovation in probation with the use of curfews and community sentencing, and clamping down on sex tourism.
There are lots of sensible, practical and much-awaited measures in this Bill that the vast majority of our law-abiding constituents will certainly welcome, but of course Labour is voting against all of these tonight. It has not even bothered to table a reasoned amendment to let the Bill proceed and then scrutinise it in Committee. Apparently, it is just a blanket vote against the whole of the Bill and all the measures in it. Labour Members may try to claim that they have objections to the new public demonstration conditions proposed for preventing serious disruption to the life of the community or recklessly causing public nuisance, and they may claim that in some way it suppresses free speech, but if they really do have such concerns, they should support the Bill and argue for improvements in Committee. However, people gluing themselves to tubes to disrupt the whole London underground system, clambering on to planes to shut down airports, preventing an ambulance reaching an emergency department through protesters, preventing the distribution of a free press, or assaulting police officers to get to, violate and vandalise war memorials does nothing to further free speech, free association or any democratic process. Ordinary law-abiding people should not have to put up with it, and there are many thresholds and conditions in this Bill.
I specifically welcome measures to extend the definitions in relation to those who abuse positions of trust by engaging in sexual activity with minors. The Bill specifically references sports coaches and faith leaders. However, private tutors, including music teachers, are exempt from many of the safeguarding checks that we rightly expect of mainstream employed teachers. Can we consider including them, as I tried to do many years ago as Children’s Minister?
I warmly welcome the measures to criminalise trespass when it results in unauthorised encampments, causing damage in order to access private and community property, trashes the cricket pitch or village green when it happens, and prevents local people using the amenities that they pay for. To add insult to injury, these unauthorised encampments eventually leave the site scarred with fly-tipping, everything from building waste to human waste, and then they come back and repeat it all over again in a few years’ time. It is not acceptable. This Bill will clamp down on it at last, and I support it.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this incredible important and timely debate.
Those of us who continuously rejected the recent Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill did so partly because of the impact that it would have on the freedom to protest. That freedom is being challenged yet again today, through the authoritarian measures proposed in this Bill.
This weekend, people across the country watched in horror the visual evidence of the disgraceful police action towards peaceful attendees of a vigil to mourn the murder of Sarah Everard and to express a collective anger and despair that so many women still suffer violence at the hands of men as part of their everyday life. Despite the Government’s attempt to conjure up smoke and mirrors earlier today, a spot of damage control if you like, this incident exactly demonstrates that there are still serious questions about the powers that our police forces have, the way that these powers are executed, towards whom they are targeted, how they are scrutinised, and how those with such powers are held to account.
The Government regularly express their concern about human rights in other countries. If enacted, however, the Bill before the House today would
“expose already marginalised communities to profiling and disproportionate police powers through the expansion of stop and search, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities may face increased police enforcement through the criminalisation of trespass.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the director of the well-respected human rights organisation, Liberty.
Protests are often a space for the most marginalised to make their voices heard. In the past year, we have seen that in the Black Lives Matter protests and we have seen it over this past weekend. Just as police rode into protesters on horses last year, so, too, did they violently grab women on Saturday night.
Freedom of speech intrinsically linked to the freedom of protest should be enshrined in our legislation so that it is available to all. The Bill, however, would give the Government even more power to decide whether a protest should be allowed to go ahead. Given that our current Home Secretary refers to anti-racist Black Lives Matter protesters as “thugs”, it is no wonder that people up and down the country are alarmed. The crux of the matter goes beyond that. The right to protest must be protected or else we find ourselves on an extremely worrying path, with a totalitarian Government able to silence whoever they choose.
Despite the rhetoric, all evidence indicates that this Bill is unlikely even to cut crime and to make those whom it intends to protect safer. Successive Governments have brought in longer sentences and created even more prison places, and that has not reduced crime or slowed the rate of offending.
The impact of this Bill will be felt by marginalised communities more than any other. It will be felt by women, unable to protest at the everyday violence they face. It will be felt by ethnic minority communities, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, trade unions, anti-racist campaigners and climate emergency campaigners—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid we must leave it there.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and the extensive improvements that it will make to the justice and policing systems. I will mention just a few of the many new provisions that have been the subject of much correspondence to me as the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire Dales.
I am pleased that the Government have been prepared to deliver on their manifesto commitments as opposed to changing them as they go along, as those on the Opposition Benches often do. This is what the majority of my constituents voted for. I was pleased to hear from a fellow MP for Derbyshire, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). I am disappointed that he will not be supporting the Bill, because I fear that he may well be out of tune with his constituents.
Over decades, the people of Derbyshire Dales have been plagued by illegal encampments. The disruption and damage caused by these illegal encampments have hugely distressed my constituents who have often taken months to resolve these issues only for them literally to appear again up the road. There have been substantial issues in Ashbourne, Matlock and Bakewell, which have caused huge upset, mess, and expense to Derbyshire Dales District Council and its good residents.
The Bill criminalises trespass and strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. Under the new legislation, the police will have the power to seize vehicles, at last and to arrest or fine trespassers who intend to reside on public and private land without permission, while ensuring that they are not able to return for at least 12 months. The new criminal offence is much to be welcomed—up to three months in prison or £2,500. That is what my constituents, and people across most of the country, have been demanding.
I support the provisions to double the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. It is ironic that Labour Members wish to increase sentences for offences such as rape, but are intent on voting against those provisions. It makes no sense whatsoever. I fully support the extension of the law on positions of trust. As a mother of four young men who were once young teenagers, I am reassured that the Government are at last prepared to do something regarding sports coaches and religious leaders, and ensure that our children are safe. It is a landmark step forward and I am grateful for it.
On war memorials, I felt sick to the pit of my stomach to see Churchill’s statue jeered at and sprayed with cans of paint, and I take my hat off to my hon. Friends, some of whom are in the Chamber, who cleared it up. I am surprised that Labour Members will oppose some of these common-sense measures, and it is a testament to just how out of touch they are, and how difficult it will be for them to win the trust of voters. Conservative Members will fulfil our promises, and ensure that the manifesto pledges are kept.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I confess that I feel saddened and ashamed nearly every year when we come to International Women’s Day, because we have to listen, again, to a litany of the number of women who have been killed by their partner, nearly always in cases of domestic abuse, and sometimes with their child. That has been my experience as an MP in the Rhondda, as nearly all the murders that have happened in my patch over 20 years have been of that exact same situation. What makes me ashamed is that the situation does not seem to improve year on year.
Perhaps three or four times in my life have I worried for my safety on my way home, and last week I felt ashamed to know so many female friends and constituents who say that that is their experience every time they go home. The Rhondda is remarkably safe. We have a very low level of crime. It is a safe place, yet a poll—not a scientific poll but one done by a local firm—showed that 84% of women in the Rhondda felt that they had been sexually harassed or been in danger on their way home. We must do a lot more, and we men must walk in women’s shoes—if you don’t mind the pun—a few more times. If that is uncomfortable, all the better. We need to learn the discomfort that many women go through.
I am delighted that the Bill changes the legislation on emergency workers, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill. We had to fight tooth and nail against the Conservative Government of the day to get it in place, but
“more joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”—
and all the rest, and I am delighted that the sinner repenteth and is now sitting on the Front Bench. Of course it is right to have tough laws against an assault on emergency workers, because an assault on an emergency worker is an attack on us all. However, we cannot just change the law; we have to ensure that the police implement that law, that the Crown Prosecution Service pursues it, and that magistrates feel it is important. I am afraid the Government have done nothing on that front since 2018.
Section 25 is about religion and sport and people in a position of trust, and of course we must deal with that. From my experience, I think we must also consider those who coach people in the arts. My worry is about personal freedom, because this is a woolly jumper that snags easily, and once snagged can readily unravel. We must be very careful about the noise provision. I have been on miners’ marches where we sang so loudly that the walls rocked. I have often been on Pride marches, when I wondered who on earth gave a gay man a whistle in the first place. Noise is part of a protest and part of our freedom.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was discussing the Bill with a constituent over the weekend, when, bizarrely, she asked me whether I would be disloyal to my party. Loyalty is clearly an underrated concept, but this is much less about party loyalty and much more about doing the right thing. Those who claim that this Bill is anti-conservative, anti-libertarian, anti-democracy or even that it seeks to ban peaceful protest are wrong; it is actually about the silent majority, promises made in our manifesto, law and order, and the need to take this country to where it needs to be. I will be voting it through.
To me, this is one of the most pro-law and order Bills passed in recent decades. It gives police authorities much more confidence in the job that they have been trusted to do. It enshrines the police covenant into law, increases the maximum penalty from 12 months to two years in prison for assaults or battery against emergency workers, ensures that criminal courts have sufficient sentencing powers and, as we have heard, strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. It also strengthens the management of sex offenders, and of terrorist risk offenders on licence.
I want to focus briefly on one particular aspect of the Bill—namely, the desecration of war memorials. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who is my very good friend, I was one of the signatories to the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, which will now been subsumed into law. I thank the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), and many others for all their support.
Every single war memorial, irrespective of nation, faith or location, serves as a visual reminder of the horrors of war and the appalling conditions that people face when fighting for their country. These names are not just an inscription on stone, but actual human beings who lived, loved and were loved. These heroes had friends and families, and were in the prime of their life when they were taken, so each memorial bears testimony to lives cut short, the anguish suffered by families, the potential that was never fulfilled, the children that were never born and the guilt suffered by those who did come home. That is why we must ensure that all war memorials are sufficiently protected in law, and that those who seek to damage them through wilful ignorance or stupidity are brought to justice. This Bill is excellent, and I will not hesitate to vote it through the House.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Government published this blockbuster omnibus Bill last week and rushed it through to the Commons, hoping to swell a law and order narrative ahead of the local elections to distract from the Government’s widespread failings. Along with many sensible and necessary changes to the law that Labour MPs have called for—on child protection, dangerous driving, protecting frontline workers and supporting deaf people to act as jurors—the Bill acts as a Trojan horse to push through divisive culture war issues, including specific offences on damaging statues and cracking down on the public’s right to protest.
Ministers somehow did not foresee that law and order means more than the elements that they have chosen for this Bill. It means keeping women safe. It means supporting women who have suffered violence or sexual violence to come forward, prosecuting the offenders and achieving convictions. It means ensuring that the police and others in authority are held accountable to the public needs, and, yes, it means that the rights to protest, and to express grief and anger, are protected. Is it not a remarkably sad irony that this Bill claims to protect memorials, but could be used to criminalise vigils?
Of course, Ministers should have been able to foresee that violence against women could return to the top of the public’s priorities. Sarah Everard’s tragic death has resonated so viscerally with women not because it was unique, but because, sadly, it was all too typical; she could have been any of us. Last week in the International Women’s Day debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out the list of 118 women and girls, aside from Sarah, who were killed by men in the past year—one every three days. The real question is how women’s safety ever dropped from the top of the agenda, and yet this Bill never once mentions women.
According to recent figures, 97% of women aged 18 to 24 have experienced sexual harassment, yet the Bill does nothing to address that scourge. Even fly-tipping could get a longer sentence than stalking. As others have pointed out—irrefutably, at a time when less than 3% of rapes even reported to the police lead to charges, let alone convictions—rape has effectively been decriminalised. Last year, rape prosecutions fell to the lowest level on record. Even when a conviction is achieved, sentences can be as short as five years—half of what the Government think is appropriate for despoiling a statue. Addressing this horrifying situation in line with the demands made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) should surely be the centrepiece of legislation that is called the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the measures she has called for are not even a consideration. I cannot support a Bill that puts protecting monuments ahead of protecting women. Women need concrete action from this Government, not action on concrete.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
This Bill delivers on the manifesto commitments on which the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke elected me. I am particularly pleased that the Government have adopted proposals from the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I worked on together, to ensure that in every town, village or city across our United Kingdom, thugs who desecrate war memorials will feel the full force of the law. Judges will now be able to consider more than just the monetary value of damage to these sacred memorials to our glorious dead when they pass a sentence—which may be a maximum of 10 years, but that will not be the case in every instance, as some Opposition Members are trying to make out.
I want personally to thank the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor for our meetings and close work on this aspect of the legislation. I am troubled to see some Labour Members deriding and demeaning this important work. That conflicts directly with the advice given to the Labour party from a leaked sensitive internal strategy document, which said that Labour Members should make “use” of the Union flag and veterans. The fact that the Labour party want to make use of such things, rather than being proud enough to believe and willing to fight for them, is embarrassing.
I have been fortunate to see the incredible work undertaken by Staffordshire police locally, whether that is by meeting PC Karl Mander and his police dog Audi, who was stabbed in service, leading to the first conviction under Finn’s law, or walking the beat with PCSO Matthew Hough-Clewes last week in a local anti-social behaviour hotspot. This legislation is important in giving our police and our courts the powers and guidance they need to keep us safe, so I am left baffled by Labour’s position.
Desperately scrambling for a reason to vote against, Labour Members claim the new law will silence lawful protests. This is simply not the case. In fact, the Bill simply clarifies the existing common law offence of public nuisance. As a constituent who emailed me today said,
“if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.”
However, if someone wants to block roads and stop ambulances getting sick people into hospital, or glue themselves to a train so people miss a day’s work, the police will now be able to take action, preventing eye-watering costs like the £37 million that Extinction Rebellion’s 2019 protests cost the UK taxpayer.
To sum up, when I vote for this Bill, I will be voting for tougher sentences for child murderers and sex offenders, life sentences for killer drivers, ending the automatic early release of the most dangerous criminals, greater protections for our emergency service workers and delivering Kay’s law, which will help to protect women from their abusers. Those are the sorts of things that people in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke expect to get done, and I will proudly do so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I have looked at what this rushed and punitive Bill will do for Wales, and I have found it wanting. It will infringe our right to protest, worsen inequality and lead to a yet more unjust society. This Government are not interested in seriously tackling the underlying causes of crime. They would rather overlook the cycle of offending while clamping down on dissent. The Labour party’s U-turn from abject abstention to principled opposition within the space of one hour yesterday showed that its leaders also have scant regard for the consequences of the Bill.
The Government display yet again a wilful ignorance of devolution, and the Bill’s “designed by England, for England” approach will further aggravate the damage caused by the jagged edge of justice policy in Wales. It shows that Wales needs control over justice now more than ever, so that we can develop a holistic approach that interconnects with our health, education and social policies.
The Bill’s erosion of the right to protest is antithetical to Wales’s values. We have a proud history of protesting against injustice, from non-conformism to Chartism, the miners’ strike, Welsh language rights protests and the present-day independence movement marches. The right to make peaceful protest against iniquity is something that lies deep within our culture. The Bill will also entrench Wales’s status as a nation of incarceration. Wales has a higher imprisonment rate even than England, and one that disproportionately affects black people, who are imprisoned at six times the rate of white people in Wales. The Bill will criminalise more young people and increase the number of vulnerable women entering prison, yet still tolerate the circumstances in which women such as Wenjing Lin and Sarah Everard were killed, all the while doing nothing to address the structural problems of the justice system in Wales, faced with disproportionate cuts to court numbers and support services.
The current system is failing. We could do so much better in Wales if we had proper control over policing and criminal justice. We could deliver a more humane justice system—one that enables equality, dignity and social justice, and that would allow us to tackle the root causes of crime, promote community support, tackle gender-based violence, root out structural racism, give victims a fair voice and protect our communities by prioritising the complex task of rehabilitation over the tabloid policing Acts of punishment—and a fair and just Wales for all. This is the nation we can be not if, but when we give ourselves the chance.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
During this pandemic, the Government have handed enormous powers to the police to enforce lockdown restrictions, leading to a situation where the police are now policing the coronavirus regulations as a public order problem, rather than a public health matter. It has led to dangerous lines being crossed. We must not forget that while this type of state violence was made visible at the weekend, it is the case that these tactics have been used to protect powerful interests throughout our history. It was seen during the miners’ strike, and it was seen last year as a response to the Black Lives Matter protests.
In a democratic society, policing requires consent and understanding of the public mood. We are seeing a huge overreach and a situation where women have been criminalised while attending a peaceful vigil. Recent events have left women feeling even less empowered in our society. For the police to say to women, “The way you can protect yourself is to stay at home”, is just not good enough.
It comes as no surprise that within this Bill there is no mention of women, whereas the word “memorial” appears eight times. The Bill seeks to ensure that attacking a statue carries a longer sentence than attacking a woman. What kind of message does that send about this Government’s attitude to tackling the endemic issue of violence against women and girls?
The Bill disproportionately impacts Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by criminalising trespass and increasing police powers of eviction. It will increase the inequalities experienced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and ensure that discrimination against those communities is still alive and well as an acceptable form of racism in this country. The Bill also extends the definition of “unauthorised encampment”, which in effect criminalises the increasing numbers of rough sleepers.
I believe the right to protest is sacred in any democracy, so I will be voting against this Bill, because it is an assault on our civil liberties, threatens what remains of our rights to protest, expands stop and search powers and further criminalises Traveller communities. The Government must think again and listen to the vast public anger regarding this Bill. I reject the politics of division laid out by the Government in this Bill, and I ask Members across the House to do the same.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Kate was dead on time, and I will now be strict as far as the time limit is concerned. Please do not exceed it.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
Three minutes is limited, so I will focus on one core aspect of the Bill. I got my first taste of the criminal justice system when I was 13. My dad went to the pub and never came home after receiving a single blow to the head that killed him instantly. From never really having dealings with the criminal justice system, my family was thrust into a whirlwind of police meetings, lawyers’ appointments and court dates, all while trying to deal with the suffocating grief of losing my dad, and that has given me a deep desire to ensure that the criminal justice system works for the victims of crime.
I recently launched an all-party parliamentary group to investigate the rare but damaging phenomenon of one-punch assaults, with an emphasis on sentencing. I wish now that I had been able to get started earlier to feed in some meaningful and evidence-backed proposals to this Bill, but I am grateful to the Justice Secretary none the less for agreeing to meet next week to discuss the APPG’s work. I hope that together we can make some progress in delivering a fairer sense of justice for the left-behind families of one-punch assault victims.
The events that followed losing my dad were the darkest times I have ever known, but in those dark times were points of light in the incredible police officers who helped to support our family. I particularly pay tribute once again to Karen Cocker and Sue Best, our family liaison officers, without whom we would not have been able to navigate the court process with our sanity intact.
After scenes such as those we saw reported at the weekend, it becomes somewhat trendy to turn against our police and denigrate those who devote their lives to keeping us safe. The unfairness of all police being tarred with the same brush based on the actions of a tiny minority is surely something with which we can empathise in this place, given the unfairness of all politicians being held to account for the actions of the worst of us.
Since I was 13, I have had the utmost respect for our police. They run into the face of danger while we run away, stand face to face with armed criminals to keep us safe and are at the frontline of major national crises. The national policing wellbeing survey revealed that a shocking 67% of police officers report post-traumatic stress symptoms and that the average officer shows moderately high symptoms of anxiety. That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Conservative party manifesto commitment to deliver the police covenant—the people of Bishop Auckland elected me on that commitment, which we will deliver through this Bill.
It is our duty to protect the mental health and wellbeing of the police, just as it is their duty to protect us. The Bill will make it a legal requirement for the Home Secretary to report to Parliament each year on what steps they are taking on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of police personnel and their families. Through the Bill, we are also ensuring that our incredible police officers have the powers they need to keep us safe and to secure prosecutions. We are seeking to protect the public and to protect our protectors, both police officers and emergency service workers. I finish with a question. What message does it send that the Labour party is voting against this?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Tonight, I pay my respects to the life of Sarah Everard. As she grew up in York, her loss is deeply felt by me and my community.
Extraordinary liberties have been relinquished to ensure that we kept safe during this last year, but when our liberties are stolen—and, I say this as a woman, at the very time we need them most—the measures in the Bill can only be described as repressive. We have a justice system that is institutionally discriminatory against women; that does not secure high-quality representation for them, that fails to prosecute the most heinous of crimes, that delays cases for years without survivors being able to access vital and necessary trauma services, and that completely fails to keep women safe. The Home Secretary was remiss in her opening speech, since the Bill fails women, fails society and fails to advance our justice. Now is the time when we need to take to the streets and reclaim them, yet the Bill threatens to criminalise us for using our power to force Government and their institutions to change. With economic, social and environmental failure, it is our duty to enable people to exercise their rights, but part 3 of the Bill restrains them.
Let me move on to part 4. I shudder at how the Government are drawing on the darkest periods of history by criminalising Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. This demonstrates that the hostile environment continues to fester in the Home Office, and it must be called out.
Before I close, I want to focus on clause 45. I have made a number of representations to Justice and Home Office Ministers, so they will know what I am about to say. It is not just in sport and religious settings where young people have been groomed and abused. My constituent received private tuition—music coaching—and was groomed for two years before being raped. Her case was one of the 99% of rape cases reported, but not prosecuted. Her perpetrator, now known for sexual impropriety, had no DBS check. If he had, she would have been safe. She was failed, and the Bill fails her and many more. All private tuition settings need full safeguarding checks and measures to be introduced. Secondly, host families of international students accommodate young people of different cultures and language. They need the protections covered by clause 45 too. I trust that the Minister will support such amendments.
The Bill is woefully insufficient when it comes to protection yet overtly hostile in disallowing people their rights and their voice. I came to this Parliament to fight for equality, protect the rights of my constituents and advance justice. It is unconscionable not to stand in the way of the repressive ideology advanced in the Bill. I call on the Government to think again and I will vote against the Bill.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The right to take non-violent individual and collective action is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is being rushed through, and it is ill thought out, with glaring failures, including authoritarian provisions such as those in part 3 that threaten our right to protest. Restricting the freedom of assembly and association contravenes article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and significant concerns have been raised by trade unions, human rights groups, lawyers, activists and even the ex-chief constable of Greater Manchester.
The imposition of additional conditions on protests, such as being too noisy, simply look like an anti-democratic direct attack on particular social movements at odds with the Government’s agenda. This Bill represents an attack on the public’s freedom of speech, impacting on our fight for race and gender equality, against the climate emergency and for improved workers’ rights. Our country has a proud history of collective action, and I want to express my solidarity with those who attended Clapham common on Saturday to remember Sarah Everard and who were treated disgracefully. What we saw contradicts any notion that there needs to be an extension to the powers to oversee protests. Indeed, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), has previously stated that
“legislation already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others.”
Instead of ever more draconian powers, effective policing requires community consent, and to achieve that, there needs to be greater transparency and accountability for the way that protests are policed. I am pleased that David Michael, the Labour Bedfordshire police and crime commissioner candidate, who grew up in Luton, recognises that and is committed to using his experience in the police, together with his understanding of our community, to ensure trust between Bedfordshire police and the community it serves.
Placing more restrictions on people’s ability to gather and protest will not make the public safer. In fact, it is the opposite. It will trample on our ability to stand up for our human rights and against injustice. The Home Secretary focused her remarks on wanting to support women to feel safe while walking down the street, but heaven forbid we do so a bit too noisily, a bit too annoyingly or a bit too near our elected representatives in order to stand up for our human rights.
Individual and collective action is something to be celebrated and encouraged in a functioning democracy. I owe it to the women role models who stood up for what they believed in and shaped my political awareness as a teenager—be it those at the Greenham common women’s peace camp, the Women Against Pit Closures or those marching against apartheid in South Africa—as much as I owe it to those women now or who will come after me, to not let our right to protest, be it noisy or annoying, be slowly eroded.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am glad to be speaking about this eagerly awaited Bill because of its importance for the residents of Wolverhampton. I have campaigned and will continue to do so for a safer and cleaner Wolverhampton. I want the residents to be able to walk clean streets day or night and feel safe.
I fully support the Bill and know that it will be welcomed by many of my constituents. I believe in tougher sentencing for child murderers and sex offenders. I approve of the crackdown on knife crime and violent crime, especially to protect emergency workers. Last year, I conducted a community survey. One of the top areas of concern for my residents—even in a pandemic—was crime. Residents are always getting in touch with me about different issues that the Bill addresses. They do not want to see thefts, fly-tipping and unauthorised encampments, and that last point has probably caused me more work than anything as an MP.
Wolverhampton has beautiful parks such as Bantock and West Park, and over the years, these have been home to unauthorised encampments. I want to make it clear that the majority of the Traveller community are law-abiding citizens who cause no trouble in the local community. We in Wolverhampton did see that, but we have also experienced major problems. To deal with that, Wolverhampton Council took out an injunction, giving it extra powers to move unauthorised encampments. Part of the injunction was to build a transit site. I have no problem with that, and I understand that there needs to be a place for the Traveller community to visit. The site chosen was Gorsebrook Road in Dunstall, which is still one of the most deprived areas in Wolverhampton. It was not welcomed by the residents or by the Traveller community. The cost to build the transit site, in an area that I have championed as a nature trail for local schools and residents, is £1 million. The Bill will negate the need for an injunction at the transit site in its current form. I know that work is under way, but I will continue to ask City of Wolverhampton Council, as I do again now, to pause the work, wait for the legislation to be passed, save money, develop the nature trail and build a legacy for generations to come.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
The scenes at Clapham common this weekend exposed a disgraceful abuse of power by the Metropolitan police. However, for too many of us, the scenes did not shock; they have become worryingly familiar. From the miners protesting at Orgreave and elsewhere in the 1980s to the climate change and Black Lives Matter protests last year, the violent crackdown by police on peaceful demonstrators exercising their right to protest has been routine, systematic and deliberate. Such actions raise the fundamental questions: who do the police protect and who do they serve? This weekend, it was abundantly clear that the answer to both questions was not women.
By making it an offence to cause serious annoyance or inconvenience, the Bill restricts our fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and expression and effectively removes our collective ability to fight back against state abuses of power. The proposals for a new serious violence reduction order will provide greater power to stop and search a person at any time, in any place and completely free of suspicion. There are major criticisms of current stop-and-search powers, which impact disproportionately on black people, particularly in my city of Liverpool. A recent Home Office report identified that black people are 2.7 times more likely to be victims of stop and search and three times more likely to have force used against them. The police do not need more of these powers, which will not protect us.
Some of the Bill’s most disturbing clauses attack the nomadic lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by criminalising unauthorised encampments and establishing trespass as a criminal offence. The proposals are discriminatory and potentially unlawful. The Government’s own consultation on extending the powers showed that even the majority of the police respondents to the consultation think the crackdown is the wrong approach. GRT communities are among the most persecuted and marginalised. In Liverpool, we have a large permanent settlement of GRT families living in my constituency. They face systemic discrimination and routine violence. Instead of supporting these communities, who already face some of the starkest inequalities, the Government seem hellbent on introducing tougher powers to act against them.
The Government’s approach to public safety is fundamentally flawed: it is rooted in discrimination against communities and restrictions to our freedoms rather than a serious attempt to tackle the problems that we face. I appeal to Members from all parties in the House to ensure that this weekend’s horrific scenes mark a serious turning point. The draconian powers in the Bill must be torn up and a new approach to public safety must be pursued—one that puts safety, welfare, justice and accountability at its heart.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
The first duty of any Government must be to protect the public and keep local communities safe. I know that that belief is shared by many in my constituency, so I welcome this important Bill, which introduces a comprehensive package of measures to achieve just that. Every day, police officers and those in the emergency services put themselves in dangerous situations to keep us safe. Although legislation is in place for the most serious of crimes in this policy area, the sentencing for assaults is too weak. We have a responsibility to ensure that the police and emergency services can carry out their day-to-day duties as safely as possible. The Bill will help to achieve that.
There are many facets to the Bill, but I wish to focus on two particular aspects: bringing people to justice and reducing reoffending. I have been pursuing these issues on behalf of Loughborough since I became an MP and I did so some years ago when I was fortunate enough to chair a panel on reducing reoffending on behalf of Charnwood Borough Council. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let me turn first to the removal of the presumption of release pending investigation and the presumption in favour of pre-charge bail conditions, otherwise known as Kay’s law. The change will provide a duty to protect victims and will enable the setting of conditions while further investigations are undertaken. This is vital both to the safety of the victim and to encourage the reporting of crimes with the knowledge that bail conditions can be imposed to help to safeguard the victim.
I received a number of emails from my constituents who are very concerned about sentencing and I have to agree with them that more needs to be done to ensure that those convicted of the most serious crimes receive appropriate sentences and spend more of their sentences actually in prison. That will not only restore public confidence in the justice system, but crucially ensure that victims, who sadly often bear physical and mental scars of their experience, receive the justice they deserve.
Sentencing, however, is only one side of the coin. I welcome that the Bill also places a strong emphasis on action to reduce reoffending. If we are to break the cycle of reoffending, we must ensure that offenders have every opportunity to break the vicious circle of repeat crime, giving them the chance to get their lives back on track and so reducing the social and economic cost to our communities. The £3 million Newham pilot for youth offenders, set to start in July, is one good example of work to reduce reoffending. The curfew orders set out in the Bill, and the ability to vary those orders, are another excellent example, ensuring people have a role in, and can contribute positively to, society. Work is one of the best ways to draw them away from a life of crime.
I strongly believe that, taken together, the measures in the Bill will have a significant impact on reducing crime and protecting not only the public, but our fantastic emergency workers. I will therefore be supporting the Bill.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like so many others, I was shocked and appalled by the events on Clapham common on Saturday night. It is an outrage that a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Everard was shut down because the Met determined not to engage with organisers to ensure that the vigil could pass off safely. It is very difficult to see how the Met could have got it more wrong, and I say that, as many in this House will know, as a former police officer. The leadership have let down rank and file officers and, despite what those on the Government Benches might say, it is right that Cressida Dick should consider her position.
However, there has also been a failure of Government. For the past year, the Government have sustained legislation which prevents people from exercising their fundamental right to protest. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will vote against the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 when it comes back before the House, just as we did in September. Our rights matter and the right to protest matters, too. This is a Bill which, just when we should be considering how we dismantle restrictions on the right to protest in the name of public health, instead doubles down on them. The Home Secretary had strong words about the scenes on Saturday, but the reality is that this hastily pulled together legislation will make such scenes more common. The challenge to some of those on the Government Benches who have claimed to be acting in the name of liberty over the last few months is this: will you oppose the Bill, or does liberty only matter to you when it is your liberty and not the liberty of those you disagree with?
Moving on, I want to use my brief time to speak to part 1 of the Bill and its measures concerning the police service. Enshrining the duty of the Home Secretary to produce a police covenant report in law is a very important step for police officers around the country. It is about recognising the realities of policing and the impact it can have on those who undertake those duties. As someone who comes from a policing family, I have seen that first-hand. My father, husband and I were all assaulted in the course of our duties. This year’s Armed Forces Bill legislates for a duty for public bodies to have due regard to the principles of that covenant. That is not something that this Bill is introducing for the police covenant and I would be grateful for further clarification on whether the Government might look to do similar in relation to the covenant in future.
There are other positive steps in the Bill, such as legislating to allow special constables to join the Police Federation. The work of special constables is vital, both as volunteers and in giving back to local communities. In carrying out frontline duties, they face the same dangers and experiences that appointed police officers face. I also support the introduction of road traffic fixed penalty notices in Scotland, as it is good to have UK-wide alignment.
Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposal to double the maximum sentence for assaulting emergency workers. Is an increased penalty for that actually going to reduce assaults on the police? Is somebody in the heat of the moment going to think, “I’m going to get two years for this, as opposed to 12 months?” I doubt that it will. Instead, I worry that there is a risk of getting into a competition, whereby assaulting someone in a particular role means a higher penalty. The fundamental aspect is policing by consent. If we create the right community culture, it should not matter what the penalty is, because the incidence of such crimes should reduce regardless. Our policies on crimes should not be dictated by what plays well to the gallery—they should be evidence-based.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to Sarah Everard, and my thoughts are with her loved ones and her family. For too long we have seen women live in fear, and this Bill is one way in which we can start to make our streets and our society safer. It does feel, after last week, that there has been a renewed conversation about the safety of woman, and I hope that Sarah’s death has not been in vain.
This Bill, along with the Domestic Abuse Bill, ought to go a long way in making the world a safer place for women, but we must not be complacent and we must be resolute in this journey. On the latter Bill, I particularly welcome the amendment about threatening revenge porn, and I hope social media companies and other platforms will play their part in ensuring that revenge porn and non-consensual content are banned.
I must commend the Government for bringing forward this legislation and delivering on a manifesto commitment. As I talk to local residents across my constituency, there is one thing in common that they expect. It is that our justice system should be made fair—fair to the victims of crime, fair to the local community and offering fair justice to offenders. In particular, I applaud the removal of the automatic halfway release. This Bill ensures that those who commit the most heinous of crimes will spend more time in prison, so that their victims do not feel short-changed. That is the right thing to do.
I welcome the focus on rehabilitation in this Bill, as in my view society should always be conscious of why we choose to imprison people in the way we do. I am a big believer in global Britain and our place in the world. It was Winston Churchill, the then Home Secretary, who said that a society’s attitude towards its prisoners, its “criminals”, is the measure of
“the stored-up strength of a nation”.—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1356.]
But this is also an act of common and economic sense. There is little point in ensuring that sentences are fully served at the taxpayer’s expense if, on release, a person is likely to reoffend. A jail sentence should not be a gateway to reoffending or graduating to a more serious crime. This conveyor belt to crime costs almost £18 billion to the taxpayer, which is why I am also pleased to see a greater emphasis on rehabilitation through greater support for the probation service and targeted measures such as curfews, community sentencing and better technology to ensure sustained rehabilitation.
Of course, prisons must serve their purpose for society in full—the delivery of justice must be fair, and it must be equitable—but we as legislators should not forget our duty in supporting offenders in turning their lives around. Once the victims of crime receive justice, to show compassion through rehabilitation speaks to our strength as a society—the very same strength that Winston Churchill once spoke of.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I pay tribute to Staffordshire police for their hard work and professionalism throughout covid. Local emergency services have given their all, often at high personal risk, particularly paramedics in responding to medical needs. I am truly grateful for their work, and their dedication brings us ever closer to a safe lifting of lockdown. Our policing is by consent, and I know that officers in Staffordshire hold this in great importance. In Stoke-on-Trent, officers have taken a measured approach based on the four Es—engage, explain, encourage and enforce. The comparatively low covid fines in Staffordshire demonstrate that enforcement is a last resort.
The images we saw over the weekend at Clapham common were disturbing for us all, and this should be thoroughly investigated, but I do not think it right to impede the progress of this important Bill. Our freedom-loving democratic values enshrine rights to peaceful protest, and this Bill does not curtail that. Many constituents have contacted me over the last year after seeing the wanton vandalism and obstruction of ambulances. This totally reckless behaviour of a minority demonstrates the need to update measures, such as putting static protests on the same footing as moving demonstrations. Emergency service workers frequently put themselves in harm’s way in protecting and saving lives of others, and we must give them the protections they need, such as doubling maximum sentences for assaults. How could anyone not support these measures, given that they frequently put themselves at great risk to keep us safe?
I fully support the new police covenant, which ensures that serving and retired officers and their families are properly supported. I know my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent are extremely concerned about more serious criminals. Although crime is generally down, it is worrying that crimes committed in Stoke-on-Trent are becoming more serious. Especially concerning are the repeat offenders, and I welcome serious violence reduction orders to target persistent offenders. The Government’s safer streets initiative in Fenton is particularly important locally, improving household security so that people feel safe in their own homes.
No one should ever feel unsafe, not least women and children. It is totally unacceptable that any woman should be too scared of going out at night or should expect to be regularly harassed. I very much welcome the Home Secretary reopening the survey on tackling violence against women and girls. It is most worrying that Opposition Members do not support measures targeting the most serious offenders, including those committing serious violence and sexual offences. This Bill ends automatic early releases, keeping dangerous criminals off our streets. It also encourages stricter conditions on bail in high-harm cases and extends protections against sexual conduct by those in positions of authority. Figures of authority must not abuse positions of trust through such despicable behaviour. A lack of trusted positive role models often drives young people into gangs, drugs and violence because they believe that they will be somehow more secure. That cycle must be broken down in Stoke-on-Trent and across the country.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Can I first say, on using women as a reason to vote against the Bill, that I spoke about my own personal experiences last week? I remind those on the Opposition Benches that women and men are equal in law, so it all applies to women.
I want to raise the concerns of my constituents about the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It is important to make one thing clear: the Bill includes nothing that will threaten the genuine rights of people to engage in protests. What it does is address all those people who glue themselves to trains and buses, and block access to hospitals when somebody could need life-saving treatment. Those protests are not simply inconvenient; they make life intolerable for people living or working around them. This is about balancing the genuine and fundamental right that we shall have to protest. In short, the checks and balances remain firmly in place. I hope that the Minister in summing up will confirm that that is correct.
Like women and men up and down this country, my colleagues on the Government Benches believe in law and order and giving our police the tools that they have asked for—the right tools for the job. The Bill delivers on that pledge. I will briefly touch on some of its key points.
The Bill extends whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child and ends the automatic early release of dangerous criminals. It introduces life sentences for killer drivers—those who cause fatal accidents while speeding and racing. It doubles the maximum sentence for assaulting emergency workers. It protects communities from illegal Traveller sites being set up. It introduces tougher community sentences, and it brings in Kay’s law to better protect victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences. It also ensures that those who desecrate our war memorials face the full force of law after what we witnessed with the Churchill monument and others last year.
I want to tackle those issues and bring in measures that protect my constituents and make our streets safer. That is why I will support the Bill’s Second Reading, to allow it to move to Committee where it will be fully scrutinised. It appals me that the Labour party will vote against a Bill that will bring tougher sentences and protect people such as my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden. That once again highlights why so many turned their backs on Labour as it continues to turn its back on the wants and needs of constituents such as mine. I will support the Bill, as I wholeheartedly believe that we should punish criminals.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe).
In the winter of 2019, through the wonderful weather we had—the snow and the rain—as I knocked on doors across Bolsover and in South Normanton and Clowne, there were three common refrains. The first was: get Brexit done. The second was the remarkable leadership of the Labour party under the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The third was crime and the sense of unfairness. There was a sense that those who do not live by the rules seemed to get away with it; they were not properly punished. The Bill is a tremendous step in the right direction, delivering on the manifesto commitments that we stood on and making sure that those who commit some of the worst crimes are properly punished.
I welcome the fact that we are enshrining the police covenant in law. It must be an absolutely monstrous time to be a police officer, trying to uphold the law in such difficult circumstances throughout the covid period. I have spoken regularly to police officers and the leadership in Derbyshire, and they have done a remarkable job. I am delighted that we have their backs and are enshrining the police covenant in law.
We are doubling the maximum sentence for assaults on emergency workers. Those who serve our communities with such distinction and such honour should not be the victims of assault full stop, but those who commit such crimes should be punished. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
We are introducing criminal penalties for unauthorised Traveller encampments—that will be welcomed across Derbyshire—and whole-life orders for premeditated murders of children. That is exactly what residents in Bolsover want to see.
We have not had a lot of cross-party love today, so I must confess, I am the co-chairman of the all-party group on wrestling along with my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). In her remarks, she mentioned that she welcomes the scope of offences in the Sexual Offences Act in relation to the abuse of positions of trust. We are particularly concerned about this in the wrestling industry, and she and I have spent many hours discussing it. In her remarks, she asked for a meeting with the Minister on some of the specifics around that, and I echo that call.
This is a brilliant step in the right direction. It is the kind of legislation that the people in Bolsover voted for, and I look forward to supporting the Bill.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I join the Home Secretary and colleagues in sending my condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. This Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment—the one that I stood on in Carshalton and Wallington, and so did many others—to toughen up sentences for the most dangerous criminals and reform the criminal justice system.
Of the many welcome measures contained in the Bill, I particularly welcome measures such as extending whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child and ending the early automatic release of dangerous criminals, which will keep the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes off our streets. I know, from the countless times that I have been told that the criminal justice system is too lenient, that my constituents will also welcome the tougher sentences for the most dangerous criminals, the introduction of life sentences for killer drivers, the doubling of the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker and the introduction of Kay’s law to better protect victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences. It is because of the campaigning efforts of those victims and their families that I will support the Bill.
Like me, many colleagues will have met and heard stories of grieving families from their own constituencies, angry at what they have seen as a lenient sentence. I remember reading one story just last year of a young man who tragically lost his life in Carshalton after being hit by a driver who was later arrested on suspicion of being drunk behind the wheel. This Bill will ensure that in cases such as this, the punishment fits the crime. Additionally, I know that residents across the London borough of Sutton will particularly welcome criminalising trespass and strengthening powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. Only recently, Carshalton and Wallington residents were incredibly frustrated when an encampment jumped from local park to local park, causing harm, disruption and distress as it went, yet progress on removing this encampment was incredibly slow because of the limitations around the existing law. These measures will make it much easier to deal with that.
This Bill does deliver on our manifesto commitment, so I am dismayed that Opposition Members are finding ways to try to oppose these important measures. The wording in the Bill is complemented by case law, and clearly defined principles are being put on to the statute book at the request of the independent Law Commission. The Bill is there to stop scenes like those we saw last year of protestors blocking ambulances, and not to ban peaceful protests, so it is no good Labour or Lib Dem Members saying that they agree with parts of the Bill if they are not going to support it. We should be unapologetic in standing up for victims of crime and their families, combined with the efforts that the Government are already making to put more police on our streets and work on prevention. For that reason, I will support the Bill tomorrow.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
The first duty of any Government is to keep people safe. Although recent events have been shocking, we are fortunate to live in a country where citizens are overwhelmingly law-abiding, but as times change, crimes change, and it is important that we continue to update and amend legislation to make sure that our constituents not only are safe, but feel safe.
Any new criminal legislation should do four important things: it should discourage crime, improve detection and prosecution, make punishments effective and reduce the chances of reoffending. I welcome this Bill, as I believe that it will strengthen the law in all those areas. The Bill will certainly act to discourage crime, with the introduction of whole-life orders for child killers and new powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public. Potential offenders can be in no doubt that this Government are committed to making sure that serious crimes will be met with serious sentences. By increasing the efficiency of the courts, the Bill will also reduce delays and improve prosecution rates. I know from the experiences of my constituents this year—both those accused of crime and those who have been victims—how devastating delays to justice can be.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions to punish certain crimes, particularly serious driving offences and assaults on our brave police and emergency workers, more robustly. I also believe that the Bill will be effective in reducing the chances of reoffending, with more community orders ensuring that offenders do not lose jobs and family relationships as a result of their punishments, making it more likely that they can rebuild their lives without resorting to further criminal behaviour. However, for some offenders who have served their time, returning to their community and their previous relationships can be a factor that actually increases their chance of reoffending. For those people, escaping that context and getting a fresh start can offer them the best chance of building a crime-free life.
Northern College in my constituency, one of only four residential adult education colleges, specialises in giving vulnerable adults, including those who have served prison sentences, a second chance at education. Set in the stunning and inspiring grounds of Wentworth castle, it offers students high-quality teaching alongside counselling and support. In such a positive and focused environment, the outcomes are incredible, with students achieving GCSEs, A-levels and even higher education qualifications, and going on to gain good jobs and live fulfilling lives.
For many ex-offenders, full rehabilitation requires a second chance at education, which so many of us take for granted, so I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to meet me to discuss the role that Northern College could play. This is an excellent Bill that meets many of our manifesto commitments, and it has my full support.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
This is an extremely wide-ranging Bill. I have raised in the House a number of times the reform of rehabilitation. This Bill will give the courts powers to give alternatives to custody for youth offenders, by piloting changes to youth rehabilitation orders. For adult offenders, a “problem-solving court approach” will be piloted for certain community and suspended sentences. This aims to ensure that there is more tailored, intensive and structured support to rehabilitate offenders in the community. Employment opportunities for reformed offenders will also be improved by the Bill.
The Bill outlines several measures that will allow the courts to return to normal as soon as possible and cut into the backlog. Virtual juries were trialled with huge success on four occasions last year by the international fair trials organisation Justice, most notably in Wimbledon. “Wimbledon juries”, as they should perhaps become known, were subject to research and authentication by the University of Oxford, and the trials proved that they were, in many ways, as effective in executing their responsibilities as juries in courtrooms. They can be inexpensive and can return juries to their historic origins, based in communities.
The Bill also makes changes to police powers over protests. I have been looking carefully at those parts of the Bill, and I know that they will be examined in greater detail in Committee. However, it is clear, especially with the background of current covid legislation, that those who enforce this legislation need to be clear as to its framework.
The language of clause 59(2) is central. The language of “distress” and “loss of amenity” is familiar to the courts, but “serious annoyance” and “serious inconvenience” are unfamiliar to the courts. I know that “annoyance” has been used in public order Acts in Ireland, I think in Austria and perhaps elsewhere, but I would welcome a very clear definition here. We need to help our police decide what these words mean, and we need to let those that they will cover know what they mean. Similarly, “noise” from a protest that could
“result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”
needs to be more clearly defined so that it does not catch the sort of chanting that one would normally expect at a protest.
Finally, I welcome that the Home Secretary has instructed Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to investigate the policing at the Clapham vigil. I welcome confirmation from her that there are aspects to be investigated and that she intends the extended consultation to ensure that the justice system provides confidence for the victims. Therefore, one should look at this Bill in the whole and it should be supported.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which fulfils manifesto promises on which I was elected and demonstrates this Government’s firm commitment to law and order. I declare relevant interests: prior to my election, I spent 12 years as a magistrate, and was a board member of the Youth Justice Board, a member of the Sentencing Council and a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.
There are undoubtedly offenders who pose a clear and present danger, and they must remain in prison for as long as it takes for them to cease being a threat to the public. I therefore welcome moves to lengthen custodial sentences for certain very serious offences and to extend the time that must be served before automatic release applies. This also represents an important step towards increased public confidence in sentencing, which is not always as transparent as it might be.
I want to see fewer victims of crime. Key to achieving that is cutting reoffending, which accounts for some 80% of offences at the moment. Prison is not always the best place to achieve the greatest prospect of rehabilitation, so I am glad to see pilots of problem solving courts, and I hope they will be especially targeted at young adults. I am pleased that community orders will be made more robust, not least by extending the maximum curfew hours to 20 a day. I believe that home detention is a tool we should increasingly look to, as technology continues to develop at a pace that can provide many of the reassurances on security and monitoring behaviour that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.
There are welcome changes to the youth justice system here; reducing the use of remand in custody for children is the right thing to do. I am pleased to see changes to the intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, and I support the proposals to make detention and training orders more flexible. The Bill eliminates many anomalies in previous legislation, and I would welcome the Government giving further consideration to one anomaly that I highlighted in my recent ten-minute rule Bill: that children who commit an offence as a child but turn 18 before getting to court are treated as adults at both trial and sentence. The risk of this happening has been exacerbated by delays caused by covid, and those delays vary greatly between different parts of the country, resulting in a postcode lottery that is fundamentally unjust and yet can have lifelong consequences. Although there has not been time to incorporate my proposal into the Bill at this stage, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for meeting me to discuss how, with appropriate safeguards, some of its aims might be achieved. I hope that the Government might still be persuaded that this Bill provides such an opportunity. I am confident that that could be achieved without conflicting with other very important proposals in this Bill.
Three minutes is a short time in which to discuss a Bill of 300 pages. Of course, I do not claim to have addressed element of it in my remarks, nor do I claim that the Bill is perfect in every way, but I firmly believe it represents a step change to tackle crime more effectively and so make the British public safer.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
May I, first, associate myself with the sympathy expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to Sarah Everard’s family at the outset of this debate? When this Bill comes to a vote tomorrow I will be supporting it. I will be supporting a Bill that will ensure stronger sentences for child murderers, rapists, violent offenders, dangerous drivers, child abusers, burglars, drug dealers, knife carriers and those who desecrate our memorials. The Labour party will be voting against those stronger sentences. Labour, having previously said that the legislation does not go far enough, will now vote against all of that, in an astonishing U-turn. It will also be voting against increased sentences for those who assault our emergency service workers.
This is a wide-ranging piece of legislation that will, quite reasonably, update public order legislation that is now 35 years old. In the short time in which I have to speak this evening, I am unable to cover the breadth of this Bill, but I will pick out a couple of points. I am pleased to see that the police covenant is to be enshrined in law, strengthening support for serving and retired officers. I know that unauthorised encampments can cause a great deal of stress and inconvenience, as I saw in my constituency, in Colwick, a little while ago, as well as disruption and damage. The power to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who attempt to reside on private and public land without permission will, no doubt, be reassuring.
It is also important to state that the Bill will not stop the right to protest. The right to demonstrate is a hard-fought one, and it will continue. A number of constituents have written to me regarding clause 59, but it is important to note that this is a component of the existing common law offence of causing a public nuisance, which is being put on to a statutory footing following recommendations by the Law Commission in its 2016 report on the simplification of criminal law. All in all, this is a Bill that makes good on several commitments made in the manifesto on which I stood for election in 2019. I am pleased to support it and I look forward to its passage in the House.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
Freedom of assembly and of expression are fundamental rights that are hard-fought and hard-won but easily lost or damaged if we legislate in haste. I want to focus on clauses 54 to 56 and 59 to 60, which would make significant changes to police powers to respond to protest. They would, for example, significantly lower the legal test for the police to issue conditions on protest. The term “serious unease” is a significant departure, reducing the test for the threshold of harm so as to potentially capture peaceful protest that a claimant considers objectionable.
Clause 54 would give the Secretary of State powers to further define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”,
which could significantly curtail the activities of peaceful pro-life vigils outside abortion centres. Organisations such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and MSI complain of harassment or intimidation, but this is rarely, if ever, supported by evidence. The test of “serious disruption” could remove the objectivity normally required for criminal prosecution and place the emphasis instead on the perception of an organisation. This has potentially far-reaching implications for the fundamental rights of those with non-mainstream views to assemble and express their views, and it is incumbent on this House to defend those rights, however much we approve or disapprove of such views.
Clause 59, by abolishing the common law offence of public nuisance and replacing it with a new statutory offence of
“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,
needs to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that there are clear definitions of terms such as “serious annoyance”, “serious inconvenience” and rights common to the public. The word “impact” in relation to static protests is ill defined and too open to interpretation, and on-the-spot assessments could increase unjustifiable interference with fundamental rights.
Concerningly, removing intentionality from the offence of failing to comply with a condition issued by the police on a protest means that the police will be able to enforce the law based on their subjective interpretation of what the alleged offender should have known. Allowing the police to issue conditions on one-person protests, rather than the current two, potentially brings into scope street preachers, but it should be recalled that prosecutions against street preachers have invariably failed due to falling foul of freedom of speech rights. Without amendment, the Bill could increase police apprehension of otherwise lawful speech and could have a profoundly chilling effect on free speech more widely. I hope that the Committee and the other place will have sufficient time to carefully scrutinise this significant Bill.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I will have no hesitation in supporting the Bill when it comes to a vote tomorrow, because it delivers on so many of the manifesto promises I made to residents across Burnley and Padiham. It starts by toughening up the sentences for drink and drug drivers who kill while under the influence, for criminals who assault our emergency service workers and for those in positions of trust who groom children for exploitation. It does all this while also tackling unauthorised Traveller camps that show no regard for local residents and planning systems, and so much more. What’s not to like in this Bill?
There is so much in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a small number of areas. The first is the desecration of war memorials. I have been incredibly disappointed to hear Labour MPs indicate that this provision does not matter, because it does. We have some fantastic memorials in Burnley, not least the cenotaph in Towneley Park and the memorials to so many others in our villages such as Hopton and Worsthorne. The images that we saw last year of our national cenotaph being targeted caused hurt, upset and anger. That is why this matters. I am really pleased that the Government have recognised the strength of feeling on this and introduced tougher sentences as a result.
The Bill also delivers on our promise to bring in a smarter, more credible sentencing system. It is one that deals with the most serious violent offenders by ending the automatic release at the halfway point, that tackles repeat offenders that blight our communities, and that makes youth rehabilitation orders more effective at reducing youth offending.
I spent some time before coming to this place mentoring young offenders when they were in prison, and I have no doubt that this will make a difference. I have, however, received emails from concerned constituents about the protest provisions in the Bill. Let us be clear: nothing in the Bill alters a person’s fundamental right to protest and make their voice heard. However, the right to protest does not give anyone the right to block an ambulance going to a hospital; it does not give anyone the right to stop someone going to work to earn a living; and it does not bring with it the right for a person to stop a newspaper being printed just because they disagree with the contents. Just as important as the right to protest is the right to a free press, the right to life, and the right to employment. The Bill just gives equal weight to all those competing rights. The Bill puts the right of the law-abiding majority first. It protects victims, it backs our police and emergency service workers and, with that in mind, it should command cross-party support tomorrow evening.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
Many constituents have shared their frustrations with me over the issue of illegal encampments. Although many Travellers are law-abiding citizens, illegal sites can cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. They also play havoc with local sports clubs and businesses and the Bill will put a stop to that. I am pleased that these measures are proportionate and that we have taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted.
Some people are claiming that the Bill will somehow stop people’s right to protest, and that is simply not true. What makes it worse is that some are trying to link it with temporary covid restrictions, which is a completely separate issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent events, it is abhorrent and totally wrong for groups to try to use a tragic incident as a smokescreen to oppose legislation that they do not like. This legislation means tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and those attacking emergency service workers. By campaigning against this Bill, they are also campaigning against these measures.
The Bill is also designed to stop the behaviour of extremist groups such as Extinction Rebellion or BLM causing serious disruption by stopping trains running or by gluing themselves to buses. Serious disruption is a well-established and defined concept. The changes bring static protests in line with equivalent provisions that apply to marches or processions under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. For example, a protest does not cause serious disruption just because it may distract employees in a nearby office, and nor would a peaceful vigil in a park cause serious disruption.
Examples of things that could cause serious disruption might include blocking a bridge or a road to stop pedestrians or traffic getting through. We saw that happen when Extinction Rebellion decided to block Westminster Bridge. While these people were dancing and having fun, ambulances needed to be diverted and cancer patients had to walk to hospital instead. Another example of serious disruption might also include preventing a train from leaving a station. What sort of organisation claims that it wants to stop climate change and then prevents people from using public transport? People from those organisations do not understand the value of a proper day’s work.
People physically preventing a printing press from operating because they disagree with the editorial position of that publication is another example of serious disruption. These people talk of freedoms yet attack freedom of speech and the freedom of our press, including titles such as The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the London Standard. This is not just an attack on them, but on all our media.
Our freedoms are precious and we must do everything we can to ensure that freedom is enjoyed by all and not hijacked by these groups. This Bill, using sensible, fair and proportionate measures, will set us on a course to do just that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
Please may I too send my deepest sympathies to Sarah Everard’s family and friends? Also, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to commend in this Bill, which dots several i’s and crosses several t’s with regard to our manifesto. We hear a lot about rights; now it is time for responsibilities.
Following the unhappy circumstances surrounding the vigil for Sarah Everard, there is concern over the extension of police powers, and the new laws regarding public order must be scrupulously monitored and sparingly used. I mention this with the vigil in mind, where the police were caught between a rock and a hard place as they attempted to balance laws passed to control a pandemic and an outpouring of grief that those who attended the vigil wanted to share. It highlighted to me what happens when the police lose the consent of the people, which only reinforces how important it is for laws affecting public order to be proportionate, clear and reasonable. To that extent, I was reassured when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in her speech that these new powers are aimed at preventing protesters from stopping people going to work or closing a city like London for days on end. This new style of protest appears to be the norm today, and no responsible Government can sit idly by.
Let me move on to other aspects of the Bill. I am 100% in support of doubling the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years in prison. I sincerely hope that this deterrent also applies to inmates who assault prison officers. For too long, a lack of any real deterrent has seen this forgotten army subjected to acts of violence that are totally unacceptable—and it is not just physical violence. Female prison officers, in particular, are vulnerable to being “potted”—a degrading and revolting assault where human excrement is emptied on their heads.
As a former soldier, I find the damage to and desecration of war memorials a particularly heinous and cowardly crime. Whatever one’s view on a particular subject, it does not give the right to tear down statues. I agree that monetary value should not be a factor in sentencing because these memorials are, quite literally, priceless.
I welcome the toughening of the law on trespass. Rural crime is a significant problem, and this promise in our manifesto will help to combat a small and unruly element who think they can operate outside the law.
Finally, I like the idea of secure schools as an alternative to jail for troubled young people—at least, I assume that is the aim. Their success will depend to a large extent on who runs them and how they are operated. I recall the attempt to introduce bootcamps, which fell at the first fence. However, there is no doubt that a period of discipline within a well-organised structure would do no harm.
Tomorrow night I shall be voting for the Bill, which will be welcomed by the law-abiding silent majority.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be back here physically to speak.
A Government’s first duty is always to protect their people, and this flagship Bill will ensure that our justice system will always serve the law-abiding majority. It is timely after recent events as it emphasises that this Government put women’s safety front and centre. The Bill lengthens jail time for serious sexual offenders and prevents their early release. It keeps those most horrific individuals who rape or sexually assault children in jail for longer too.
We should consider this Bill in the context of the second major piece of legislation that will protect women—the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, which introduces new provisions to ban the rough sex defence and extends the law against revenge pornography, as well as creating the specific new offence of non-fatal strangulation. This is flagship policy making. I am proud of a Government who since 2010 have put women’s safety at the heart of their policy making.
The way to test any Bill passed by Government is on whether it changes things for the better for people. This Bill will do just that. It delivers important manifesto commitments, including ensuring that serious violent and sexual offenders spend more of their sentence in prison, increasing to life the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, increasing sentences for desecrating a war memorial, doubling the sentence for assaulting an emergency worker, and enabling prisoners who become dangerous to spend all their sentence in prison. It also makes sure that more repeat knife offenders and burglars serve the specified minimum jail term. Every stabbing creates a trail of misery, and often devastated families when it ends a life, as in the case of my constituent Ryan Passey.
I welcome the strengthening of police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. That will be particularly welcome for my residents in Withymoor Village in Amblecote. I fully recognise that everyone has the right to a nomadic life, but this must be balanced against the rights of local communities. For me, the balance has never been quite right, and we needed greater police powers. The Bill delivers just that, for which I thank the Government enormously. It will change things for the better for my constituents. Police will now have the powers to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who intend to reside on private and public land without permission. Yet Opposition Members attack plans for criminal penalties for those who refuse to leave unauthorised encampments as discriminatory and unworkable. Once again, they show themselves to be on the side of those who break the law rather than the law-abiding.
With this new Bill, we will have more tools at our disposal than ever before to protect our residents. I support it for all that it delivers. It will make my community in Stourbridge safer. After listening to this debate, my concern is that those who vote against the vital measures in the Bill will be putting a day’s headline or strapline ahead of the safety of my constituents, particularly that of women.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Since 2009, the armed forces’ next of kin have been given the Elizabeth Cross if a family member has been killed in action as a result of terrorism. The award is obviously named after Her Majesty the Queen. I believe that such an award should now also be made to the police, fire officers and members of the ambulance service. I suppose that it would be appropriate to link them all together as blue-light services.
The national police memorial on the Mall lists almost 5,000 police officers who have been killed while on duty since records began. Most recently, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, 319 Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were killed; and since 2001, 16 Police Service of Northern Ireland officers have been murdered. Since 2010, 11 Metropolitan police officers have also been killed here in London. It is difficult to get consolidated lists of firefighters who have been killed doing their duty, but at least 69 died between 1986 and 2017. Ambulance personnel who have died in the line of duty have normally been hit by vehicles when attending casualties, and figures are difficult to get—yet it happens.
Maybe, with the approval of the Queen, we might be able to call this award the “Charles Cross”. After all, His Royal Highness Prince Charles is patron of the National Police Memorial Day. Frankly, I believe it would be a thoroughly appropriate name for such an award. I suppose the scheme might be expanded to include the air ambulance and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which are really part of the blue-light fraternity of emergency services. I suggest that the award should go no further than that. I believe such an award to be utterly proper and decent, and it may indeed give close family members of those who have lost their lives protecting the rest of us some solace and perhaps not a little pride when they wear such a decoration.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I prepared a one-minute speech, but I will try to stretch it to two minutes. The constituents of North East Bedfordshire will welcome this Bill. They will particularly welcome the fact that it begins with the police covenant, which codifies our responsibility to recognise the obligations and sacrifices of our police officers. They will very much welcome the end of automatic early release, but I must say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): he should see this as the start, not the end, of ending automatic release, so that the public understand that sentences mean what they say.
My constituents will particularly welcome the actions on illegal encampments, which are a blight for so many in the countryside and urban areas. On the issue of policing demonstrations, let us listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said and take more responsibility for ourselves in setting the laws, rather than the obligations of the police for policing them. I welcome the sensitivity in the Bill in terms of the interactions of young people with our justice system. If we can get that right, it will preclude many faults later on.
It is welcome that we have clause 164, which at last recognises that deaf people can have access to British Sign Language interpreters. For hundreds of years, we have recognised that every citizen in this country is entitled to a jury of their peers, and now those juries can include our deaf citizens as well as everybody else. Finally, I believe, in all generosity, that Labour Members have made a terrible mistake in opposing the Bill, and neither my constituents nor theirs will ever understand the reasons why.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned—(Michael Tomlinson.).
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021
Contingencies Fund Act 2021.
Business without Debate
UK Renewables: Critical Minerals
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, I am delighted to have secured this debate on the use of critical minerals in the UK’s renewables future. As was the case with my two hydrogen Adjournment debates, I am pleased to announce that this is the first debate in the UK Parliament dedicated to critical minerals.
Critical minerals have long been overlooked by successive Governments and by this House—the mantra of “out of sight, out of mind” is apt. Awareness of where our critical minerals come from and what they are used for is low, however. The Government are waking up to the fact that the race for critical minerals security is the new great game. Urgent action must be taken now to safeguard the future prosperity of the United Kingdom and the west in the spheres of the economy, defence and energy. With the upcoming COP26 in Glasgow and the G7 summit in Cornwall, there could not be a better time to do so.
It is vital that this House is made aware of the significant threat to our economy and our post-covid and post-Brexit recovery if we run out of the critical minerals needed to supply our low-carbon industries of the future. The UK’s 10-point economic plan makes an assumption that the international supply of these minerals is sufficient to service every country’s needs in our global race to avoid climate change. I would like to inform the House that that is clearly not the case.
What are critical minerals and what are they used for? In simple terms, these are the minerals that are vital for low-carbon industrial capabilities, but which face supply chain vulnerability. The Critical Minerals Association has split the definition of critical minerals into three subsections: critical minerals, which are important for industrial strategy and consist of minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earths; technology metals, which are bulk metals such as copper that are not susceptible to supply chain vulnerability, but are important nevertheless for the UK’s industrial objectives; and strategic minerals, which have potential defence importance. Those three groups of critical minerals are ubiquitous in their use, and that is part of the problem.
In fact, critical minerals are becoming more and more important by the day. Our renewables and telecommunications technology of the future requires an ever-increasing amount of critical minerals. Without them, our society just cannot function. With global demand at this scale, shortages present a real threat to our economy and to our society. In the past five years, we have seen the mass commercialisation of satellite and drone technology, led by British companies such as Blue Bear Systems, all of which rely on critical minerals. Likewise, advanced robotics for British manufacturing, which is crucial to my seat of Rother Valley in South Yorkshire and places across our country, require more than 40 different critical minerals.
It is incredibly important that British industry thrives in the post-Brexit and post-covid era. For that to happen, factories and plants in the Rother Valley region must stay at the cutting edge of their sector, with the best equipment and secure, efficient supply chains, thus staying competitive and retaining their reputation for the highest-quality products.
The most visible everyday examples of the importance of critical minerals are mobile phones and electric cars. Our ultra-modern smartphones, boasting touchscreens, cameras and 5G, use a huge number of critical minerals, including potassium, tin, copper, tungsten and advanced aluminium. Electric vehicles are often hailed as the future of renewable transport, but they are key users of critical minerals. Each car on average uses 100 kg of copper, rare earth for the magnets and lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite for the batteries. Many people are surprised to learn that a solar panel relies on 16 different minerals and metals.
An equally important part of the UK’s renewables future is the wind turbine, with the Prime Minister boldly envisioning that we shall become the
“Saudi Arabia of wind power”.
I share his enthusiasm for the role that wind can play in powering the UK and in reducing our carbon emissions, but to meet the Prime Minister’s objective of having every home in the UK powered by wind turbines by 2030, experts indicate that we will need to increase our output of energy from 10 GW to 40 GW by 2030. That will require building a new wind turbine every single day until 2030. To achieve that, we need more than 26,000 tonnes of rare earths and more than 4 tonnes of copper. The UK Government must acknowledge that the construction of renewable energy technology is inextricably linked to the supply of critical minerals. We must take action accordingly to protect our energy sector and the generation of power.
Importantly, seven points in the Government’s 10-point plan for the green recovery are dependent on a secure green supply of critical minerals. Herein lies the challenge for the United Kingdom. We are facing a two-pronged threat. The first threat is that as demand rockets for the use of critical minerals in the technology of the future, there is a global shortage, which would affect our economy and livelihoods, our energy supply, our environmental agenda, our security and defence, and basically the way we live our lives.
The second threat is that our current suppliers of critical minerals are not dependable or sustainable. I shall name two countries in our critical minerals supply chain in order to demonstrate that fact. The first is involved in the mining of critical minerals, and the second in the midstream processing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a dependable source of minerals for the UK to rely on. It is politically unstable, and Chinese influence is concerningly strong in mining areas. It is not a sustainable source of minerals either, with the DRC home to low environmental standards and frequent human rights violations against local people and children. In fact, there is currently a class action lawsuit against the big technology companies, including Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla, which stand accused of operating supply chains that use cobalt mined by children.
The second country in our critical minerals supply chain is the People’s Republic of China, and it is in the midstream, where the communist PRC dominates, that we face our greatest threat. Clearly, we are totally dependent on China’s good will, from processing and refining to beneficiation. For instance, China mines only 1% of the world’s cobalt, but refines 65% of it. It mines 12% of the world’s manganese but refines 97% of it, as well 89% of the world’s graphite. China’s absolute control of the critical mineral midstream is so strong that graphite from the UK is sent to China for beneficiation, and then bought back from China at the component section of the supply chain. That is absurd. Of the 172 gigafactories being built in the world at this moment, 130 are in China.
It is estimated that by 2030 the world’s demand for lithium will mean that global production is 1.4 million tonnes a year in deficit. Graphite will be 8 million tonnes in deficit, cobalt 800,000 tonnes in deficit, and nickel 400,000 tonnes in deficit. If China controls the midstream of those minerals, and is building over three times more gigafactories than the rest of the world put together, it is only logical that China will serve its industrial requirements before the rest of the world, and before the United Kingdom.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We talk about industrial strategy, but would my hon. Friend enlighten the House about his views on whether this is also a national security threat?
Alexander Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and of course it is a national security issue. This is one of the biggest national security issues facing us over the next 10 years or so, and we need to have control of it.
Let me give more examples of why this is such an important matter. More than 75% of the world’s lithium-ion component manufacturers are located in China, resulting in more than 72% of lithium-ion batteries, and 45% of all global electric vehicles, already being produced in China. In December 2020—only a few months ago—the Chinese legislature passed a law on export control, allowing the Government to ban exports of strategic materials and advanced technology to specific foreign companies. A Chinese Government spokesman said:
“China may take countermeasures against any country or region that abuses export-control measures and poses a threat to China’s national security and interests”.
This year alone, China has openly discussed the potential of cutting off the supply of rare earths or rare-earth components to the United States. Those are necessary for the US defence sector and, to put that into context, more than 400 kg of rare earths are needed for a single F-35 fighter.
Let me return to the example I often cite, which is the coronavirus pandemic. Last year, the UK imported most of its personal protective equipment from China, with only 1% of it made in the UK. When we needed it most, however, at the height of the pandemic, China decided to not fulfil its obligations, by sending us defective PPE, or by not even sending it to us at all. We now manufacture 70% of PPE domestically. It is a similar situation with critical minerals. When we take that together with China’s actions over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and its treatment of the Uyghurs, it is clear that we cannot, and should not, depend on the PRC for the future of our economy, energy, and defence sectors.
For the economy, the consequences of such supply chain instability for the United Kingdom are stark. Let me take the automotive sector as an example of the consequences. Some 70% of the value of an electric car is realised in its battery and motor. If those components cannot be manufactured in the UK because we do not have the minerals coming into the country, the consequences for the automotive sector alone are bleak: it could cost up to 500,000 jobs by 2030. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government must take immediate and assertive action to avert this potential disaster, which may strike just as we set out our post-covid-19 recovery.
The Government must adopt a two-fold approach, the first arm of which is to focus on relocating as much of the critical minerals supply chain as we can to the UK, thereby boosting the UK economy and creating jobs and opportunities. The second arm is to take a leading role in creating a Five Eyes critical minerals alliance to co-ordinate an overarching strategy to secure a stable network of interdependence.
On building a critical minerals industry in the UK, we already have some world-leading companies and research institutions in the sector, doing vital work. Of course, Britain has long been a pioneer in industrial innovation. If we look through history, we see that we have been at the forefront of industrial revolutions and part of revolutions in power supply, from early agrarian methods to steam to oil. What differentiates today’s power revolution is that we are not only looking for more powerful or cheaper sources of energy but developing renewable energy sources that meet our social objective of being less damaging to the environment. It is inescapable that critical minerals are the building blocks of this new economy, and the renewable energy sector will need them. The reality is that our future economy and green energy desires rely on a steady, secure and vertically integrated supply of critical minerals for the UK.
The UK has a particularly long history of mining stretching over 2,000 years and more. Everyone in Britain is only too aware of the legend that Jesus himself visited our green and pleasant land more than two millennia ago precisely because of our mining heritage—his relative Joseph of Arimathea was a tin trader—as memorialised in the song “Jerusalem”. Our bulk mining capacity has been depleted because of decreased ore grades, but we are now seeing a growth in domestic critical mineral potential. Although this will never meet our entire critical mineral needs, the shortening of supply chains and production of feedstock domestically is the first step towards reducing vulnerability and tapping into the £7 billion-per-year industry.
We know of UK critical minerals deposits in the south-west of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Cornish lithium is key to UK critical mineral potential, securing battery-grade lithium from geothermal brine. Elsewhere in the region, Tungsten West is reopening a globally significant tungsten deposit in Devon and Cornwall, and Cornish Metals has the potential to supply industrial levels of tin for the British economy. Not only are such projects significant to our industrial objectives, but they provide an alternative year-round economy to Cornwall and the south-west, where the community has rich mining heritage. In Northern Ireland, Dalradian Gold has the potential to deliver significant copper for the UK economy. Such companies require support to unlock the potential in our regions and secure critical minerals sourced from home.
Domestic mining is just one small part of the greater picture. It is important to note that no one expects us to repatriate all upstream mining to Britain—quite simply, we do not have the geology to support that. It is key that we relocate to the UK other steps in the supply chain, particularly in the midstream. Crucially, by shortening our supply chain we can reduce our embedded carbon footprint, which is vital to the delivery of our green economy and to meeting our net zero target. The domestication of the critical mineral stream and investment in the circular economy is crucial. We are lucky to have in the sector leading British companies such as the Materials Processing Institute, Less Common Metals, TechMet and Technical Critical Minerals.
Let me turn to the second arm of the two-fold approach that I urge the Government to adopt. It is evident that the act of mining is determined by the geology in a nation. If we are to meet the UK’s industrial needs, we will need to secure sufficient critical minerals from other countries. It so happens that our Five Eyes partners are blessed with critical minerals in abundance, as are our Commonwealth friends.
I am a firm believer that the UK is a force of good in the world. In stable partner nations such as Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia the multiplier effect of a responsibly-run mine is somewhere between 10 and 25. In respect of Five Eyes, collaboration is vital for the mutual benefit of us all. We largely share the same economic and security objectives and we face the same global threats. Closer collaboration with our partner nations, especially Australia and Canada, will be vital to our upstream overseas critical mineral supply chain. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, it was an honour to host the Australian high commissioner this morning to hear about Australia’s recently launched critical mineral strategy and how Australia seeks greater co-operation with the UK in this vital sector.
The high commissioner reiterated that neither country will get to net zero by 2050 through the development and deployment of low-emission technologies without a secure supply chain of critical minerals. His Excellency confirmed that the UK is at the front of the queue for critical minerals co-operation due to our shared environmental and ethical standards and commitment to a market that is diverse, robust, secure, and underpinned by good governance and environmental, social and corporate governance practice, driven by innovation, free market forces and co-operation.
Together, we can diversify the supply chain and complement each other to protect our economies and societies. However, we must secure a UK-Australia free trade agreement. I am pleased that we are already working to establish a working group on critical minerals with Australia. I urge my colleagues to study closely Australia’s critical minerals strategy as it is very much what we should doing in the UK, and the creation of a critical minerals facilitation office should be explored too.
The UK has an opportunity to take the lead on developing an overarching Five Eyes strategy that will safeguard our prosperity and security for decades to come. It is quite possible that we can work with our mining counterparts to host the midstream and downstream parts of the supply chain, creating a supply chain balance across the Five Eyes alliance. Quotas, too, are particularly important in ensuring that our respective needs are met and that we do not face any shortages. One territory that Five Eyes must pay particular attention to is Greenland. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland, I welcome the timely publication of the Greenland critical minerals report, which outlines the crucial role the UK has to play in leading the Five Eyes critical minerals alliance, and I urge the Government to enter into an enhanced partnership with Greenland for critical minerals and to prioritise a bilateral UK-Greenland trade agreement.
I now turn to the benefits of adopting my new strategy on critical minerals for the whole United Kingdom. We are at a crossroads, looking to a future dominated by the green renewables transition and the levelling up agenda. We have left the European Union and we are looking to turbocharge the economy post covid, as well as hosting the G7 and COP26 this year. The building of a critical minerals supply chain will spread huge opportunity to every corner of our country.
I have already spoken about the critical mineral potential of left-behind areas. I know from my own work on locating a hydrogen hub in my constituency of Rother Valley that the domino effect of such supply chains in a region is transformative. For example, Sheffield’s hydrogen giga-factory could be used as part of the electric vehicles and critical minerals supply chain, creating efficiencies and synergies between our burgeoning hydrogen economy and our critical minerals economy. That will not only safeguard existing jobs but create thousands more jobs, providing well-paid employment in the region for generations to come and injecting much needed investment into our high streets in industrial towns such as Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft and Swallownest.
As more companies and educational institutions are attracted by that industrial cluster of critical minerals, steelmaking and hydrogen plants, prosperity is sure to follow. Repatriating the critical minerals supply chain is a vital part of our levelling up agenda, upskilling the local population and supporting our green programme. The more steps in the chain located in the UK, the more we control environmental standards, labour standards and ESG matters.
A circular economy underpinned by the expansion of industries such as recycling, repair and remanufacturing could also create over half a million jobs across the UK. Most of these would be in remanufacturing and most would not be in London or the south-east. It would be particularly important to give a second life to machinery that will enable a low-carbon future.
We are, of course, in a race for these manifold benefits. Our industrial objectives are the same as those of Europe and their companies are looking for the same critical minerals we are. The threat is that we will not secure the supply chain as the EU and other nations advance their strategies before we can. Companies looking to take advantage of the new industrial revolution are thinking regionally to maximise profits against the relatively high capital expenditure needed to start these businesses. As such, we find ourselves in a race against friends to secure a supply chain of critical minerals and secure the domestication of component manufacturers to deliver the industrial objectives.
The Minister will not be surprised that I have some policy asks of the Government. The first is to support the development of potential critical minerals by supporting upstream mining capability throughout the UK. The second is the development of a critical mineral midstream. The global supply chain bottleneck is at the midstream section. When the rest of the world focused on bulk mining, China looked to the future of the industry and cornered the market for the minerals we need now. It is a monopolised sector and therefore free market forces do not work. As a Government, we must find innovative ways to fund the right projects to ensure we overcome this global bottleneck. Our regional competitor for critical minerals, the EU, has already started a finance programme looking to raise £16 billion off the back of an institutional £6 billion investment. Unless we find a way to compete, companies will be attracted to where the investment exists.
The third ask is that we work with our international partners to produce a Five Eyes critical minerals strategy. I strongly believe that working with our cousins in Australia and Canada is the key to building that.
The fourth request is that the Government support university programmes, such as the Camborne School of Mines, to make sure that they look at critical minerals. The final ask is that the Government release a critical minerals strategy at the earliest opportunity, to give investors and industry certainty and to allow Members of this House to scrutinise the economic, environmental and societal benefits.
I believe firmly in our 10-point plan for a green recovery and our net zero target, and I am a staunch supporter of the levelling up agenda. The UK has all the necessary skills and talent to be a world leader in the sector, working with our Five Eyes and Commonwealth friends. We just need the Government’s support, direction, and investment to unleash this potential, creating opportunity across Britain, boosting our green economy, and protecting our energy and defence interests. The critical minerals great game has begun. With the Government behind us, I know that the UK will be the winner.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) on securing this truly important debate. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for their written questions on the subject, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for his contributions.
The Government are proud of their commitment to net zero, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is right to link it to the question of sourcing raw materials. Indeed, critical raw materials have supported our success so far. The UK’s world-leading offshore wind industry, which uses light rare earth metals, niobium and borates, as well as the more common cobalt, in turbine manufacture, provides a critical source of our renewable energy for our growing economy. The latest figures indicate that our onshore wind assets now generate enough power for more than 10 million UK homes. In solar, which relies on silicon, indium, germanium and gallium for its panels and turbines, we also see a UK success story. More than 99% of UK solar capacity has been deployed since May 2010.
Clearly, such materials underpin the renewable technologies we need to achieve our net zero goals. That is why we are looking at how we can leverage the UK’s extensive R&D ecosystem to lead efforts to deliver the green industrial revolution and maximise sustainable and efficient use of critical materials. Our investment in two new interdisciplinary circular economy centres—UK Research and Innovation’s interdisciplinary circular economy centres for technology metals and for circular metals—is helping to explore how reusing waste materials can deliver environmental benefits and boost the UK economy.
We have also committed £500 million of funding for the automotive transformation fund to build an internationally competitive electric vehicle supply chain, and £318 million for the Faraday battery challenge to support the pioneering work needed to ensure that we can deliver our net zero commitments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be consulting later this year on new measures to help to build a circular economy at home, while driving international collaboration abroad to encourage harmonisation in the circular economy regulations. These efforts will put us at the forefront of future green growth.
The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the importance of resilient supply chains, and that is why the Government are monitoring and assessing the supply of critical materials. The Department for International Trade global supply chain directorate now forms a key part of this work. It will help to ensure access to a resilient critical material supply that adheres to free, fair and open international trade. This will help to advance the plan for growth and our levelling up objectives as we seek to attract investment and boost important aspects of our future economy across all UK nations and regions.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are absolutely committed to exploring and developing lithium mining in the UK. We have backed Cornish Lithium and Geothermal Engineering, which are collaborating to build a zero-carbon lithium extraction pipe plant at an existing site in Cornwall. Such commitments provide a powerful stimulus to mobilise private investment, which plays such an important role in the UK economy.
Our foreign direct investment strategy is similarly focused on securing investment in the extraction and, crucially, processing of these commodities. We are working with overseas mining companies and host Governments to support and enable UK investment in the extraction, processing and refining of the raw materials required to deliver our ambitions. We are working to improve international mining conditions. We have implemented a number of programmes to tackle modern slavery in the Democratic Republic of Congo, including a programme in the DRC with the Carter Centre to improve transparency and governance in the mining sector, working with civil society.
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to respond to these points. I know we shall continue to discuss this critical supply chain in the months and years ahead, as we drive our net zero ambitions into action and delivery and we consider how to play this great game.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Women and Equalities
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I am also aware that waiting times for gender identity services are currently very long. We are taking meaningful actions to address the historical problems that have resulted in long waiting times, and I am pleased that we will establish at least three new gender identity clinics over 2021, with the first of these opened by the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust in July.
[Official Report, 8 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 50WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I am also aware that waiting times for gender identity services are currently very long. We are taking meaningful actions to address the historical problems that have resulted in long waiting times, and I am pleased that we have established three new gender identity clinics throughout 2020 and 2021, with the first of these opened by the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust in July 2020.
Petition
Reopening of Leamside rail line
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Vaccine Passports
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice—that is an obvious fact—in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. The timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, which is why there will be a 15-minute interval, and there will be suspensions between debates.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room, so no drinking tea or eating food. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address.
I ask Members attending physically to kindly clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room, if they would not mind. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members may speak only from the horseshoe, which is where the microphones are.
To be helpful to colleagues, I have done the maths and am imposing a time limit of three and a half minutes on Back-Bench contributions. Obviously, Front Benchers will get the usual 10 minutes each.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 569957, relating to vaccine passports.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the petitioner, Mr David Nolan, and all the other signatories of the petition, which has reached 295,842 signatures. The wording of the petition is as follows:
“We want the Government to commit to not rolling out any e-vaccination status/immunity passport to the British public. Such passports could be used to restrict the rights of people who have refused a Covid-19 vaccine, which would be unacceptable.”
The petitioner wants me to make it clear that they do not represent themselves as anti-vaccination. In their own words, “We believe anti-vaxx people are in an absolute minority in Britain.”
The petition is not exclusively about those worried about discrimination if they refuse vaccination; it is more about the implementation of vaccine passports and their technology for everyone in society. In comparison with yellow fever, the petitioner wants it to be known that “comparing this certification alongside any proposed covid status certification is not a viable argument, as we are dealing with very different viruses. Yellow fever certification is only required for up to 30 African and 13 Latin countries.”
The petition is not difficult to understand and stems from genuine concerns among many of the petitioners. I state clearly for the record my support for the vaccination programme, and I encourage everyone eligible for their vaccination to take it as soon as they are offered it by our national health service, which is working so hard to deliver the programme on time.
It is easy to understand why a vaccine passport may appear to be a perfect option for the Government, who are trying to ease the lockdown as quickly and safely as possible. The idea that we could allow events to start taking place at which people who have some immunity to the virus could return to some level of normality is attractive. Like everyone else in the country, I look forward to the day when such things can take place again safely, and something that could possibly speed us along to that point is a compelling suggestion.
After almost a year of lockdowns and social distancing restrictions, anything that can help to get people back out into the community, back into their workplaces, back into their businesses and back with their families is something that we cannot discount. However, we must also consider the possible drawbacks that come with such a proposal, and we must consider the concerns with fairness. There are concerns about vaccine passports that go beyond the pseudoscience of anti-vax protesters and Twitter trolls. I therefore urge hon. Members to be mindful of some of these arguments in their contributions.
To date, the Government have not brought forward any concrete plans on vaccine passports or how they could work. However, as some countries and travel companies are beginning to require proof of vaccination as a precondition of entering their territory without the need to quarantine or of booking travel, some form of proof may be necessary at least to relaunch our tourism sector. If British holidaymakers and travellers are required to have proof for international travel, it will be difficult not to have some kind of Government-issued certification to back that up. Even if the UK opts out and opts not to use vaccine passports in the same way as other states, we may be required to provide some proof for those wishing to go abroad if other states require proof prior to entry.
If that were to be the case, how it would work domestically is unknown. I invite the Minister present to shed some light on that in their summary of the debate, as the domestic and international situations are very different and, even if domestic requirements remain low, international requirements may not give us a great deal of choice. The concept of using vaccine passports in domestic settings is of concern to some people as we go forward.
As Members will be aware, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has published priority lists, which will work their way through the population from those most vulnerable to covid down to the least vulnerable. Although it is not always the case, often that involves going from the oldest groups in society to the youngest—again, I must stress that that is not always the case. Therefore, introducing vaccine passports at present would exclude those who have not yet had the opportunity to receive their vaccine. There is a genuine fear that younger people who do not have any characteristics that place them on the priority list could be prevented from taking part in events or from taking certain actions, for no reason other than age and lack of pre-existing health conditions. Similarly, many people are concerned about how a vaccine passport would be properly managed, as anything that required a smartphone, as the current covid another place does, could bar many elderly people or people living in poverty from accessing such a system.
I must also stress at this point that although I encourage everyone to get their vaccination when they are offered it, people do have the right to choose not to be vaccinated if they so wish. Nobody can currently be compelled to take the vaccination under the law, despite it being our best hope in this national fight. The number of people currently indicating that they will not take the vaccine when offered it is currently very low, and it is my sincere hope that it remains that way, for the chances of our recovery. Nevertheless, the question that we must ask ourselves is whether such a policy would be fair to people who have the right to make that choice, however we who support the vaccination programme might personally feel about their decision.
If, as much media speculation indicates, proposals about domestic usage of vaccine passports are under consideration, I invite the Minister to clarify any of those proposals in their summary at the end of the debate, in the interests of openness and of the petitioners. I invite Members to consider carefully some of the arguments that I have set out in their consideration of the petitioners’ request. Even those in favour of such a system cannot dismiss counterarguments without proper and fair consideration, especially when it comes to ensuring that everybody in the elderly and vulnerable groups will have access to a vaccine passport, and that those who have not been vaccinated because they are further down the list are not excluded because they have not yet had their turn.
Once again, I thank Mr Nolan and all the petitioners for raising this important issue.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members that, in line with Mr Speaker’s wishes—I am not being old-fashioned or stuffy—gentlemen, when addressing the House physically or virtually, must be properly attired with a jacket and tie.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I refer Members to the declarations that I have made in relation to the covid recovery group.
“I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own”—
I quote, of course, from the popular 1967 drama “The Prisoner”. It seems to me that nothing has changed in some people’s desire to treat us as commodities to be managed by the state, yet what has changed is the availability of technology to make it so.
I am very grateful to my constituents who have written to me about this matter. We have had a prior debate on this subject, or at least a debate in which I raised this subject, and I thought that the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), had ruled out vaccine passports. I am very grateful, therefore, to have this opportunity to hear from the Minister at this stage in the review through this petition, and I am grateful to the petitioners.
I also thank Big Brother Watch, which has provided a very helpful brief, with nine reasons why covid passes must be stopped. I will briefly race through as many as I can squeeze in. First, they will be unnecessary due to the availability of effective vaccines. Indeed, the Government’s amazing success in rolling out vaccines means that those most vulnerable to covid-19, and soon anyone who wants and is medically eligible for a vaccine, will have a high level of protection from the virus. That means that hospitalisations and deaths associated with covid will fall drastically, and overbearing controls on society will not be justified.
I know that the Government are now looking at covid status certificates, which bring into play the issue of mass testing. Of course, the ground has been sown with salt on the issue of false positives, I am sorry to say, often by some apparently eminent people who lamentably neglected the practical evidence from hospitals of real people with real disease, so I hesitate to bring up the issue. But it has to be said that, as we reach an era of low prevalence of the disease, if we carry out mass testing on asymptomatic people, the issue of false positives will undoubtedly be relevant. We need to hear from the Minister what she is going to do to ensure that people who test falsely positive with lateral flow tests, and indeed PCR—polymerase chain reaction—tests, do not end up deprived of their liberty unnecessarily. We very much need to hear from the Government about that.
Of course, vaccine passports would be discriminatory. They would have the effect of socially and economically excluding people who have not had either a vaccine or a recent test result. It is of course unlawful under equality law to discriminate against people with protected characteristics, including age, disability, pregnancy, religion or belief—I underscore belief. I shall have my vaccine when I am offered it, but there will be various people for various reasons who will choose not to do so.
Effectively making vaccines mandatory by implication through covid status certification could be counter-productive. The evidence from across Europe shows that if people feel compelled to take vaccines, it puts them off. It would implement, of course, a checkpoint society. It would mean passes for the pub—if you want your pint, Sir David, you will have to show your papers. I did not think that is the society that we wished to live in. A surveillance state would be instituted. There would be mission creep. Passes would be irreversible and divisive, and of course they would infringe on the autonomy of the individual. I lament that I do not have time to go through each of those points in detail, but I will certainly provide the brief to the Minister afterwards.
I want to finish with another quote from “The Prisoner”—something that I ask people advocating for these certification regimes to bear in mind. No. 2 says:
“We can treat folly with kindness…knowing that soon his wild spirit will quieten, and the foolishness will fall away to reveal a model citizen.”
No. 6 replies:
“That day you’ll never see.”
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic has asked a great deal of our constituents, and for the last year the liberties that we all enjoy and should expect have been restricted. I know that most people I represent want those freedoms returned as soon as possible, and in as safe a way as possible.
The question posed by proposed vaccine passports is whether they are part of enabling all our society to return to normality, and that is complex. Many people look at this through the prism of whether it will work for them, or think that they have had the vaccine and therefore will be okay, but as the last year has shown us, when we pull together as a society and act in the spirit of selflessness, we can achieve so much more for everyone.
We need to consider whether such a scheme would enable some while unfairly restricting others who have, for their own reasons, not taken the vaccine. We cannot penalise people who have exercised their right not to take the vaccine. That may be an expectant mother, for example, who just cannot get peace about taking the vaccine, even with the reassurances given by scientists and health advisers. To restrict that person from public places or services would be wrong. We should also factor into the debate that we have so little evidence of the vaccine’s effectiveness in reducing transmission. It is simply too soon to consider taking such a significant step without evidence of whether it would actually be of real benefit.
In Northern Ireland we have a specific set of circumstances, including a land border with the Irish Republic. While our vaccine programme is well advanced, the roll-out of the vaccine in the Irish Republic is stumbling and slow, not helped by their decision to suspend the use of the Oxford vaccine. How would vaccine passports work on a cross-border basis for those who work in the public sector or who have family who they care for in the Irish Republic, and vice-versa? It simply cannot work.
I know that some industries, such as aviation, and some other countries may choose to administer some form of vaccine passport for those seeking to use their services, but in the public sphere the Government must remain cognisant of the issues around exacerbating inequality, evidence regarding transmission and so on. Let us focus instead on encouraging vaccine uptake first, and supporting the world-leading scientific research happening here in the UK to tackle the issues presented by covid-19.
In closing, I must make it clear that I would be utterly opposed to, and believe that the Government need to avoid, a domestic internal vaccine passport requirement for travel throughout the United Kingdom. We must hold dear to the liberties that we once knew and want to return to.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I thought that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) set out so many of the issues very well. It is a pleasure to speak in this e-petition debate on electronic vaccine passports, which is incredibly timely.
The starting point is that it is fundamentally up to individual countries to make decisions for themselves, so it ought not to be, in that sense, for the United Kingdom to take a lead with regard to what Brazil, Italy or any other country chooses to do. We have to respect those countries and their decisions; it is not for us to determine what they do. I hope that all countries, including the United Kingdom, if we choose at some point to take this approach of vaccine passports for other countries’ foreign nationals coming here, will themselves consider what they should do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe captured the point about the effectiveness of the vaccination programme. It is remarkable. I had no anticipation that it would be as effective as it seems to be at the moment. We have to recognise that, and the protection that will give to so many people right around the world. Any question over certification for vaccinations or anything else therefore has to be proportionate to the threat of the disease itself, which at the moment is diminishing, so actually the need is diminishing. At the same time, there has been an escalation in concerns and expectation that the passports will be delivered for many countries. I am quite sympathetic to the sense of having vaccinations.
About 20 or so years ago, when I was in the Territorial Army, I went on an expedition to Ecuador—Cordilleran Enterprise—to climb Volcán Sangay. I had a yellow fever vaccination and got a certificate. There are minimal concerns about certification if someone has a piece of paper to demonstrate their vaccination status, and we do not need fancy electronic readers to read a certificate—we just need to be able to speak the language used on the certificate. I am pretty comfortable with vaccination certificates. If there were any questions about forgeries or anything else, companies such as De La Rue, which is based in my constituency, could make remarkable authentication devices to put on certificates and ensure that there were no concerns about authenticity.
If we moved from paper certificates to electronic, however, significant questions of civil liberty would arise. Who in the world would run that database? What data would go into it and who would determine that? Would it be an international body such as the United Nations, the EU or some other organisation? If we could not get an international organisation to take the lead, would a big corporate organisation do so? Would big tech in California have control over the database? In the light of what happened when the Australian national Government confronted a big tech company, giving such a company so much power would be a colossal problem. We need to be proportionate and cautious. We need to look to paper first and foremost, and there would need to be huge justification if we were to take the electronic route, which I would not welcome.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Our next speaker could not be here at the start of proceedings because he was in the main Chamber, so he might not have heard that there is a three-and-a-half minute limit on speeches. I call Mr Ian Paisley.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and thank you for that warning about time. I hope not to detain the House that long, but I will make a few brief comments.
I welcome the debate because it is an opportunity for the Government vigorously to reinforce the view that they are not going to introduce vaccine passports. I hope that they use this platform to state that they will not do so, because such passports would be a complete and total overreaction, and they are completely and totally unnecessary.
The vaccine roll-out has been positive—a success for the UK. We had a similar response with respect to the flu vaccine, but no one would say that people must have a passport to prove that they have had that particular vaccine, even though flu takes many lives in the United Kingdom each winter. It would be a complete and total overreaction for Members to stand up and demand such a passport for people who had received the flu vaccine. We do not need such passports, which would become supplementary identity cards.
I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about the Republic of Ireland’s kneejerk reaction today to stop rolling out the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. That is more about the failure of the Republic of Ireland to have its own successful vaccine roll-out programme than it is about anything else. I understand that about 17 million people across Europe have received that vaccine, and from those 17 million vaccines, there have been only about 31 adverse effects. That is a remarkable state of affairs, and what we have seen in the Republic of Ireland is more to do with politics than it is to do with science.
Like the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), I believe that vaccine passports would lead to a two-tier society and would increase opportunities to discriminate. That would be abundantly wrong. I agree that we cannot legislate for what other countries do. If we want to go to certain countries, we might have to have a vaccine passport, or proof that we have received a vaccine, but that is a matter for those countries. All we can do is implore them to be proportionate and responsible in what they do. We should not pursue vaccine passports domestically, however. If airlines or other countries decide to do this, that is of course a matter for them, but we should implore those countries and organisations to demonstrate proportionality in what they do.
Our civil liberties are something we should cherish, and we should not throw them away so quickly for others to manage for us because they know better. The people know what is best and we should guard our civil liberties with care.
John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I think the issue needs to be split into two, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) said: we need to look at it from the point of view of foreign trips and activities, and from that of domestic activities.
Let me turn first to the foreign aspect of vaccine passports. It is almost certain that other countries, or indeed travel firms, will require us to have proof of vaccination. As hon. Members will know, I was the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria for a number of years, and my body is still awash with the enormous number of inoculations that I had. When I went to Nigeria for the first time, I was perfectly aware that if I did not have the inoculations I would not be going, or I would be running the risk of being inoculated when I got there, perhaps with a needle of slightly dubious quality. There is a lot of relevance in that comparison, and the issue of people who have not had the vaccine for medical reasons is easy to take into account by ensuring that certificates are given to them.
Domestically, the issue raises a number of ethical questions, and it is right for the Government to review it, although they are not the only organisation to be reviewing the ethical issues around vaccine passports. I lead the British delegation to the Council of Europe, which is also undertaking reviews of things such as vaccine passports. The Council of Europe, too, has come up with a huge number of ethical issues that it has to take into account. That is inevitable with a disease that is so prevalent and that has such enormous effect.
Whether such an approach discriminates against individuals is something that the courts will have to decide, and it is inevitable that if we go down the route of introducing a domestic vaccine passport, the issue will end up in the courts. Given the way society has gone, it is inevitable that this will go that way. That is a great shame, but I do not see any alternative to it.
My last suggestion is to allow the Government to conduct their review and to allow the Council of Europe to conduct its review, and then to allow those to feed into the conclusions that the Government will produce.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for the even and balanced way in which he introduced the debate. We should start with principles. The first is obviously the ethical principle that no one should be subject to any medical procedure without informed consent being given. That is not just the current law; it dates back thousands of years in medical ethics, and we should stand by it.
Secondly, we in this House should speak up loudly and clearly for progress and science. Vaccines and medicines have transformed societies and the lives of millions around the world. Look at the diseases that have been controlled, or in some cases nearly eliminated: diphtheria, whooping cough, polio—owing to our age, Sir David, we knew people who had polio, but it is incredibly rare now—measles, rubella, human papillomavirus and hepatitis. Of course, there has also been the elimination of smallpox. That is a triumph of science, and we should proclaim it loudly against the sceptics. We should also applaud it. Harold Wilson talked about the white heat of the technological revolution, and that is where we should be.
That brings us to practicalities. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) that our industry would be perfectly capable of producing secure validated certificates. I would hope, therefore, that the Government are engaging with industry on how it would produce such certificates were they to be introduced. Indeed, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency produces millions of driving licences for us every year. It is perfectly sensible, and actually imperative, for the Government to run those things in parallel. We do not have to wait, quite bluntly, for the Council of Europe, or indeed for Departments here, to decide on the ethics before pursuing the practicalities.
This is inevitable. Other countries will be opening their airports to those who are able to enter with a certificate or passport—however we describe it—and airlines will be eager to carry passengers there. The public will be keen to travel. Therefore, we need to do this in an orderly and practical manner. Also, let us not forget those who work for airlines and at airports, and the hundreds of thousands of our citizens who fear for their job—many of them have lost their job already—as well as those in the travel industry.
If we are able to produce such certificates, we should perhaps also consider domestic settings, in order to be able to get many of our industries back to work sooner rather than later. Many businesses are teetering on the brink and employees in the hospitality industry, at sports venues and in the entertainment industry—which is something we do rather well in this country, and which is one of the attractions—are worried about their job and their future. We should be backing them.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is an unquantifiable pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
There is no doubt about the prescience apparent in the debate, and the power of the oratory of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) has caused the Cabinet Office to publish—during his speech—the terms of reference for the review and, indeed, the consultation on it, which closes on 29 March. I thank him very much indeed for the power of his oratory, which has made the Cabinet Office announce the publication of those important documents.
There are three matters to consider. The first, which has been alluded to, is international travel, and there is no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, that it will resume. We have to get on with that and ensure that we have sensible proposals that chime with those of our international partners.
The more vexed question is that of health workers. There is the precedent of the hepatitis B vaccine, but given the concern in the care sector about a relatively low uptake of the covid vaccine, that is where the issue will arise. I simply say this: after the year that those people have had, is it imaginable that the owner of a care home will say to their care workers, “Unless you take this jab, you’ll be dismissed from your employment.”? This will come down to that consideration.
The third issue, which I am totally opposed to, is that of covid vaccine certification for everyday use by citizens so as to access venues and services. It has become unfashionable in politics to talk about things that we believe in, and things that we used to know as values. I dare say that in this debate I am probably an accidental libertarian. That was never a description that I would have liked to be applied to me before this year, but it is one that I fear I will never be able to escape. However, those are deeply conservative principles, and there is a strange utilitarian, if not Benthamite, tendency coming into aspects of this Conservative Government and their policy.
Absolutely, we must fully encourage uptake of the vaccine—what a tremendous success it is and what foresight the Government showed in that aspect—but it was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who gave, albeit prematurely, the most powerful response to the consultation. When asked by Sky News whether people will need certification to go to the pub, he said no, and I think that is a fair way to begin the consultation.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I ask you to imagine the scene a few months from now: I can finally go out to a restaurant to catch up with a friend for a real meal, instead of the dreaded Zoom meals that we have all become accustomed to. At the door we are both asked to show proof of vaccination. One of us is vaccinated, but the other is not. I am allowed entry, but my friend is not. Is that really the sort of country we wish to live in—one in which we have two tiers of rights and discriminate over access to goods and services on the basis of health status?
Too often in the debate on this issue, I am told, “If everyone has the chance to be vaccinated, it is their own fault if they turn it down,” which fundamentally misses several points. There are those who cannot be vaccinated, perhaps for health reasons. As a newly pregnant constituent said to me in an email, she and other pregnant women will not be able to get vaccinated while they are pregnant. If she is able to breastfeed, she will not be able to get vaccinated during the period in which she breastfeeds, either.
Furthermore, at present, none of the vaccines is authorised for adolescents. Are we saying that teenagers should not be able to go to the cinema with their friends or have a family pub lunch? The groups least likely to take up the vaccine are among the most marginalised, and they would become yet more marginalised by vaccine passports. Such passports would be, essentially, a way to make vaccines mandatory, but coercion is never a good way to build trust or to persuade people to do something.
I would also question whether we are offering false and perhaps even dangerous hope. As the Ada Lovelace Institute states,
“the vaccine passport is premised on the assumption that my vaccine status tells you something about the risk I pose to you, not simply the risk I face from COVID-19.”
As yet, we do not have conclusive evidence regarding transmission, and no vaccine will ever be 100% effective. Furthermore, we know that vaccine efficacy might be diminished by new mutations and variants of covid-19. Covid vaccine status would therefore not be of fixed or standard duration applicable to all countries.
I want to end by blowing out of the water the idea that vaccine passports are the key to reopening our economy and society. The relentless focus on vaccination at the cost of everything else has been the hallmark of the Government’s approach to the coronavirus since the pandemic began. We have seen from Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand that it is possible to lift restrictions on liberties with robust public health interventions, both at borders and through an effective test, trace and isolate system. Our focus should be on the 20,000 people a day not self-isolating, not on putting in place a discriminatory system from a Government who have proved time and again that they cannot be trusted with personal data.
As we see today with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, once the Government have encroached on our liberties under the cover of a pandemic, they will not be minded to hand them back easily. Will vaccine technologies be switched off once they are no longer needed? To quote a member of the Ada Lovelace expert group:
“Once a road is built, good luck not using it.”
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
Many of the arguments relevant to the debate have already been eloquently made, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and for Bolton West (Chris Green). I shall begin with the concept of international versus domestic. I am far less concerned with vaccine passports focused on opening up borders. It is not unusual to need a host of jabs to travel to certain places, and I have happily proven my vaccination status on, for example, yellow fever when visiting Tanzania. That is right and fair, but domestic covid certificates, whether used by public services or private businesses, would be intrusive, pointless and wrong. I fear they would be tantamount to moving vaccination on to a more mandatory footing.
The World Health Organisation released a statement only a couple of months ago, saying that it was opposed for the time being to the introduction of vaccine passports. That said, there does appear to be a global push towards these restrictions on individual liberty. In my opinion, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), was right when he stated that vaccine certificates would be “discriminatory”.
I want to be clear that, when my turn comes, I will be having my jab, and I encourage everybody to have their covid vaccination when offered it. However, the vaccine passport concept would have a disproportionate impact on groups in our society where vaccine hesitancy is at its highest. We cannot allow a position where significant numbers of Britons are turned away from jobs and services on the basis of their vaccination status.
Moreover, as other hon. Members have said, some people cannot be vaccinated. There are groups that are medically advised to avoid vaccination, from pregnant women, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned, to people with other health conditions, such as a young woman in my constituency who wrote to me, who suffers from epilepsy but is otherwise healthy. She is desperate to return to her university and continue her education. Should she not also be allowed to take part in our society?
The implication for young people at large would indeed be immense. At present, most young people have not been offered a vaccine. Vaccine certificates would result in young people facing more stringent social restrictions than others, all through no fault of their own.
Importantly, a vaccine certificate scheme may also be counterproductive, with research showing that compelling people to take vaccines does not necessarily result in the higher uptake that we all want to see. Individuals are best placed to make their own choices. I am incredibly proud of the progress the United Kingdom has made in vaccinating the population, but that should be used to set people free, not to restrict their freedoms further.
I close with this view: I fear that, should vaccine certificates become commonplace, they would inevitably expand and endure beyond the immediate challenges of this pandemic. I do not believe that should be allowed to happen.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Mr Paisley has had to temporarily leave our proceedings because he is on the call list in the main Chamber. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
I add my voice to those in this debate who have spoken about the importance of us all encouraging our fellow citizens to take up their vaccination. On Wednesday morning, I shall be joining the queues in the Pickaquoy Centre in Kirkwall to have my vaccination, and I very much look forward to the extra freedoms that that may allow me.
However, it is worth remembering that one year ago we all, as a country, surrendered a significant number of important freedoms to the Government. It was a necessary thing to do at the time, because we were facing something where we did not really know how it would pan out. One year on, though, we know an awful lot better how we must deal with this pandemic. We see the great increase in the numbers of our fellow citizens getting vaccinated, and I suggest that the Government’s efforts should be focused on returning our liberties rather than tightening them further. That is why I oppose the idea of a vaccine passport.
I think the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and I are the only people on the call list for this debate who were in the House when the Labour party, then in government, passed the Identity Cards Act 2006. I will just remind the House why many of us opposed that particular measure. It was not just the idea of having to carry an identity card; it was because along with that identity card there came the need for a register and a database. It was the considerations of the cost of those, and the security implications of the Government’s holding so much data, that led many of us to oppose the Act, and I would say that, 15 years later, nothing has changed.
Of course, for some occupations it will be sensible for employers or others to ask for evidence of vaccination, but that is a very different proposition from the one being put to us today. To call it a passport is a good analogy. Let us consider this: in theory, we only need our passport if we are going to travel abroad, but in practice, I can tell the House that I have often had to argue that it is not necessary for me to produce my passport to get on a plane at Heathrow to go to Aberdeen.
We are required to produce passports for a whole range of things these days. They are not only needed to travel abroad; a passport needs to be produced to open a bank account or instruct a new solicitor. Once we have said that it is okay to have a passport for covid, where will that argument go when the threat of covid has receded? If it was okay for covid, why not require people to produce a passport for HIV, for example? What we have before us today is the very thin end of a thick and dangerous wedge.
The concept of a vaccine passport is not just a matter of administrative convenience; it is a first step in a major redefinition of the relationship between the citizen and the state, which we should not take so lightly. When freedoms are given up, the state rarely rushes to return them. Remember how it was the last time we had identity cards. It was only going to be for the duration of the second world war, but seven years after the end of that war, it required a citizen to take the Government to court to end it. That is why this matters.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
It is difficult to speak at the end of this debate as the last Member on the Government side. Much has already been said in this short debate, which has been full of excellent points, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).
I want to firmly and clearly lay out my position on the issue of vaccine passports. In the media, there are different versions of what they might look like. We have had what one might consider to be a vaccine passport for international travel for a long time, as those visiting Africa or South America have to prove they have had the relevant inoculations, most commonly against malaria but for other diseases, too. People who make those journeys do that routinely as part of their travel plans.
As colleagues have said, those decisions are not made unilaterally by the UK. We do not have the power to tell other countries what to do about immunisations, including the covid vaccine. If Guatemala wants visitors to have inoculations, then that is up to Guatemala. In my view, it makes sense for the UK to have a system by which people can prove their vaccine status, if that is what they want to do. People are highly likely to need to be able to do that if they want to travel extensively, but that is largely up to other countries.
We would therefore be well advised to have something like that available for people to access—importantly—if they choose to do so. If that has to be a database, I see no reason why the existing NHS app—or some other means where such data is already shared—could not be adapted for that function. I hope Ministers will look at that before they try to reinvent the wheel.
In my mind, there is no reason why this should not simply be done on paper, rather than requiring all this data sharing and the minefield that comes with it. People already get a certificate or an email when they get their covid test result, which could be used as proof. I am yet to find anyone who had a problem with the idea of proving a negative test, at least in the short term.
Obviously, we hope all this goes away and we do not have to do it for long, but in the interest of getting events and businesses up and running faster, it might make sense for people to show a result to attend a mass event, such as a football match or a concert. I think businesses would welcome that if it helped them to get up and running faster. That is something we could and should look at. Importantly, that is the line for me, and for many others.
I believe in the vaccine; it is a great feat of science and innovation to be able to deliver it. I believe everyone should have it, and I will have it when my turn comes, but we are asking people to inject something into their bodies, through a medical procedure, and that requires consent. That is a basic idea that we subscribe to. No Government should be in the business of mandating or coercing people to do that.
As much as we may feel that getting vaccinated is the right thing to do, people have rights and responsibilities over their own bodies. I draw the line firmly at coercing people to get vaccinated. That seems to be discriminatory and there would certainly be a legal challenge. We have to win the argument, recognising that some people will not want the vaccine or be able to have it, for whatever reason. That is their free choice.
Somebody described the vaccine passport as a requirement to prove vaccine status before being able to go to the pub or an event, or, as someone suggested, to get a job. I think that is truly abhorrent. That would be coercion on a level that I have never seen in any democratic country, and not something I could ever support. The idea that any Government, never mind a Conservative one, could say “no jab, no job” is entirely morally wrong. I assume, therefore, that there are no plans to do this. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that. I have been told by other Ministers in the past that there are no plans to do it.
No matter how much I may personally believe that it is important and the right thing to have the vaccine, it will fundamentally impact on people’s basic rights if we require vaccination status to be shown in our daily lives, for our very basic rights, and be a huge backwards step for our liberty and freedom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
It is an absolute pleasure to speak on this issue. I have had many people contacting me. To make it clear from the outset, I have come back to my office today after having gone for my vaccine shot. That is the first one done, and I look forward to the second.
I annually take a flu shot due to my diabetes, and I booked in as soon as I was able to get the covid vaccine on the list as prepared. I am not a medical person, and I do not understand the in-depth biology and virology that is needed for a discussion of the vaccine. I made the decision in the same way as I trusted the doctor when he put me on my diabetes medication—I did not research the clinical trials. I am happy to take the vaccine, and have done so today. However, the key part of this statement is that I have chosen to do so. I was advised to do so and I followed the advice, but ultimately it was my choice. I am happy to encourage people to take the vaccine. I have often pressed Ministers in this House for greater availability for teachers, for instance. However, I will never instruct anyone to take it; that is not my place. It is my reasoned opinion.
The message that is coming through loud and clear to me is that there are many who are pleased to be able to access the vaccine. They see it as the first step towards regaining normality. I have repeatedly had correspondence and emails from people asking when they will be able to get the vaccine. Just as a GP will not force anyone to take medication they are not happy with, even if they sincerely believe it to be in the person’s best interests, neither can or should this Government play a part in forcing vaccination by introducing a vaccine passport.
It is absolutely right and proper that the Government investigate the pros and cons, and follow other nations in doing so. However, the most recent report I read made it clear that the vaccine programme had been incredibly successful without the threat of the removal of freedoms. More than 24 million people so far have had a first vaccine, and about 1.5 million have had a second. Let us hope that the number of doses rises over the next few days.
People want this. Eight in 10 people stated that they would take a vaccine if one was available for them in the week that the survey was taken. That is up from 55% in November, shortly before the first covid-19 vaccine was approved. To achieve herd immunity, it is understood that we should have about 80% take-up. We must understand that there are those who are unsure whether to take the vaccine, such as those with serious underlying health conditions. They should never be isolated because they cannot provide a copy of their up-to-date vaccination card.
Whenever I went away with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme to Kenya, we had to have vaccinations. It was required, and it was for our better health. That was some time ago. However, the right not to be isolated or, as one constituent said to me, ostracised for a personal medical choice can never be something that the Government enforce on our constituents.
I will end where I began. I got the vaccination and was very happy to do so, but it was my choice, and it must remain so without enforcement through covid passports. I urge the Government to hold fast to what their mantra has been throughout—that they are
“deeply, spiritually reluctant to make any of these impositions, or infringe anyone’s freedom”.
Throughout covid, the public have permitted the curtailment of personal freedom for the greater good, but I believe that this vaccine passport takes us a step further than many will be comfortable going. Again, I urge people to take the vaccine when they have the opportunity, but I will certainly not prevent them from accessing my advice centre, office and staff if their health or another reason forbids them from doing so.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to participate virtually in today’s debate under your chairmanship, Sir David. I commend my Petitions Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), for his opening speech on behalf of the Committee. The impressive manner in which he spoke set the scene for the rest of the debate.
This is one of the more interesting debates to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic. It has implications for health and business, and there are serious ethical questions. This is not some theoretical or abstract debate; it has considerable real-world implications for us now. As part of their reviews of easing lockdown restrictions, the UK Government have declared that they will review the ethics and legality of vaccine passports—domestic covid certificates for UK businesses, venues and hospitality.
Saga, which specialises in holidays for the over-50s, says that passengers on its 2021 holidays or cruises must be fully vaccinated. Australian airline Qantas says that travellers will eventually need to prove that they have had a vaccination to board its flights. Some UK businesses have declared that all employees must be vaccinated or face a review of their contracts. However, the legality of that has been disputed by employment lawyers and trade unions. The Justice Secretary has said it may be legal if it were written into contracts.
Israel has developed the Green Pass mobile app to show that a person has received a covid vaccine. It can be used to access indoor seating and restaurants and to attend events in stadiums, among other things. In the US, President Biden announced an assessment of the feasibility of linking covid-19 vaccination to international certificates of vaccination or prophylaxis—ICVPs—and producing electronic versions.
I have asked numerous parliamentary questions over the past year about vaccine passports, as it is an issue that I know interests many constituents, with views both in favour and against. There are many ethical considerations, with arguments that passports are discriminatory. Vaccine hesitancy is more likely in black and minority ethnic communities, and cultural uncertainty exists. Poorer communities are also less likely to be vaccinated. Some people are medically excluded from vaccination. Issues such as whether a child is vaccinated might also be influenced by wealth, parental education or even just the place of residence. Then we have issues around data protection of any scheme, the security of it and the risk of fraudulent or fake certificates, which could undermine the process. There are questions as to how long certificates would be valid.
Taking every step to eliminate the virus needs to be our priority. However, the top priority right now must remain the successful continuation of the vaccine roll-out. While agreeing on 15 January 2021 to further investigate the efficacy and utility of vaccine passports, the World Health Organisation’s Emergency Committee on Covid-19 made the following recommendation to states:
“At the present time, do not introduce requirements of proof of vaccination or immunity for international travel as a condition of entry as there are still critical unknowns regarding the efficacy of vaccination in reducing transmission and limited availability of vaccines. Proof of vaccination should not exempt international travellers from complying with other travel risk reduction measures.”
That is sound advice in my opinion.
In their response to the petition, the UK Government have said:
“The Government is reviewing whether COVID-status certificates could play a role in reopening parts of our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety.”
The Scottish Government are also considering the role that a vaccination certificate might have. However, it is too soon to introduce any form of certification. Experts and Ministers still need to know more about the efficacy of the vaccines, their impact on transmission and the length of immunity before it is safe or sensible to introduce a vaccine certificate. To this end, the Scottish Government continue to engage with international developments in relation to covid-19, including on the subject of vaccine certification. This includes consideration of technical details, ethical and equality issues, and of course privacy standards. The outcome of those discussions will guide the Scottish Government’s work in this area. A vaccine certificate could play a valuable role, but there are various issues to work through, not least the significant equalities issues with allowing freedoms only for people who are vaccinated.
It is worth remembering that vaccine passports are really a new name for something that is not a new idea. Indeed, they have been almost universally adopted or supported at various points in history. The first international certificate of vaccination was introduced in 1944 as proof of vaccination against smallpox. Throughout the following decades, it led to a significant reduction in the international spread of the disease, as ever more travellers were required to be vaccinated. After the declared eradication of smallpox in 1980, the smallpox-specific certificate was cancelled, but the precedent has been established and countries have continued to adopt vaccine regulations when a significant risk is posed to public health.
Several countries already have some form of vaccine passports in place, requiring proof of vaccination documented on an international certificate of vaccine or prophylaxis before people enter or leave the country. Indeed, like many others, I already have such a certificate. Polio vaccinations are still mandatory for travellers to and from countries that are still afflicted by this terrible disease, and many countries require proof of vaccination for yellow fever for all arriving travellers. This applies even to those travelling from somewhere not designated by the World Health Organisation as a yellow fever risk country, so we have plenty of examples on which to draw.
With regard to covid, a number of other countries require all international travellers to stay in designated hotel on arrival, generally at their own expense, which has proved effective in minimising the risk of importing new cases. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has reportedly advised that only a universally applied policy will be effective in reducing the risk of importation, and the joint biosecurity centre has made it clear that a blanket approach to managed isolation is required, as it cannot confidently assess the risk of new variants appearing in other countries.
Unfortunately, the UK Government continue to rely on a targeted approach for international arrivals. As a result, the Scottish Government’s approach goes further than England’s and requires all international arrivals to enter hotel quarantine. This has been managed as part of a four-nations approach, with the UK Government managing the online booking system and the hotel contracts. The Scottish Government continue to press the UK Government to adopt a more comprehensive approach and to quarantine all international rivals. The SNP’s preference is for a consistent quarantine rule across the UK to effectively prevent new variants from entering Scotland and undermining the vaccination programme.
One of the challenges of the certification approach is that experts around the world are still learning about the vaccine’s effect on things such as the transmission of the virus—a challenge that has been recognised by the World Health Organisation and SAGE. The Scottish Government continue to engage in international developments in relation to covid-19, including vaccination certification. These discussions are led globally by the World Health Organisation and will include consideration of technical details, ethical and equality issues, and privacy standards. As I said earlier, it is too early yet to assess whether this is viable, but it is appropriate for Governments to continue to keep the vaccine certification under review, as further evidence around vaccines and immunity emerges.
In conclusion, there may be some merit to certification in areas such as international travel, but we need to be wary of creating some dystopian future where those with a recent vaccination can lead a full and normal life while those without become second-class citizens, with severe restrictions on their freedoms. Of course, neither the Scottish nor the UK Government will have the authority or power to stop other countries from requiring travellers to take the coronavirus vaccine before going to those countries, but what we do here is up to us. Keeping the matter under review is probably the correct position for the time being, so let us stay focused on getting people vaccinated and eliminating the spread of the virus.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for leading the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and for further sharing the petitioners’ concerns with us all. As he said, over 290,000 people have signed this e-petition, which shows the strength of feeling across the country, and that includes 700 people in my constituency of Putney. The question of vaccine passports is crucial and complex, but it needs an answer soon, so such debates are welcome. There are so many issues and considerations at play, so I am pleased to be able to contribute on behalf of the Opposition.
We have heard some interesting contributions this afternoon, raising many questions that need to be heard. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend spoke about the concerns of younger people, who have not been offered the vaccine yet, so the timing will be important. We also heard about the concerns of those who might not have the tech needed, such as smartphones, and about the technology of any passport or certificate, especially if it is digital. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) talked about the important principle of no medical treatment without consent, about the need to be led by the science and about whether contingency plans are being made for the roll-out of certificates, in parallel with discussions about the ethics in this debate.
Airlines are rolling this out already, so it will be happening—we heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) about Saga Holidays requiring vaccination. How will it be possible to meet this requirement? What documentation will be asked for? There will need to be some answers. Importantly, we also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley about the impact of getting business back to work and saving jobs. That needs to be a top consideration in this debate.
As Members have said, the success of the vaccine roll-out has been an absolute delight, and I commend all people who worked so hard in creating and distributing the vaccine. They are all heroes. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who made clear in a similar debate back in December that the root of a lot of these discussions is vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines are the most effective public health intervention in relation to coronavirus or health in general, and are the ultimate ticket out of this crisis; I think we all agree on that. It is therefore hugely important that a significant proportion of people take up the vaccination, especially those with the greatest vulnerabilities. Like many other Members, I will take up the vaccine as soon as I am offered it.
Those hesitant to take the vaccine should not be mischaracterised as anti-vaxxers. That is not fair or true. Those who spout anti-vaccine conspiracy theories are a very small group of people indeed. A much more significant and noticeable number of people, though far from the majority, are vaccine-hesitant. I have spoken to local GPs in my constituency about this. There may be a number of reasons why people do not want the vaccine, and we need to respect those reasons. Others may not want to do so owing to safety concerns—something I have heard from some of my constituents. They want to be sure that any vaccine, be it for covid-19 or anything else, is safe. We all have a role to play in giving them that confidence.
There are some serious practical matters that the Government should address to help improve the vaccine take-up. For example, the GMB union highlighted that the Government’s adult social care infection control fund provides full sick pay for sickness in social care, yet it does not financially cover the immediate after-effects of having the vaccine, which makes some people poorly for 24 hours. We do not want any low-paid social care workers to be hesitant because they might lose a day’s pay if they have the vaccine, so if that reason can be taken away, that will increase vaccine take-up.
We have seen through these developments and through our experiences in this country that the best method of countering those views is through proactive, positive health-promoting campaigns. I know that is something the Government are doing; I am following it closely. It is welcome, and we will support the Government in this. If they decide to introduce vaccine passports or certificates in any way, I hope that they continue with those health-promoting campaigns as a priority.
Vaccine passports, certificates or any other name they might be given are one of several possible responses to vaccine hesitancy. They may well play an important role in reopening the economy and society and keeping residents of care homes safe, for example, but they may be unnecessary and impossible to implement fairly. This is a highly complex area and there are no easy answers to this issue, so we will need to have a national conversation about this, and the Labour party will play its part. Our principle is that the Government must not abdicate their responsibility and simply leave this to the private sector to do any way and haphazardly, which will only lead to confusion and unfairness. Any decisions on vaccine passports must be based on firm evidence, such as the effect of vaccinations on transmission and international best practice from countries that have implemented vaccine certification schemes. There are currently several country-based examples for us to observe, such as Israel.
We all want lockdown to end and we all want as many people as possible to take the vaccine. Vaccine passports could provide an extra layer of protection for the vulnerable, they could be effective in protecting workers and they could give businesses in certain sectors the confidence they need to go forward. There are, however, legitimate concerns about the implications of vaccine passports for civil liberties and for discrimination. We cannot ignore either. We do not want a two-tier system in which those who are not vaccinated, especially the marginalised, are blocked from essential public services, work or housing; we do not want the passport abused and extended beyond what is legally required, or want it extended in time. These are all hugely important considerations for the Government to reflect on in making this decision, so we welcome this debate.
I end with a few questions for the Minister. I understand that the Government are reviewing whether covid status certificates could play a role in reopening parts of our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. Can she share with us the progress on this review, and what it has found so far? What external advice are the Government drawing on to inform the review’s recommendations? Is there research on the impact of a certificate on vaccine hesitancy? Finally, if the Government do proceed, how will they navigate the questions posed by civil liberties groups and ensure that the passport does not create a two-tier system?
This is a hugely important discussion that navigates new territory, but we need answers sooner rather than later. It is vital that the Government listen to all voices, for and against, including the voices of those who signed the petition.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate all Members who spoke in the debate and who helped to secure it, particularly the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill). I also congratulate the petitioner and everyone who signed the petition that has led to the debate, which is timely for a number of reasons. First, it is a pre-emptive strike, because the covid status certification review has yet to commence—indeed, as was alluded to, its terms of reference and the detail of what it will consider were published today; that information can be looked at on the Government website. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will lead on this and will primarily look at the domestic-facing issues that many Members referred to. The review goes wider than vaccinations, taking in testing and an array of other issues. To be helpful to hon. Members, let me say that, in parallel, a cross-Government group chaired by the Secretary of State for Transport is working on the international-facing and travel issues that Members have spoken about. That feeds into the work of the covid team in the Cabinet Office, and CDL has ultimate responsibility for that.
The review will report in advance of step 4 on the road map, which, as hon. Members will know, will be reached no earlier than 21 June. The review has come about in part because in spring, the Government committed in their covid-19 response to reviewing the potential role of certification in our handling of covid-19 from summer onwards. The review will assess whether certification could play a role in opening up the economy and society, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety. I reassure hon. Members that we very much want to return to our normal way of life, which means not just lifting restrictions, but having all the other things that we previously enjoyed and have missed over the last 12 months.
The review will consider the extent to which certification would be effective in reducing risk and helping to open up parts of the economy. It will look at the ethical, privacy, legal and operational aspects of certification and their implications for those who are unwilling or unable to be vaccinated, the equalities implications, to which hon. Members have referred, and the impact of certification on groups who are disproportionately affected by the pandemic.
Mr Steve Baker
There are many questions that I would love to ask, but I will ask one in particular. Can the Minister confirm that, if people choose not to get vaccinated, they will bear their own responsibility and the rest of us will not be held back because some people have made a personal choice not to have the vaccine? If they do not want the vaccine, that is fine, but they should not hold the rest of us back.
Penny Mordaunt
I cannot give my hon. Friend many answers today, as the review has just started, but what I would say to him is that, in all of this, we have to remember that the reason why we are charting our way out of this situation is, yes, in part due to fantastic science and the success of the vaccine programme, but also that members of the public have taken care of and taken responsibility for themselves and other people. We have not legislated for that to happen; it has happened because people feel motivated to take responsibility. We have to remember in all of this that, even though we are very used to passing laws talking about enforcement and all those other things, ultimately this has been about the British public taking responsibility for themselves, their families and their communities.
I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool for setting out at the start of the debate why this is not a call from anti-vaxxers or covid sceptics. It is not. Legitimate questions are being raised about our freedoms and the practicalities and the implications of this for people who are disproportionately affected by covid. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the degree of control we have over decisions that may be taken in international forums. As I understand it, any international agreement would be years off; an initiative spearheaded, for example, by the World Health Organisation, would be many years down the line. We are in control of what we decide about our own borders and our own systems, but clearly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and others are talking to international counterparts to get something that makes sense and also to learn from good practice.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about those who are not able to have the vaccine. People have spoken about physical health conditions, but there are also mental health conditions. I have been speaking to people who have a severe phobia of needles and could not in any way be injected. I know that vaccine companies are looking at alternatives, but at the moment we do not have those alternatives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) spoke very powerfully, as he always does, about our freedoms. As an aside, I will say that I looked up the powerful Patrick McGoohan quote that he gave from “The Prisoner”. I have to say that my hon. Friend did not say the preceding two lines, which were:
“I will not make any deals with you”,
and,
“I’ve resigned”,
although he has used those in other debates. But he does make a very powerful case about the practicalities. Would this actually have a practical effect if we were to bring it in? He raised very important points about equality. I can confirm that those are in the terms of reference for the review. Also, I hope he will take some comfort from what Ministers have said in the past about papers for having a pint. I think that that is the approach that people want to take, but it is right that we look at these issues and look at them in a transparent way. Again, this debate will help to inform and steer the review.
John Spellar
Is not one of the fundamental rights the ability to work? Huge numbers of our citizens are not able to work. Many have been made unemployed. Many are teetering on the edge because their businesses are on the edge. Surely the vaccine taskforce has shown us how we can move prudently and at pace, and perhaps we need to be getting a bit of urgency into this.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments and, indeed, for his contribution in the debate. He is right. I think that everyone in the House, no matter which side of the argument they are on, wants people to be able to get back to those freedoms that we had perhaps taken for granted—the freedoms not just to be with our loved ones and to have a social life, but to earn a living. The cost of the last 12 months to individuals in not being able to do that has been devastating. We all understand that. That is why we want to look at all the practical measures we can to give people as much certainty as possible in future. We need to ensure that the review looks at the practicalities: what would be the upside if this were to come to pass?
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke about the importance of evidence, particularly of the effect of the vaccine on transmission rates. Like other hon. Members, she also discussed pregnant women. In a week when we have been looking at how women are short-changed in a variety of ways and while many women going to job interviews still complain about questions about whether they are pregnant or planning a family, anything that put further weight on someone’s having to demonstrate why they did not have a certificate would be very disappointing indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) focused on the importance of trust and the fact that, ultimately, trust is how we are going to get through this—we have to rely on that, rather than having so much focus on Government action. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke eloquently about the absolute issues of civil liberties and certain individuals who may be missing out—particularly those who will be vaccinated later in the programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) emphasised that we have to listen to others’ experiences and ideas. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) raised the issue of international travel, which I have addressed, and the fact that people are more likely to be open to data being shared if there is a benefit to them from doing so. That is what we need to come back to in this review: what is the benefit to our citizens of doing this?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, asked about employees. Again, the matter would be for individual employees. My understanding is that contracts would have to be rewritten if vaccination were to be made compulsory. On the back of his comments, I pay tribute to all healthcare professionals who are doing an incredible job in phoning up individuals who have concerns about taking the vaccine to reassure them. That is the way to do this, and a huge effort is being made to give people confidence that they can take it.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised the issues of evidence and transmission and of those who are highly marginalised. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) also spoke about those issues, and he and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) both spoke about the dangers of creep: if such things happen, where will it all stop? Those points have been well made and will have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) spoke about the dangers of people being coerced into taking the vaccine; I point him to the very clear statements that the Prime Minister has made on that subject—that no one should be coerced or forced to take the vaccine; it is a personal choice. Enormous numbers of people are taking it, of course, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whom I congratulate on getting his. I hope it was a positive experience. He will, I am sure, have been very moved by the work that not just healthcare professionals but volunteers are doing. Good luck with the second jab!
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), the spokesman for the SNP, rightly said that the main effort needs to be the vaccine roll-out. I agree and hope that we can take a four-nation approach on these other matters. We want simplicity and consistency for all our citizens.
The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) raised a number of questions, some of which I think are answered by the terms of reference and the publication put out today. She is right that we want to have all efforts behind the vaccine programme. People are taking the vaccine because it is good for them and it is good for other people. We need to remember that that is why we are winning this battle against covid: it is personal action by our citizens, doing the right thing. I assure her that we will not let up on our public health campaigns either.
The vaccine programme continues to be successful, and I thank all who are contributing to it. We look forward to the economy’s unlocking and to getting back to what we remember as normal—whether that is being able to see loved ones, to attend a protest if we wish to, or simply to enjoy a pint in a beer garden with roses in bloom—but if we are to get back to that, we must also focus on the practical things that must happen. Hon. Members have touched on those practical and ethical issues, but I think they have also summed up the public mood: people want to get back to normal and they do not want to be told what to do. If we are going to do anything in this space, it must be of practical benefit and it must be something that the public would wish to be done.
I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate, which I am sure will help to shape the review. It will not be long before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be back to report on the findings.
Mike Hill
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their excellent contributions. Let us simply hope that the review, the terms of reference for which have been published today, progresses sensibly and in a non-discriminatory fashion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 569957, relating to vaccine passports.
Covid-19: Impact on Education
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 564696, 548778, 573621 and 564209, relating to the impact of covid-19 on education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The first petition is to do with cancelling GCSEs and A-levels in 2021 and replacing them with coursework and teacher assessment, and was created on 29 December; the second is about allowing teacher-predicted grades for BTEC students; the third is about keeping schools closed until May; and the fourth is about closing schools in all tier 4 areas.
Clearly, over the last four or five months, the situation has been incredibly fluid, so for some of those petitions—two in particular—circumstances and events have moved ahead of them slightly. However, I do think this a valuable opportunity to have a discussion about the impact of covid-19 on our children’s education in a more general sense. We could not get a much broader debate, and I imagine that colleagues and I will find it very difficult to keep our points concise, because this is such a multifaceted issue, and our children have been impacted in so many different ways by covid-19, but I will attempt to do so. I will just cover four or five key lessons that I think we need to take away and some of the thoughts that I have.
My first point is to do with the danger of making generalisations and assumptions about how a child may or may not have found schools being closed, particularly based on, say, the socioeconomic background that they may come from. There is some evidence, produced by the Sutton Trust, that suggests that children from more deprived backgrounds have been particularly badly impacted by the closure of schools compared with children from other areas, but we should not necessarily assume that, and we should not assume that a child in a different situation found it any easier. I have spoken to a number of families whose children have come from a variety of backgrounds and who, for whatever reason, have found it particularly difficult, and their mental health has been particularly impacted. In coming to those sorts of generalisations, we should not lose those individuals’ stories, because, in some senses, no one child’s experience of the past year has been the same. We need a response that, as far as possible, caters for that individual child. That is the first point I wanted to make.
Secondly, on mental health, research published by MIND showed that 73% of those at school feel as though their mental health has deteriorated over the past year. There is a massive challenge in front of the Government; there is a massive challenge in front of schools; and there is a massive challenge in front of young people, to try to make up for some of the learning loss that has clearly happened over the last year. Another point that I would make is that I think we should be careful in the language that we use. There is a big challenge in front of us, but we should be aware that the anxiety that many young people feel at the moment is already very significant. Sometimes the words that I see in the media, such as “lost generation” and so on, can fuel those anxieties to an even greater extent. Yes, there is a significant challenge in front of us, but we can overcome it, so in a sense, we need a degree of positivity and a can-do spirit. My concern is that a daunting situation may become even more daunting if we are not careful about the language that we use.
The Minister will be aware from my position on the Education Committee that I speak very frequently about special educational needs. The national special educational needs and disabilities review has been delayed, but if there can be an advantage from that delay, it is that it allows us to properly look at the way in which the pandemic has had a different impact on different children, including those with special educational needs.
That must include not only those with education, health and care plans, but those who might not have one of those plans but still have learning disabilities. Dyslexic and dyspraxic pupils would be two examples. They have not been eligible to come into school most recently, and some of those individuals have struggled with online learning because of the unique way in which many of them learn. Not having that personal engagement has often made it much more difficult for them to learn and some, I fear, have fallen behind more as a result.
When we talk about those with perhaps more complex and significant needs and disabilities, something else that we need to bear in mind is their mental state, and how they often struggle with transitions. The movement from working online to back into school, to online and then back into school again can have a profound impact on their mental state. Many of them have been eligible to keep on coming into school, but many have not, and there has often been good reason for that. A therapeutic approach to help them with the transition from what might seem like quite an unsettling period for them is also very important.
I am encouraged by what I have heard about the tutoring programme, and how, when we think about the ways in which our young people can catch up from any learning loss, there have been some SEND specialists feeding into that. That was encouraging, but it would be brilliant if I could hear more today about how that is working in practice.
My next point is to do with exams. One of the petitions called for a cancellation of exams. Bearing in mind the circumstances, I do not think that there was any alternative. It was the right decision to cancel those exams, but I also believe that it was a regrettable decision. I think we were left with no choice, but it comes with its own negatives. I believe that exams should be here to stay. I do not think that this should be used as an opportunity to question the role of exams in the medium to long term. I believe that they continue to be the fairest way, often, of assessing pupils.
We should also think about those young people who actually quite like exams, and find that exams work for them. A lot of those children have learning disabilities. I talk as somebody who has dyspraxia and dyslexia. When I was a 12-year-old, I had the reading and writing age of an eight-year-old. I ended up catching up, and did have my struggles at school, but I actually used to quite like exams because I was an unconventional learner. I did not do well in the classroom. I did not go at the same pace as everybody else. That revision gave me time to consolidate my knowledge and surprise in my exams. I really would not have wanted to have been at school over the last year, so we should think about how those children could feel as though their chance to flourish has been taken away.
On the teacher assessment that we will have this year, some schools will have these tests that will feed into the overall assessment, but these tests are not mandatory. Perhaps they should have been mandatory. Having spoken to the Minister about this before, my understanding is that the teachers at a school will have a degree of flexibility over this, and the approach will not necessarily have to be the same for all children. It might be that some children in a school can take a test while others do not.
I would also like to think that pupils could feed into the process. If they felt that having a test would mean that their teachers were in a better place to make an accurate assessment about their progress, I think their views should be taken into account. I go back to the point that I made about dyslexic pupils. I have spoken to two headteachers at dyslexic schools, where all the pupils are dyslexic, and it is interesting that both of those schools have taken a decision to have tests for all pupils. That is useful in providing a sense as to how it may be that all those children could be negatively impacted by this.
Another point I would like to make is about children who have English as a second language. I know that in my own constituency, there are many pupils who come under that bracket. I have spoken to headteachers in my constituency who are concerned that the level of participation in some of the online learning has been lower in those communities, and also that pupils’ English has actually gone backwards throughout the time that schools have been closed. When we are thinking about catch-up, that aspect needs to be there also.
I was encouraged by a meeting that the Education Committee had recently with the catch-up commissioner. I have had a number of conversations with headteachers in my constituency recently who have said that when we are thinking about catch-up, flexibility needs to be at the heart of it, and that teachers and headteachers, who know their children better than anybody else, should be able to take decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of each individual child. The catch-up commissioner made it very clear that that will be the case.
There are lots of things that we will have to work out, particularly with catch-up schools over the summer, such as how they will interrelate with the holiday food and activity programmes, and how that will work. It is about having that flexibility with catch-up, so that teachers and headteachers can make those decisions. That goes back to what I said earlier: we should not make assumptions about how each child has found lockdown. There is an element of truth in the idea that clearly some home environments are more conducive to online learning than other environments. There is a reality there. Some children do not have their own bedroom or a quiet place to work, and they might have parents who want to help with their learning but, frankly, cannot help as much as they would like to. Some children have a different background and have their own space and parents who are able to help them, but we should not assume that. Sometimes parents might be able to help but cannot, because they are working round the clock. We do not know what their circumstances will be.
In a nutshell, and in summary, my key points are these. First, we should not generalise or make assumptions and, as far as possible, we should approach each individual young person and try to cater to their needs. My second point, unsurprisingly, is about children with special educational needs and the different ways in which this has impacted them. As I said, it is so important that we get SEND right. It is right morally, it is right for them, and it is also necessary for our country, because we do not want to lose their talents. This pandemic has in some ways made the situation harder for them. We should also think about those children who the way we have been assessing has perhaps worked against; they have been losers in that.
When we are thinking about how covid has impacted our young people, we need to be sensitive in the language that we use and conscious of the way in which their learning, but also their mental health, has suffered. It will be difficult to catch up, but they are our children, and we will do whatever it takes to support them, so there needs to be a degree of positivity there as well.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I really value the opportunity to contribute on all the issues raised by these petitions, and also the wider issues for our education sector as a result of covid-19.
I start by paying tribute to all the teaching staff, school staff, parents and especially children attending schools across my constituency in Kingston and Richmond for the successful way that they all returned to school last week. I was speaking just this morning to the head of the education service for both boroughs, and he was telling me that it has all gone extremely smoothly. I have also had an opportunity to speak to teachers from all sorts of schools across the constituency. The testing in our secondary schools has gone very well. Most children —my own included—are absolutely thrilled to be back at school and back with their friends. It has all gone extremely well, and I pay huge tribute to staff, parents and children across the constituency. I also want to say a huge thank you to all the parents who have been home schooling over the past few incredibly difficult months. They have done a wonderful job and can all pat themselves on the back, having successfully delivered their children back to school, which is where we all want them to be.
I would like to start by asking the Minister for clarity on the use of face masks in secondary school. In particular, what does the science say about their benefits for reducing transmission versus the disadvantages they create for communication? I was very lucky to have a Zoom chat last Wednesday with some year 11 students at Christ’s School in Richmond. It was wonderful to see them in their classroom but strange to see them wearing face masks. I would appreciate clarity from the Department for Education about the value of wearing face masks.
I also want to ask about exams, which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) raised, with a great deal of interesting insight based on his own experience. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about how qualifications are going to be awarded this year. I am very concerned that the lack of standardisation across exam centres will negatively affect some students who may well have achieved better results if they had been able to sit their exams. I would welcome more clarification on that. It is a pity that it has taken until now for any kind of guidance to be issued, given that the probable need to cancel exams was identified some time ago.
The schools I have spoken to are very concerned about the appeals process and the extent to which it is going to create an additional burden for them. I have no doubt that many parents and students will want to appeal the mark they are given, and I am very concerned that that will create a big burden for schools at the end of August, just as they are preparing for the new school year. I would welcome further guidance from the DFE about how it plans to address that particular topic.
The biggest issue faced by most schools in my area is that of funding. Covid has increased massively the pressure on school budgets. Obviously, there are increased costs due to all the covid-secure measures our schools have had to take, both now and in September, in order to welcome children back. Many of them are reporting a hit to their income as a result of being unable to hire out their facilities or host sports clubs, for example. School budgets have not increased to meet costs and they are not being compensated for any additional expense. That is a real worry for some of them. Other hits to their income include the unavailability of grants that they would usually get. In addition, local authorities have not been given guidance or clarity on the extent to which they can use funds to assist schools in financial difficulty.
I will end by echoing a point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich in his opening remarks. It is important that schools are able to respond to their pupils’ individual needs at this time. He is absolutely right about some of the language being used. From my own experience as a parent, but also from speaking to schools in my constituency, I know that what children have really missed is their usual group activities. On catch-up, I want extra funding to go to schools directly, rather than to outsourced private practitioners, so that they can address the problems that lockdown has caused schoolchildren. That would really help our students as they go back to school, which we are all so happy to see.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to speak in this debate, covering a number of petitions about both the return to school and this year’s assessments.
Obviously, the impact of covid on our schools, and therefore on our children and young people, has been huge. I would argue that it is perhaps still being underestimated. As I have said before in this place, personally I would not have closed schools. Being out of school for months has had a huge impact on the more than 1,000 vulnerable children in Nottinghamshire—that is just the county, excluding the city, so the number might be twice as high—who are known to children’s services for one reason or another. There was a spike in the number of abuse referrals to children’s services following last summer’s lockdown, and I have no doubt that that will happen again now. We owe it to those children in particular to put them at the heart of our plans for recovery.
This is not just about vulnerable children; the issue has affected all children. I am lucky enough to be the father of two primary aged boys—
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Bradley, but your voice is not coming through very clearly. Could you try to speak a little more loudly or move a little closer to the microphone?
Ben Bradley
I will hold the microphone closer to my face.
It is not only vulnerable children who have been impacted by the lockdowns. I am lucky enough to be the father of two primary age boys, and they have been lucky enough mostly to continue to attend school, as my wife has worked on a supermarket shop floor throughout, but even they have missed their social lives and have missed out on a lot of experiences. They have seen both their education and development impacted. This time in the lives of our children and young people is hugely important, whether it is early development as a primary school student mastering the academic basics, learning to make friends, understanding the school environment and how to act around other people, or whether it is a teenager studying for major qualifications while also coming out of their shell and becoming an adult and finding themselves. How much more difficult must it be for them to begin to find their independence and their own self separate from their parents when they are forced to spend every day at home with them and they do not get to go and do anything else?
In terms of what we do about it—this is the key going forward—the Government have talked a lot about academic catch-up and tutoring, which is welcome, but the biggest challenge that parents and teachers have raised with me is a social one, not an academic one. Teachers have told me that children have forgotten what it means to be in school—how to act and behave—and having to relearn all of that after having changed those behaviours as they are not used to being around groups of people, seeing their friends or being in the classroom. They have shrunk back into their shells after having spent so much time on their own, and it is a challenge now to draw them out again. That means we need to focus not only on academia but on the social side of things.
We should offer more support to extracurricular activities, including sport. Let us not forget the health and fitness impact, too, and the inequalities that will have grown as a result of lockdown and the inactivity that came with it. We could start by looking seriously at how we can open up our sports facilities. Some 40% of our nation’s sports facilities remain locked behind school gates at evenings and weekends.
We have to focus on transitioning children back into the classroom when they need it, and supporting teachers to do that. Children moving to secondary school this year, for example, will have missed so much of the transitional process that they normally would get. The Government could promote and support things such as nurture provision at both primary and secondary level to help children adapt and ease into school life at their own pace, rather than being chucked in at the deep end. I hope the Government will be able to support schools to deliver some year 7 transition as much as possible for the end of this year.
A few years ago, the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), launched a programme of introducing and expanding mental health support in schools. I spoke to the Schools Minister recently about that. Will he update the House on any discussions about whether that plan, which at the time seemed wide ranging and positive, is considered still to be adequate, or can we speed it up and extend it in the light of the struggles that many will face as a result of the pandemic?
On the issue of academia, the Prime Minister’s idea of one-to-one tutoring could be great if it could be done as an addition to the social support that is needed. It will be important to work across schools, colleges and universities to ensure that there is a recognition of the challenges that young people have faced and of the difference between grades given this year compared with other years, because clearly nobody should be disadvantaged as they seek to move on to the next stage of their lives.
All of that calls into question some of what we do around our assessment. I am no detractor from testing at all—I think it is important—but we saw the major challenges faced as a result of so much of our assessment being built only on exams at the end of the year. In the absence of those, there have been all sorts of problems. Obviously, other countries have different systems. Some have an ongoing system of teacher-led assessment as a matter of course. I wonder how the Minister feels those countries might have compared in terms of the challenges of assessment through this period.
I particularly question whether there is really a need to formally assess year 2 students, for example. Also, in the light of covid, perhaps we should be more willing to trust our teachers and to rely on their ongoing assessment as to what children in their care need. They are better placed to assess the ability and the support needed by children at a young age than an exam paper is, particularly if the needs of those children at four, five or six years old are more social as opposed to academic. Perhaps that is something we could look at. Teachers’ knowledge of what their students need will be more important than ever as we seek to recover from the pandemic. Both teachers and students would benefit from having that trust in their relationship within schools to help support children.
There are lessons to take from online learning, too. Although some have struggled, others have loved it and have excelled. They have attended, whereas they might not have done before. There may be a role for using remote learning permanently in some instances. My local college reported excellent attendance among some of the students who had not been engaged or showing up before; it reported excellent work and excellent progress by, for example, many students with autism, who might have struggled in a classroom environment but found online learning really positive. Across the board, but perhaps particularly for post-16 and with SEND pupils, we should review how remote learning could benefit young people. I know that is part of the Prime Minister’s plan for independent and individual tutoring.
Finally, I will touch on skills. I welcome the Government’s further education White Paper, which has some excellent proposals for boosting and supporting further education. The Minister knows my view that many children would benefit from more access to technical and vocational education as part of their curriculum within school or from being allowed out to college earlier in their school life. I have always felt that is an opportunity for the 18% who currently leave school with no qualifications at all to do something different, and to fall in love with education through learning in a way that is directly linked to the world of work or to things they enjoy.
Given the impact on so many children who have been out of education for so long and the challenge of getting them back into the classroom and comfortable in the classroom again, I hope the Minister will give consideration to how that might work, not only as a chance to get young people back into learning after covid, but to complement the FE reforms that have been brought forward by the Government and to help all our young people to get the most out of education in the long term, including that 18% who previously have not managed to get those qualifications through traditional schooling.
With that, I will wrap up. I finish by saying that this is hugely important and, as I said at the start of my speech, we owe it to all our young people and our children to put them at the heart of our recovery plans. Ultimately, they are the ones who will have to deal with this for the longest, for the future of our country, our economy and all of us, and they should be front and centre of every decision we make as we look to recover from this pandemic.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue and to discuss education and covid-19.
The long-term damage to our children’s education and social skills is something I have been incredibly concerned about. In February, I was able to highlight to the Minister, during the debate in the main Chamber on the roadmap to education, the work of the Northern Ireland Education Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive in providing funding for summer schools throughout the Province to help children catch up if needed. This is a devolved matter, but it was such a good scheme that I wanted to give the Minister in Northern Ireland some credit here.
The idea is that there will be funding for schools to run summer programmes of two to three weeks for children who have fallen behind. Teachers can choose to run the classes, or they can liaise with substitute teachers to provide the additional help, which will also allow those who depend on substituting to earn their money and help to fill the breach with education for children.
It is clear to me that covid has had a massive impact on education and I fully support the need to get children back to school as soon as it is safe to do so. Just today, the Minister in Northern Ireland set out a timetable for children’s sporting activities to return to normal. I know that is something the Prime Minister and central Government in Westminster have been working towards as well, as indeed have all the devolved Administrations.
For some parents, home schooling has simply been unworkable due to work issues, internet connectivity or other concerns, and their children need additional support to pull them through. I know that sometimes the grandparents feel under incredible pressure. I have met some of them, and they just could not wait to get their grandchildren back to school, back to normality and back to a routine. I suppose grandparents have reared their children. As I have often said—this probably applies to you, too, Mr Robertson—it is great being a grandparent, because at 7 o’clock we can give them back, but if they are living with us and schooling with us, that opportunity is not there.
The home schooling and internet connectivity programme that I have referred to was run in some schools last summer and was incredibly successful, so I thank the Northern Ireland Minister for making it possible again this summer. It is imperative that we do all we can to help children achieve their potential, despite this dreadful past year, and I believe summer schools are a step forward in doing just that.
It is further notable that the Education Minister in Northern Ireland has put aside £5 million especially for schools to determine how they can provide mental health support for pupils or staff as necessary. That could be in the form of outdoor equipment or individual counselling. I believe that must be replicated UK-wide, as our young people’s mental health, along with that of the elderly, has suffered and needs dedicated support.
I do not think there has been a debate on covid-19 in which we have not spoken about the detrimental mental health conditions of our children of all ages, even those of primary school age, and especially those of secondary school and college age. I have heard of so many young children in Northern Ireland who are allowed to return to school and who have been so joyful since they were allowed back. On the other hand, I have also had several parents tell me how starting back at school in P1 has been a nightmare, with children screaming and hanging on to the streetlights because they are unwilling to go to school. Their wee minds are so full of fear and confusion.
It is clear that it is not just the little ones who are suffering. I have also heard parents talk of how their 14-year-olds have anxiety about returning to school. The routine, which is essential for stability, has been turned around, and they are finding themselves on very shaky ground. We need to take steps to steady that ground for them and to invest in additional pastoral care, outdoor equipment or even, when safety measures allow, trips in order to rebuild bonds and confidence. That is absolutely critical.
I truly believe that only time will tell the impact of lockdown, and the fear that it has brought, on our vulnerable children. We must be prepared to help effectively and swiftly when teachers pick up on those issues and problems, and they must have access to professional help for that child. We have lost so many, and we cannot afford to lose a new generation to fear and anxiety.
It has long been clear that it is the desire of the Democratic Unionist party and many others to see that children are brought safely back to school. Particularly with Northern Ireland’s hugely successful vaccination programme having vaccinated the most vulnerable with one vaccine, which gives a good level of protection, the opening of schools is in a different position from ever before. Today I received my first vaccination for covid-19. It was almost painless and I was very pleased to get it. I give credit to the staff and volunteers who made the conveyor belt of vaccination so easy to endure, and I thank them for it.
I believe that we can open schools and still protect our vulnerable, as well as improve educational outcomes and address mental health concerns in our young people. That is an absolute priority for me, and I believe it is a priority for the Government as well. We must look to allow team games and after-school clubs for music, dance and theatre practices—all those normal experiences that have been lost to our young people for an entire year. I believe we must do what we can to enhance their opportunities in school and after school to the best of our ability, and we must trust God to restore mentally the year that the locusts have taken. Education is a priority; we have all said it, we all know it and we all believe it. Now we need to see that priority being actioned and also financed appropriately.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to be present for what is an extremely important debate about the future of education, and particularly the impact of covid. As a member of the Education Committee, and following the almost weekly appearance that the Minister makes before us, I feel as though he and I are seeing each other much more than we are seeing our respective partners. I am delighted to be with him once again today. I am sure he will hear some repeats of the moans and groans at the last meeting of the Education Committee regarding this issue.
On the petitions about GCSEs and A-levels, I appreciate that the Government were in a very tricky situation. I fully respect that a decision was made more quickly than some would have the public believe, but the process was also laid out clearly for pupil, parents and teachers. I must say that my inbox has not seen a deluge of emails, unlike during the algorithm debacle that I am sure we are all desperate to forget.
However, I would like to stress some of my concerns—the Minister will be aware of these—about the fact that exam papers from exam boards are voluntary and not mandatory. I am aware that 100,000 people responded to the consultation and that the overwhelming majority of students were keen for the tests to be voluntary, but even if it is 41%—the Minister might have quoted the Education Committee, and I apologise if I have got that figure wrong—the overwhelming majority of teachers supported the fact that there should be some mandatory testing with the exam papers from exam boards. That is something that would have been very helpful to the evidence base.
Ultimately, the one thing that schools that I am speaking to are concerned about—I am particularly thinking about St Margaret Ward Catholic Academy in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which I visited recently—is that there a very tight window in which to get assessments done. The angst comes from the fact that the Government announcement has come, yet it is a month until the guidance will follow. That has caused a lot of strain for teachers as they wonder what the exam boards will and will not allow and what they can and cannot do within this period of time.
I appreciate that the situation with testing is difficult for the Minister, but if kids are in school and get a positive lateral flow test, even if they then go home and get a negative polymerase chain reaction test, they are not allowed back into school. The school that I mentioned has seen 38 year 11s stay away for 10 days, which will ultimately have an impact on the evidence gathering that will need to take place.
I also have concerns about grade inflation and the impact on future years, and I have really pushed the issue of grade suppression with the Education Committee. Ultimately, grade inflation has taken place; we have seen it on quite a large scale. The summer of 2020 was more generous than previous years. At A-level, the proportion of candidates awarded an A* or A went up an unprecedented 12.9 percentage points from 25.2% in 2019 to 38.1% in 2020. At GCSE, the proportion awarded grade 4 and above went up 8.8 percentage points from 67.1% to 75.9%.
My worry, as the Chair of the Education Committee regularly says, is that that grade inflation will end up being baked into the system. Ultimately, there has to come a point where we draw a line in the sand. I hope to hear from the Minister, if not today then in the future, that when it comes to the 2020 cohort, the grade inflation of the past two years will be ring-fenced and blacked out, as it were, as an anomaly because we are in a global pandemic—these are unprecedented times—and that we will go back to 2019, pre-pandemic and before the summer grade inflation, in order to have a better gauge of where students are at.
My issue with the suppression is that ultimately there will be kids—particularly children from deprived backgrounds in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke—who are outperforming their peers in their schools and their schools’ historical performance. I fear that teachers, out of fear of having a mass investigation, will ultimately keep grades lower because they do not want other pupils or the wider school to be impacted by Ofqual coming in to investigate. I fear that there will be kids who do not get the grades they deserve, particularly those in deprived communities such as the ones I am proud to serve, for that very reason.
I will say this to the Minister: well done. For the National Education Union to admit that it was wrong was a feat of excellence. I thoroughly enjoyed it and almost had it printed and put on my wall to celebrate. It admitted that it was wrong that the testing would not work. Well, it has worked really well. I saw it at first hand, both in the local primary schools that I visited—Whitfield Valley Primary Academy and St Margaret—which had form groups coming down and having the tests. It worked really smoothly and has given confidence to staff and students. It has meant that those who are asymptomatic are able to go home and therefore stop any spread. That is really positive.
Another issue is the national tutoring programme. The Minister is aware of my concerns about that. Although I absolutely support the aims and fully support the Minister—Teach First and the Education Endowment Foundation are very good providers and groups that have my full backing—my concern when we run big, central Government-style interventions such as that is whether they really get to the kids who need them. In my city, more than 30% of students are eligible for free school meals, and I wonder whether we will reach every single child who has a right to that tuition and support and deserves to have it. When I hear that, so far, only 125,000 out of 1.5 million kids have been reached, that raises concerns.
I want to pass on to the Minister the comments of Dominic McKenna, the headteacher at St Margaret Ward Catholic Academy, about Teach First. He has emailed it and engaged with it, and he has simply had an email back saying, “We’ll get back to you.” I appreciate that the Minister will not think that is good enough; he will want that follow-up to take place. Ultimately, he knows and understands the pressures that headteachers are under. On the one occasion that Dominic McKenna did hear back when he was asking for maths and English tutors, he was told that they were not available but was asked whether he wanted modern foreign languages. Those are still important, but if a school is asking for something and the service is not available, that raises questions about whether the national tutoring programme is going to work as well as it should.
We are talking about two years. I am sure that hon. Members will have concerns about the kids who drop out of education in a school setting, maybe going into colleges or apprenticeships. If they missed out in this academic year, will they get the opportunity to catch up in following years in different educational settings? That is my concern with the programme: its aims are noble and its impact will be big, but will we actually get to every single child in those areas?
I will talk about some of my other pet peeves, which the Minister knows I am a fan of doing. If we are really going to sort out education, we need a standardised national written test in every school for all year groups—from reception to year 11—so that everyone does the same. At primary, it would be literacy and numeracy, and at secondary, it would be English, maths and science, so that we would have some actual data on the full impact of loss of learning. That would help schools to understand what they need to do to help their students catch up in the long term. I believe that a lot of kids will catch up much quicker than we think. Children are remarkably resilient, which I know, having been a balding head of year. I have just seen a shot of the back of my head on the screens here, and the balding is quite concerning. I think the kids might have accelerated that, and the receding hairline that my father has at 65 but which I have managed to achieve at 31.
I believe that kids are remarkably resilient. Being back in a school setting, in a routine, back among their peers and friends, and with their teachers, whom they trust and respect, will go a long way to rebalancing children overall, and mental health support can go where it is most needed. There is a huge pot of money in the sugar tax. I know that it has been put into school sports, but mental health and CAMHS is where that money should go, particularly in the short-term, but perhaps we could look at that in the longer-term, because there will be some mental health challenges. That does not necessarily mean that every children will need one-to-one support, but that sugar tax money could certainly unlock some small group work that could be really positive. The standardised test, as I said, is really important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), who is a fine speaker on issues of education, talked about sports facilities and the use of the school building. Those buildings are huge community assets, but in the summer the gates are closed, and unless the school is able to rent out any of its space, it goes unused. That is a crying shame. We should be doing so much more with schools in the local area, using them as part of the summer catch-up programme and beyond, to allow youth groups and external agencies to save themselves the overhead costs from their own buildings and to fund revenue schemes for those kids.
My final plug is for the Challenger Trust, whose chief executive officer is Charlie Rigby. I will declare an interest: I was a councillor for him in the ward of Shipston-on-Stour a long time ago, in 2011. The Challenger Trust does amazing work in Gateshead and Birmingham. It costs a 17th of the National Citizen Service and one seventh of OnSide Youth Zones. Rather than directly running programmes, the Challenger Trust works with local partnerships to support school leaders to choose programmes that have the maximum impact in extra-curricular opportunities. It takes children out of their schools and local areas to experience the things that people like me, who went to private school, were privileged enough to experience. I want every child, in every part of this country, to be able to access those same extra-curricular opportunities. That can be achieved only if we find more sustainable long-term funding solutions. Although the NCS is an admirable project, it is very much a short-term project for the summer, and it tends to attract, in my opinion, a lot of middle-class and upper-class children, and does not get into the deprived communities that desperately need it.
Overall, the petitioners—bless them—have done some really good work. Obviously, the Government have well and truly answered their questions well in advance. All I can say is that the teaching profession is an amazing profession—I loved being part of it for eight years—but it has been reputationally damaged. That is not the fault of teachers; the Department for Education needs to bear some responsibility for the fact that it has not always communicated in a timely fashion, which has put school leaders in a difficult situation because they are getting last-minute mixed messages, which causes difficulty with parents.
My biggest criticism, however, is of the National Education Union, which has been an absolute disgrace throughout this crisis, to be quite frank. It has been more interested in playing petty party politics than in getting schools reopen and actually helping the people it is meant to serve, who are children and teachers, all of whom wanted to be back in school.
Dr Mary Bousted is on £180,000-plus a year. Kevin Courtney is on over £200,000 a year—well above what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom earns. I have said it on my social media, I have said it on radio interviews with Talk Radio, and I will say it in this Westminster Hall debate so that it is a matter of record in Hansard: they must resign with immediate effect. They have failed the teaching profession. They have failed the children whom those teachers are serving. They have damaged the reputation of the profession and led to the impression that teachers somehow went missing in this crisis, which could not be further from the truth.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and it is great to be back in a Westminster Hall debate, even if we are not back in Westminster Hall. These are great opportunities not just to discuss in usually a more collegial and convivial way some of the big challenges facing our country but, as we are seeing now, for members of the public to get their voice heard on issues that concern them.
Clearly, lots of water has gone under the bridge since the petitions reached the threshold for debate. Some of the issues that I will touch briefly on before focusing my remarks mainly on exams will be familiar to Members right across the House, but I will repeat them none the less for the benefit of the petitioners. Obviously, lots of people were concerned about the safety of schools and the safe opening of schools. We saw in a number of petitions, not least these, a clamour for schools to be closed. I have to say, particularly in the light of the lived experience of children and young people during the course of lockdown, closing schools ought to be the very last resort, and they should be the last thing to close and the first to reopen. We know that any time out of school, let alone the significant time out of school that children and young people have had, can have a detrimental impact in terms of both learning and their mental health and wellbeing.
Despite the best efforts of schools to keep children learning from home, we know that none the less some children from certain backgrounds and with certain challenges have faced a much more difficult time in accessing online learning, not least because even as schools returned last week the Department for Education was just about scraping in with its own target of getting laptops and devices out to children and young people. Tens of thousands of children are still without the devices they needed, and hundreds of thousands of children are receiving the devices far later than they should have.
None the less, there have been some concerns about safety in the classroom, both from children and young people and from staff working in schools. We believe that the Government really should have done a lot more a lot sooner on that front. I am delighted to see mass testing being rolled out and I hope that it continues to be a success in the way that we have heard described in this debate. Indeed, we called for mass testing to be rolled out late last year, so it is disappointing that it took until this point in 2021 for mass testing to be rolled out.
We also think that the Government missed a significant opportunity to vaccinate all school staff during the half-term. President Biden’s Administration are currently in the process of vaccinating teachers. We were pushing for that not simply on the grounds of safety but because, as I think we are already beginning to see, there is still a challenge of keeping children in school learning. One of the biggest challenges that headteachers had, particularly when schools returned in September, was staff shortages, with teachers going off sick themselves. We think that the Government ought to have vaccinated all staff, and we regret that that has not happened.
I am afraid to say that we still see too many examples of schools being short-changed when it comes to safety measures. Indeed, schools in my constituency have written to me because the funding that they have shelled out for personal protective equipment and other safety measures is not being reimbursed by the Department for Education. What does that mean? It means headteachers robbing Peter to pay Paul—taking funding from one area of the school budget and putting it into these extraordinary safety measures. That is a source of deep regret.
Jonathan Gullis
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the schools that were in sound financial places pre-pandemic have been hit hardest when it comes to the financial support that they have received, which has been very little. That has meant that a lot of them have ended up eating into their reserves and their positive bank balances. Does he agree that those schools, which will now be judged by Ofsted and could potentially receive an inadequate rating for their finances, need to be reimbursed, particularly when cleaning costs in some schools are up to £4,000 a month?
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that these are cross-party concerns should tell the Minister that there is a problem here that still needs to be addressed. These are extraordinary, one-off costs. I want to see every penny of schools’ budgets being directed to learning and teaching, and providing the support that pupils need, not least given the disruption to their education over the last year. It is regrettable if headteachers are having to raid budgets that would normally be going towards pupils’ education to fund safety measures. I hope the Minister will take that point away and reconsider.
I want to address the points about exams. Before I do that, I am afraid I have to start disagreeing with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). He made a number of partisan attacks on the National Education Union, which was not helpful. We are in the middle of a national crisis and education unions, whether they are representing teaching staff, support staff or staff in leadership positions, have a responsibility to speak up for the concerns of their members.
Whether it is the National Education Union, the Association of School and College Leaders, the National Association of Head Teachers, NASUWT, the Voice section of Community, Unite, Unison or the GMB, all of whom represent staff in schools, they have tried to convey the concerns of their members in a responsible way, to which we, as policy makers, should pay attention. That does not mean that we always agree with them; indeed, there have been points during the pandemic when we have not been on the same page as the National Education Union and where the unions have not been on the same page as each other. That is the nature of representative trade unions representing the concerns of their members.
Given the extraordinary challenges we have seen and the level of stress and anxiety faced by staff, what we have had from the education unions during the pandemic has been measured—sometimes robust, but none the less measured—reflections of their members’ concerns. I do not think it is helpful to attack them in the way we have just seen.
I turn to the issue of exams and what needs to be done. The overarching message is that the Minister and the Department have to learn lessons from the mistakes that they have been making throughout the pandemic. First and foremost, we want to avoid a repeat of last year’s shambles. The Government’s grading algorithm was an unmitigated disaster. About 40% of teacher A-level predictions in England were downgraded by the algorithm. Pupils from working-class backgrounds were more likely to have seen a bigger downward adjustment from the algorithm than those from more affluent backgrounds, and the attainment gap between pupils on free school meals and those who were not got significantly higher in terms of the number of A grades received.
There is something to learn from that whole miserable experience in terms of how the Secretary of State for Education himself handled it. He put alternatives to the algorithm in place at the very last minute and announced that the system would be switched to a triple lock before Ofqual had signed it off. Indeed, Ofqual was told about the plan only on 11 August, two days before results day— talk about lastminute.com. Through his triple lock, the Education Secretary said students could use a valid mock, but he did not direct Ofqual to consider what might constitute a valid mock until results day itself. Again, that is not just last minute, but after the event. Only after several days of chaos did the Education Secretary relent and revert to using unstandardised centre assessed grades.
Having had that awful experience and put young people and their teachers through real chaos and anxiety after A-level results day, the Government have been slow again to plan for this year’s exams, even after last year’s shambles. It was not until October last year that the Government announced a three-week delay for exams in 2021. We said then that the Government ought to have a plan B in place just in case exams could not take place—if the spread of the virus was such that exams as usual could not happen—but the Government did not act. Even when the Government cancelled exams in January, they still did not have a plan B. That should have been done months before, as we had called for.
There was also the BTEC fiasco. We had just an appalling situation in which, even as the Education Secretary announced that all schools were to close at the beginning of January—having just summoned millions of children back into school for the day—he caused additional stress and confusion by insisting that BTEC exams to be taken that month, and indeed some that week, ought to go ahead.
Jonathan Gullis
With regard to BTECs, will the hon. Gentleman not agree that even though students were brought in for those exams, they were actually for courses and subjects in which exams are required to have been taken in order for them to get the qualification and therefore give employers the confidence that they have the necessary skills to carry out their duties? It is something that they legally have to do. A subject such as English or maths is obviously a very different thing altogether.
Wes Streeting
The problem with the BTEC handling back in January was that the Department was saying two things at the same time. It was saying that these BTEC exams were going ahead, but then, following an outcry and concerns about whether that would be safe, it said:
“In light of the evolving public health measures”—
I am quoting from the DFE statement—
“schools and colleges can continue with the vocational and technical exams that are due to take place in January, where they judge it right to do so.”
That just added to the confusion and chaos. The issue was not just pupils sitting at home, trying to prepare for exams that were taking place literally the next day or in the coming days; it was also that their teachers were unable to give clear answers. This goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North raised about the invidious position that school leaders and teachers have been put in by the chaos and confusion and dither and delay that have come out of the DFE. They were not clear on what was going on—the communication was poor for them—so the very people to whom students usually look to provide clear answers and strong advice and leadership simply were not able to provide it, through no fault of their own.
That left us in the absurd situation in which, according to the Education Secretary, about a third of colleges chose to continue with exams in January, while the rest did not. He then backtracked and cancelled BTEC exams in February and March. Again, he eventually got to the right decision, but why did he not see it coming and why could he not take decisive action in a way that told all students and all staff exactly where they stood and what he planned to do about it?
Let me turn now to some of the other challenges facing us ahead of assessments this summer. The first is on private candidates. There has been concern, throughout the changes to examinations, that about 20,000 private candidates not affiliated with schools and colleges this year will be disadvantaged. Many students have been told that they have to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds for local exam centres and schools to assess them, and schools do not necessarily have the resources to do that. Again, more for the benefit of people watching the debate than people in the Chamber, I point out that we are not talking about privately educated students; we are talking about private candidates, who are entering themselves privately for examinations. Many of these private candidates are students who were not happy with their centre assessed grades last year. They feel that they are being denied the opportunity to take exams and prove that they deserve better grades. They are worried about whether they are even going to get a centre to take them on.
I acknowledge that today there has been an announcement from the Department that schools will receive a subsidy for every private candidate who is entered for a qualification. I think that that will go some way to incentivising centres to take these students on. I am concerned that, in relation to a very small number of subjects but none the less a number of subjects, the fees to enter students for these exams are more than the £200 that I think the Department is offering. Could the Minister speak to that point in particular?
I wonder, because this is the question that we are getting from students, what consideration the Department and Ofqual gave to allowing private candidates to sit some form of exams. The Minister will understand that the concern of these students is that a system that relies on teacher assessment will be inherently disadvantageous or, perhaps, practically impossible if the centre does not have a relationship with the private candidates.
These are just some of the quotes that I have from private candidates expressing their concerns. One told PoliticsHome:
“With the promise of 2021 exams, I was hopeful that I could redeem myself in my other two A Levels…It’s clear that the government thinks of us as afterthoughts…We’re not just going to sit back whilst they toy with our futures. We want a solution that works for everybody.”
Another student who was downgraded last year said:
“I decided to put my life on hold for another year and resit my exams this summer as the university kindly reinstated my offer. I made the decision not to give up on my dreams and not settle for a grade I strongly believed was too low. I put an extreme amount of effort into revising everyday so that I am able to move on…I am absolutely devastated for private and resit candidates that exams have been cancelled again this year as they are, in vast majority of cases, not able to get a [teacher-assigned] grade.”
Will the Minister explain to those students the practical challenges of their being able to sit an exam? What reassurance can he provide that they will be able to sign up with another school, college or assessment centre and receive a properly validated grade that reflects their abilities and efforts in the way that they hope, as students who are resitting?
My final point about this year’s exams is about the immense pressure that we are already beginning to see inflicted on teachers and headteachers as a result of the appeals system that seems to have been outlined in the guidance. One of my own secondary schools wrote to me quoting the guidance, which says:
“To reduce the number of errors made and, in turn the volume of appeals, centres will be expected to tell their students the evidence on which their grades will be based, before the grades are submitted to exam boards. This will allow issues associated with, for example, absence, illness or reasonable adjustments to be identified and resolved before grades are submitted.”
There is something to commend in the approach that students must understand the basis on which they are being judged—of course, that is absolutely right. It is also absolutely right that mitigating factors ought to be taken into account, and in a transparent way. However, I think we are all concerned about the implication that pupils or pushy parents with sharp elbows will be able to—picking up on reasonable adjustments in particular—effectively demand from teachers and headteachers different grades from the ones the teacher has judged to be right. That puts schools in a really invidious position.
By the way, this should be regarded as a gentle warning to those who regularly make demands for a whole series of exams to be scrapped that the grass is not always greener on the other side. This is not to say that teacher judgment cannot play a role, but leaving a system significantly to teacher judgment in the way that this has been puts enormous pressure on teachers. My concern is that it will also bake in deeper disadvantage because sharp-elbowed middle-class parents will be in there demanding adjustments to grades, and other parents will not. I wonder what the Minister might say in response to that, in terms of the approach to this year’s exams.
Finally, on next year’s exams, if the Education Secretary has not learned from the absolute fiasco last summer and the absolute fiasco in January, and the completely last-minute way in which he made a decision about exams in 2021, please, for the love of God, I hope he has made some judgments about exams in 2022. We already have students on GCSE, A-level and BTEC courses expecting to sit exams in 2022. There is simply no good reason why the Department for Education and Ofqual should not be able to tell those students what exams in 2022 will look like.
Indeed, Ofqual’s acting chief regulator, Simon Lebus, told the Education Committee last week:
“So far as 2022 is concerned, the thinking at the moment is about adaptations along the line that had originally been contemplated for this year, when exams were still to go ahead.”
Furthermore, the Minister for School Standards said:
“We are working now on what decisions we will take for 2022, because we know there has been disruption, but we will have more to say on that later in the year.”
I am afraid that “later in the year” is really not good enough. It is really inexplicable—these issues and the choices available to exam boards and Ministers about mitigations and adjustments to exams are well known and were debated and discussed ahead of exams potentially taking place in 2021. Why are these decisions not ready to go? Why are we not providing clarity and certainty to schools, teachers and students, who are crying out for them? I find it unfathomable that we are not providing clear instruction and guidance to students who are on these courses right now, wondering what they should be studying for and towards, and what their exams will look like.
Of course, adjustments are necessary. Looking at the Department’s own data, we estimated that year 10 pupils have missed one in eight days of GCSE teaching. The situation may not be quite so severe at A-level because we always expect there to be a greater degree of independent learning, but none the less there will be some degree of learning loss, and we know that the challenges faced by students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds will be greater.
Last week, I met school leaders from Newham sixth forms. Both the principals present were very clear that scant information is coming from the Government and that they need certainty now. Uncertainty is piling on the pressure facing pupils and their teachers. The longer Ministers dither and delay, the harder it will be to make meaningful adjustments for exams to go ahead in a way that is fair to all pupils.
Ministers need to learn from their mistakes and act sooner, rather than later. If the Education Secretary did not feel battered and bruised from his previous encounters with exams, and motivated to do something different, something earlier and something decisive, there really is no hope for him.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Minister, you will need to leave a couple of minutes for Mr Hunt to wind up.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Robertson.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on how he opened the debate. I am sure he will join me in recognising the enormous professionalism and commitment of school staff working in our schools and with their students throughout the lockdown to continue education and progress towards assessments, whether students were being taught on site or remotely.
Today we are debating four petitions and it is worth noting that the context has changed significantly since they were first submitted. Two of them are about school reopening for the majority of pupils and students. One requests a delay to full opening until May and the other requests that schools in what were previously tier 4 areas remain closed to the majority of pupils.
Secondly, there are two petitions focusing on exams. One requests that BTECs be assessed by teacher-predicted grades, while the other requests cancellation of the 2021 GCSE and A-level exams. Finally, I want to outline higher education recovery plans, to demonstrate the further work being developed to help pupils and students to recover any lost learning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is right that we need to be cautious about over-generalising about how children have fared during lockdown. He is also right to raise the issue of special educational needs and the impact of covid on the most vulnerable children. Special schools, of course, have mostly been open to pupils during lockdown. We have consistently prioritised specialist settings in our recovery premiums. Both special schools and alternative provision will be funded to provide summer schools and the national tutoring programme. We have also announced a £42 million package of continued support for children with SEND and their families during this difficult period.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) raised the issue of pupil mental health. We know that the pandemic is impacting children’s mental health and that, for most pupils, time out of school will have limited their social interaction. That is why the Government are continuing to prioritise mental health and wellbeing support for children and staff as they return to school. The Department has convened a mental health in education action group to consider how to support children and young people’s mental health as they return to school. That will build on the support provided through the Wellbeing for Education Return training programme.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked about face coverings. We have published a summary of the evidence as schools opened. They are one more measure in a system of controls designed to reduce the risk of transmission of the virus. SAGE has advised that face coverings can be effective in reducing transmission in public and community settings. Their effectiveness stems mostly from reducing the emission of virus-carrying particles when worn by an infected person.
Although some have been anxious about the return to school from 8 March, returning to face-to-face education in schools and colleges is a national priority. The return to school last week was a huge success, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) celebrated in his remarks. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the teachers and support staff who have worked so hard in preparing schools, as well as in providing remote education while most pupils were at home.
I saw first-hand, on the Friday before the schools opened on 8 March, a school in Portsmouth preparing for that return—getting children tested, even in the week before schools opened, in a systematic and organised way. On Monday, I visited a primary school in Streatham and saw the joy on the children’s faces as they returned to school and to being with their friends.
There is clear evidence that time out of education can be detrimental to children’s future prospects and earning potential, with implications also for the long-term productivity of the economy. By February half-term, the Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that the total loss in face-to-face education time was half a normal school year for children right across the UK. Despite huge efforts across industry and the Government to ensure that all pupils had appropriate technology for remote teaching, such as the 1.2 million laptops and tablets that have been delivered to date to schools, trusts and local authorities, pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately affected by the lack of digital equipment and study space to participate effectively.
Younger pupils have also found it more challenging to engage in remote education. Schools, teachers and parents have worked tirelessly to continue the education of their pupils and students, but there is no substitute for time with a qualified teacher. The negative effects are also likely to extend beyond educational attainment, with NHS research suggesting that one in six young people may now have a mental health problem, up from one in nine in 2017.
The vaccination roll-out has been successful: 24 million people in this country have been vaccinated and, as Sam Freedman has pointed out, in countries of over 10 million people we are the world’s leader by a margin in having such a successful roll-out. That success means that infections and hospitalisations are falling, paving the way for the safe and gradual lifting of restrictions. We are also heading into the spring, when we would expect the prevalence of respiratory diseases to fall.
Although restrictions on attendance in schools have been removed, other restrictions remain in place to ensure that transmission rates remain low across the country. It is hugely important, of course, that we all continue to obey those restrictions. In addition, schools will continue to implement protective measures as set out in the system of controls. Regular testing of children further reduces the risk of transmission in schools.
In relation to remaining open in areas previously categorised as tier 4, as mentioned in one of the petitions, I note that we are seeing significant decreases in cases across almost all parts of the country and all age groups. In the absence of significant regional disparity, the Government decided to ease restrictions at the same time across the whole of England. Due to the current, relatively uniform spread of the virus across the country, the four steps out of lockdown set out in the road map are designed to apply to all regions.
We have been clear, however, that the return is dependent on the data against the four tests, as set out in the road map. The road map therefore gives indicative “no earlier than” dates for the steps, which are five weeks apart. Those dates are wholly contingent on the data and are subject to change if those four tests are not met.
I turn to exams. We did not want to cancel exams in either 2020 or 2021. We believe that exams are the best and fairest form of assessment for students to show what they know and what they can do. It was only in the unprecedented circumstances of the outbreak of covid that we had to make the very difficult decision to cancel exams as part of the wider measures to protect public health. This year, under different circumstances, the decision that exams could no longer go ahead as planned was made to ensure fairness among an exam cohort who had received differing amounts of face-to-face education, given the further disruption to students’ education in January and the varying need in different parts of the country to self-isolate during the autumn term. This summer, we will trust teachers’ professional judgment to award grades based on a range of evidence.
We worked on the contingency for exams being cancelled during the autumn term, which is why Ofqual and the DFE were able to consult on the details of the alternative to exams on 15 January, just 11 days after the announcement of the lockdown. Ofqual launched a joint consultation with the DFE on 15 January, with details of how grades would be awarded, the quality assurance approaches that we would be taking and details of the appeals process. We have received more than 100,000 responses to the consultation, over half of which were from students. Students will now receive grades determined by their teachers, with assessments covering what they were taught, not what they missed. Teachers have a good understanding of their students’ performance and how they compare with other students this year and in previous years.
We have given teachers the flexibility to use a range of evidence, including through the use of optional questions by exam boards, mock exams, non-exam assessment for coursework and in-class tests. My hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich and for Stoke-on-Trent North asked for the exam material to be a mandatory part of the range of evidence that teachers will use to support the grade that they submit. We asked in the consultation whether such materials should be compulsory, and the optionality option was the overwhelming response. As I said last week to the Select Committee, we did not want to introduce a mini-exam by the back door, having just cancelled exams because they were not a fair way to assess people’s qualifications.
We want teachers to feel supported while making their decisions and will provide guidance to enable them to make assessments fairly and consistently. There will be internal and external quality assurance processes to identify errors and make consistent judgments. To support students who believe that their final grade is wrong, there will be a right to appeal. We also want to be fair to all students, regardless of the type of qualification they are taking.
We announced on 25 February the arrangements this summer for awarding vocational and technical qualifications that are similar to GCSEs and A-levels and that use progression to further or higher education. External exams for those qualifications are not viable; instead, results will be awarded through similar arrangements to those for GCSEs and A-levels. There will be teacher-assessed grades, and many BTECs will therefore receive teacher-assessed grades as well. Functional skills qualifications are unlike GCSEs and VTQs in their qualification and assessment structure. They are taken by a wide range of pupils and students, including adults. Some VTQ courses are much smaller than those for GCSE and can be taken on demand when the students are ready. Therefore, all efforts should be made to allow pupils and students to take an assessment in line with public health measures or remotely. Where that is not possible, teacher-assessed grades will be made available for awarding.
Where students are taking vocational qualifications to enter employment directly and where technical competence needs to be demonstrated, exams and assessments will continue in line with public health measures. That is so that students can demonstrate the necessary occupational or professional standard and start work in a safe way.
The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) raised the issue of private candidates. We are determined to ensure that private candidates can receive a grade this year. We are capping the fees that centres can charge and subsidising the extra costs that schools will face in assembling the evidence to support a grade. The Joint Council for Qualifications will shortly publish a list of schools and colleges that will provide support to private candidates in being awarded a qualification.
We recognise that extended school and college restrictions have had a substantial impact on children and young people’s education, and we are committed to helping pupils to make up any education lost as a result of the pandemic. No pupil’s long-term prospects should suffer as a consequence of what has happened over the last year. In January 2021, the Prime Minister committed to working with parents, teachers and schools to develop a long-term plan to support schools and pupils to make up that lost education. As part of this, in February we appointed Sir Kevan Collins as the education recovery commissioner, to advise on the approach to education recovery and the development of a long-term plan to help pupils make up lost education.
As an immediate step, we have made available funding of £1.7 billion to support education recovery. In June 2020, we announced, as part of that £1.7 billion, a £1 billion catch-up package, including a national tutoring programme and a catch-up premium for this academic year. In February, we committed a further £702 million to fund summer schools, expand our tutoring programme and fund a recovery premium for the next academic year. That £702 million is also part of the £1.7 billion. Over this Parliament, as we continue to learn and understand what more is needed to help students to recover lost education, we will ensure that support is delivered in a way that works for young people and for the sector.
The return to school on 8 March was, rightly, the first step in our road map to recovery and it has been successfully delivered, thanks to education staff across the country, with primary attendance high and secondary school attendance rising steadily throughout the week. We will continue to be led by the data when taking each step in the road map, and there are contingencies in place if any actions need to be taken in the event of extremely high prevalence of coronavirus over the coming months. GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels have been cancelled for summer 2021, along with many BTECs and other VTQs, with students instead being awarded grades based on assessment by their teachers.
Education recovery is a firm focus of the Government, with the appointment of the education recovery commissioner and the announcement of increased funding to enable a variety of activities to help with refreshing the academic and social lives of pupils and students. School and college staff have been asked rapidly to become IT experts, health and safety experts, test facilitators and examiners this year. I would like to finish by once again thanking them wholeheartedly for all their work, their commitment and their professionalism.
Tom Hunt
It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, as it was at the start. I thank the Minister for his response, which was comprehensive and certainly addressed many of the points that I raised. There is a problem with some petitions in particular, in that there has been a lot of water under the bridge, but a lot of hon. Members dwelled on the petition on exams and assessment. I hope that many of their concerns have been alleviated.
I appreciate that there was a consultation and that a decision was made that tests should not be mandatory, but I hope that means that any children who could benefit from a test do not feel that they are being shut out. If a child and/or their parents go to a teacher and say, “Look, we really do think that our child could benefit from having a test,” I hope that the teacher will be responsive and listen. I understand why it is not compulsory, but I hope there will be flexibility.
I hope that teachers exercise flexibility as well and are sensitive to the fact that not all children are the same, not all of them learn in the same way and some benefit more than others from exams. I am encouraged by a lot of what I have heard from the Minister, and from the recovery commissioner when he came to the Education Committee, about giving teachers flexibility and respecting that they often know best for their children and that the individual child needs to be at the heart of all this.
In terms of the teaching profession, the issues of recruitment and retention, which were issues before the pandemic, are obviously even greater now. I have been encouraged by some of the stats I have seen. The number of applications has gone up. In many senses we could say that the behaviour of certain unions has not helped, but in other respects we have often seen teachers acting heroically, in terms of the work they have put in to get their schools ready. Certainly, schools and teachers in my own constituency have worked to provide support beyond the academic. I mentioned Copleston High School in east Ipswich, which has set up a community pop-up shop to help children at the school, and some of the work that has been done is exceptional. In some senses, I think the way that people perceive the teaching profession has gone up, but those issues around teacher recruitment and retention are obviously very important and need to be looked at.
I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been to be an education Minister over the last year. No Government have been in this position before, and of course it is very easy to criticise. It is very easy to say, “Well, in hindsight, you should have done this and you should have done that.” That is not to say that the Government have not made mistakes. It is not to say that, on occasion, they could have been better with the comms. It is just to say that I think it is important that we recognise the huge challenge of what it must be to be an education Minister during this pandemic.
When I talk to parents and teachers, there have been occasions when we have had difficult conversations. They have criticised the Government, and they have criticised various things that have happened—January being one case, the algorithm being another—but I have to say that in the last couple of weeks I have had two conversations with two headteachers who have been incredibly complimentary about many of the things that have happened.
When we talk about the laptops getting out, bearing in mind the scale of the operational logistics, sadly there will be examples when not all that equipment got to where it needed to be, but I would also say that more often than not it has, and I have spoken to headteachers in my constituency who have been incredibly grateful for that, including the headteacher of Stoke High School, which probably has the most deprived catchment in Ipswich. He has had hundreds of laptops delivered, which have benefited children at that school. That is something that I also think needs to be recognised.
I know that there is a bit of a debate about the National Education Union, and I have to say that I probably sympathise with the interpretation of that particular issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). This has been an incredibly difficult situation for pupils, for teachers, for schools and for the Government, and I think that at various times the National Education Union could have acted in a much more constructive way, but unfortunately it has not. Because of that, I think it has made a difficult situation even more difficult, and I think it has been motivated by political point-scoring far too much. I sometimes question whether schools would have been open at all over the last year if it had had its way. They probably would have been closed, and they would still be closed now.
When it comes to teachers being prioritised for a vaccine, I have to say that I was sympathetic to the arguments, particularly before it became clear what a huge success our vaccination programme is. I thought we just needed to get the schools open. If doing that helps the situation, let us go down that route. Publicly, I have sympathy for that view. I had one school in my constituency approach me to say, “Look, logistically, we think we can do it. We’ve got all the resources. If we can get the vaccine, we think we can vaccinate all teaching staff in Suffolk within two weeks.” I was open to working with that school. What was really interesting is that this all ended up in the Mail on Sunday, and there were some quotes in there from the NEU, totally dismissing it.
Here is an example of people in the education sector wanting to roll their sleeves up and say, “Right, let’s do this,” and just being shot down by the NEU, which effectively said that all teaching staff need both doses. That was my interpretation of what it was saying. If it had had its way, there would not be any schools open until every single member of the teaching staff had had two doses—how long would that take?
There has been anxiety from teachers in my constituency about the fact that they have not been prioritised for the vaccine. They have made it clear to me that, heading up to 8 March, that was one of their key concerns, but I think that with each day and each week that goes by, and given the remarkable progress that we are making as a country in the number of people we are vaccinating, those concerns are being alleviated. As we vaccinate more people in their 50s, and soon those in their 40s, most teaching staff who would have been more vulnerable to the virus have been vaccinated as part of the general process anyway. I think that is to be recognised, as is the fact that we are doing so much better than almost any other country in the world.
On the whole, we need consistency and clarity going forward, particularly on next year’s assessments, as the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) mentioned. We should provide clarity and consistency as early as possible. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said about having a national test to get a much better understanding of the extent to which there has been learning loss, and for each child, because we cannot make assumptions about what their particular experience has been.
We have a huge challenge ahead of us, but I am confident that the Government are very aware of that. I hope that the petitioners who signed these petitions, though perhaps not looking at this debate and thinking—
Written Statements
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Single-source Defence Contracts
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am today announcing that I have set the baseline profit rate for single-source defence contracts at 8.31%, in line with the rate recommended by the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO). The baseline profit rate is calculated on a three-year rolling average of underlying profit rates. The underlying profit rate decreased from 8.23% for 2020-21 to 8.19% for 2021-22.1 have accepted the methodology used by the SSRO to calculate these figures. Element 2020 Rates 2021 Rates Baseline Profit Rate (BPR) (% on contract cost) 8.22% 8.31% Baseline Profit Rate to apply to contracts between the Secretary of State and a company wholly owned by the UK Government and where both parties agree (% on contract cost) N/A 0.057% Fixed Capital Servicing Rate (% on Fixed Capital employed) 3.66% 3.27% Working Capital Servicing Rate (% on positive Working Capital employed) 1.22% 1.33% Working Capital Servicing Rate (% on negative Working Capital employed) 0.61% 0.65% SSRO Funding Adjustment 0.052% 0.057%
In addition to the main rate, I am announcing an additional baseline profit rate of 0.057%. This will only apply to qualifying defence contracts where:
i. the contract is between Secretary of State and a company incorporated under the Companies Act that is wholly owned by the UK Government; and
ii. both parties to the contract agree that it should apply.
The intention is that this rate can be used to set contract profit rates at a rate that does not result in such companies making a profit, should it not be appropriate for them to do so. Application of the five further steps set out in section 17 of the Defence Reform Act 2014 may result in a rate that is slightly different from zero on individual contracts.
Setting this additional rate diverges from the SSRO’s recommendation. The SSRO has welcomed the intention to bring contracts into the regime where it is appropriate that the contractor does not make a profit. This will enable the pricing and transparency provisions of the regulatory framework to be applied to both the contract and relevant subcontracts, which provisions are intended to assist the Government to obtain value for money and contractors to be paid fair and reasonable prices.
I am also announcing new capital servicing rates and an SSRO funding adjustment as recommended by the SSRO, which can be found at Table 1 below. These rates have been published in the London Gazette, as required by the Defence Reform Act 2014.
All of these new rates will come into effect from 1 April 2021.
[HCWS846]
Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I am pleased to announce Mr David Neal’s appointment as the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The appointment has been made in accordance with the UK Borders Act 2007 and in line with the Governance Code on Public Appointments, following a fair and open competition. The appointment will be for a fixed term of three years. Mr Neal will take up post on 22 March 2021.
David Neal was appointed by HM The Queen as the Provost Marshal (Army) and commanded the 1st Military Police Brigade from 2016 until 2019. He led the Royal Military Police through major reforms including the Service Justice System Review, and was responsible for Operation Northmoor, the Royal Military Police investigation into allegations of illegal killings by British troops in Afghanistan.
[HCWS848]
Future Trading Relationship with Australia
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The fourth round of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with Australia took place between Monday 22 February and Friday 5 March. During the two weeks, negotiators held 51 negotiation sessions, covering 27 different chapter areas. In total, we have had 170 sessions since launching negotiations in July 2020.
Both the negotiation teams shared text and additional proposals before the round, including on digital, labour and technical barriers to trade, allowing negotiators to enhance their substantive conversations. From this, negotiators were able to build mutual understanding, and make further progress consolidating texts in most chapter areas. Focused engagement has enabled negotiators to provisionally identify shared ambition and remaining points of divergence to work through ahead of the next round.
Good progress has been made in areas including customs, rules of origin, and professional services. The majority of text has been agreed in chapters on good regulatory practice, as well as small to medium-sized enterprises. Development in the latter reflects the commitment of both Australia and the UK to ensuring businesses of all sizes can benefit from the FTA.
Some text was agreed in cross-border trade in services. Negotiators were also able to hold technical discussions on mobility, international maritime transport services, express delivery services and domestic regulation.
Meanwhile, progress was also made on procurement and digital, with parts of the text agreed. In addition, there were productive discussions on the innovation chapter.
Discussions were taken forward on investment, where we hope to include provisions which further enhance our strong bilateral relationship, building on the UK’s position as the second largest direct investor in Australia and the second largest recipient of Australian foreign direct investment in 2019.
The Australia and UK negotiation teams have also planned an intensive period of intersessional discussions in the coming weeks to continue this momentum ahead of a fifth round of talks.
Below is a summary list of the areas discussed in the round, which continued to take place by video conference:
Anti-corruption
Competition
Customs and trade facilitation
Development
Digital/e-commerce
Environment and clean growth
Financial services
Good regulatory practice
Innovation
Intellectual property
Investment
Labour
Legal and institutional provisions
Government procurement
Rules of origin
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
Services, including movement of natural persons, professional services, international maritime transport services and delivery services.
Small and medium-sized enterprises
State-to-state dispute settlement
Technical barriers to trade
Telecommunications
Trade and women’s economic empowerment
Trade in goods
Transparency
Any deal the UK Government agree will be fair and balanced and in the best interests of the whole of the UK. As we will in all negotiations, we remain committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, product and food safety, and animal welfare standards in our trade agreement with Australia, as well as protecting the national health service (NHS).
[HCWS845]
National Bus Strategy: England (Outside London)
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Today the Government have published “Bus Back Better”, the long-term national bus strategy for England outside London.
Our strategy will deliver better bus services for passengers across England, through ambitious and far-reaching reform of how services are planned and delivered. The Prime Minister’s announcement of transformational funding—a combined £5 billion for buses, cycling and walking—in February last year demonstrated the Government’s commitment to buses and active travel. Following publication in June 2020 of “Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking”, today’s publication explains how buses will be transformed.
Buses are our most used form of public transport but, even before covid-19, they faced challenges. There are pockets of good bus performance outside London, but far too many places have fallen behind. Turning this around is central to this Government’s objectives of reaching net-zero and levelling up.
Covid-19 has had a significant impact on buses, as with all transport. It gives urgency to the strategy, but also an opportunity. Dealing with the emergency fostered greater co-operation between bus operators and local authorities, which we can build on. We know that wherever and whenever bus patronage grows, there are bus operators and local government working together to deliver improvements for passengers. We want this for all passengers, and the strategy sets out that we want every local transport authority and bus operator in England to be in a statutory enhanced partnership or a franchising arrangement, using existing powers in the Bus Services Act 2017. We will make £25 million available straightaway to develop these.
The developing partnerships will be asked to produce robust and ambitious bus service improvement plans by the end of October 2021. We will expect the plans to set out a road map to better services for passengers and communities, urban and rural, and be fully informed by local needs.
The strategy also sets out our ambitious road map to a zero-emission bus fleet, including a commitment that we will consult on ending the sale of new diesel buses. This will bring buses into line with other vehicles—we have already announced ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.
Disabled people rely on bus services more than most and the strategy confirms our continuing commitment to supporting an inclusive transport system. One of the strategy’s aims is to improve equality of opportunity, particularly for older and disabled people. We want to see improvement plans that drive improvement in accessibility for all. Disabled people should have the confidence to travel when and where they want to, and our plans ensure that bus services play their part in making that possible.
Alongside this, we have also announced today that 17 rural and suburban communities will see an additional investment of £20 million from the Government’s rural mobility fund to trial innovative on-demand services that are able to get closer to where people live and at a time convenient for them—another example of the Government’s work to level-up transport infrastructure across the country.
I am placing a copy of the national bus strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS847]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Oral Questions will now begin. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Racism
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 21 March, what steps they are taking to tackle (1) institutional, and (2) structural, racism in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this Government campaigned on commitments to tackle prejudice, racism and discrimination. That is why the Prime Minister established the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities last July, to examine all aspects of continuing racial and ethnic disparities in Britain. The commission has focused on areas including education, employment, health and the criminal justice system. The commission is currently finalising its report; this will be submitted to the Prime Minister shortly.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, Covid-19 has had a devastating and disproportionate impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. This disease has laid bare and exacerbated racial structural inequalities. Does the Minister agree that, when the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities reports in a few days’ time, it must include a Covid-19 race equality strategy, to comprehensively deal with inequalities in health, employment, education and housing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on 26 February we released a second report on the progress being made on tackling Covid-19 disparities experienced by individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds. I am sure this will be part of the outcomes of the commission that the Prime Minister will shortly receive.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the spotlight put on the levels of racism still found across all levels of society—public, private, civil society and institutions—will the Government, following the review, also review their own processes across Whitehall in order to root out all barriers that prevent people of colour accessing the same opportunities as their white colleagues? There seems to be a gap between those coming in at entry level and at senior and middle management. Will my noble friend meet with me and others who understand these issues very well, as someone who has had personal experience herself, to help shift the dial?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is correct, but the Government are campaigning on their commitments to tackle racism and discrimination. They are committed to increasing ethnic minority representation at senior levels within the Civil Service, across all government departments and their agencies. We have taken a number of clear steps in recent years that are already having a very positive impact. I am certainly very happy to discuss a meeting with my noble friend and the department.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, 22 years ago Sir William Macpherson declared the Metropolitan Police to be institutionally racist and the law was changed, but little has changed. The Guardian editorial today, in the light of Saturday’s grossly over-the-top and aggressive use of police power against women, states:
“The commissioner declared the service no longer institutionally racist, while a surge in stop and search has alienated many people of colour … this weekend, many more women and men are questioning whom exactly the police serve.”
Is it not time to abandon the unaccountable notion of operational independence and direct the police to abandon racist practices, notably stop and search?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, there was obviously, in the last few years, a large report on racism within the police. However, we will continue to work on this, and the commission will continue to look at what more we can do to ensure that all the systems—education, policing et cetera—have no racism in the future.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Office for National Statistics analysis in October 2020 showed that the ethnicity pay gap between white and ethnic minority employees has narrowed but persists, with marked regional variations. The largest is in London, at 23.8%, and the smallest is in Wales, at 1.4%. There are also gaps between ethnicities. Will the Minister consider amending legislation to impose a duty on employers to report the ethnicity pay gaps in parallel to those under Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the gender pay gap?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government are already looking at this issue and will report in due course. However, the important thing to note is that because of the pandemic we look at unemployment among all the people of this country, and for that aim there has been a £30 billion investment in the Plan for Jobs, which obviously will include looking at the issues that ethnic minorities have in particular.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
Institutional and structural racism is real and affects every aspect of black and minority ethnic people’s lives. A recent report showed that black women are still four times more likely than white women to die in pregnancy or childbirth in the UK, and that 85% of black people are not confident that they would be treated the same as a white person by the police. The Government seem to be taking a rather piecemeal approach. Will they take their responsibilities seriously, bring forward a plan for a comprehensive race equality strategy and, in doing so, implement the outstanding recommendations of the reviews that they commissioned, such as the 2016 Lammy review and the 2017 Angiolini review into deaths in police custody?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the race disparity unit has been supporting the Department of Health in driving positive actions in maternity services to improve, quite rightly, the outcomes for ethnic minority women, including the NHS Help Us Help You campaign. As I have said, the commission will bring all these issues together and we will look at moving that work forward on the back of all those reviews that we have had in the past, taking them all into account.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My noble friend Lady Lawrence’s recent report exploring the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus crisis on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities concluded that the virus has both exposed structural racism in the UK and itself fuelled racism. It was not just a random case of above-average infection rates; it was a result of decades of social and economic inequalities and of structural injustice, inequality and discrimination. When do the Government intend to publish the delayed report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities that was submitted to the Prime Minister on 28 February?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I have said, the commission has one final meeting to finalise its report. After that, the report will go to the Prime Minister and then it will come back for us to look at its recommendations.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, David Baddiel’s latest book is called Jews Don’t Count. Bigotry against Jews and Israel is rampant in our universities, from the top of the administrations through the academics to the students, as evidenced by the Community Security Trust. The problem is institutional—for example, at Bristol University right now. The Universities UK report last November on racial harassment ignored it. Will the Minister make sure that the Office for Students uses its current consultation on harassment on campus to bring forward plans to address anti-Semitism?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We certainly will, and I will take that back to the department on behalf of the noble Baroness.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in reality there is only one race: the human race. What steps are the Government taking to address the fact that, for the first time in six years, there are currently no chairmen or chairwomen, chief executives or finance directors in the FTSE 100 from the black community?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this issue is something that the Government have been working on with the private sector for a long time and will continue to do so, particularly on increasing the number of ethnic communities that are at the top of those organisations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend commend the work done to combat racism and discrimination in football through Kick It Out campaigning? I know the Government are supportive. Will she lend support to the many clubs campaigning to end discrimination, such as my own club, Leicester City?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate Leicester City on being third in the league and on their 5-0 win yesterday. My noble friend is right: racism or indeed any form of discrimination has no place in football or society, but there is still more to do. The Government continue to liaise closely with the football authorities to tackle this issue.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland
Lord Hay of Ballyore
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on businesses in Northern Ireland; and what progress they have made with the European Union in resolving any issues with that Protocol.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, while the UK Government have focused on pragmatic and proportionate implementation of the protocol, with extensive support for businesses, we are clear that further action is needed to address concerns about its operation. We continue to want to work with the EU to this end, focused at all times on restoring confidence across the communities of Northern Ireland.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP) [V]
My Lords, Northern Ireland is suffering real economic and social difficulties as a consequence of the Northern Ireland protocol creating new barriers to unfettered trade within the United Kingdom and disrupting supply lines for goods to Northern Ireland. While I welcome recent action taken by the Government to address some of these issues for the immediate future, such action will not address the long-term fundamental problems facing many businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland with this unworkable protocol. The Prime Minister needs to deliver on his promises to protect Northern Ireland’s position within the UK internal market and ensure unfettered access to goods from Great Britain. He needs to stand up for Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the longer-term solution will eventually be to use the sovereignty of Parliament to replace the protocol altogether?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, my Lords, I do not agree. The protocol is an important part of what we are working towards with Northern Ireland and the whole of the island. Therefore, we need to make sure the protocol will work and that all the communities of Ireland are in support of it.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
Can the Minister explain why the EU could possibly think it reasonable to ban from Northern Ireland food that is legal in the UK and was legal both in the UK and in the EU when we were members of the EU? If it is because we now have a democratic right to diverge in standards, would it not be more reasonable for the EU just to wait and see if any divergence actually happens?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as we have set out, we want to work with the EU on pragmatic, long-term arrangements for the east-west trade, and that includes ensuring a permanent solution for those things that are moving—chilled meats in particular—from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, at the time of Brexit, the Government announced that there would be 10 free ports in the United Kingdom. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer named eight of these free ports but not one was in Northern Ireland. We had expected Larne, Belfast or Warrenpoint to be selected. Is the Northern Ireland protocol imposed upon us by the European Union now a barrier to a free port being selected for Northern Ireland?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe it is, but there are other parts of the United Kingdom also asking why they do not have a free port. I will take the noble Lord’s question back and give him a fuller answer on the reasons this has happened.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, rather than the EU imposing the protocol upon us, the Prime Minister claimed ownership of it. For that reason, presumably he should try, in the short term, to make it work much better than it does at the moment. Rather than sniping at each other unilaterally, can the UK and the EU, together with the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive, through the Joint Committee and in other ways, find a consensual and practical way forward?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing. We remain committed to our obligations under the protocol, but with a pragmatic and proportionate way intended. That is why we have made the changes we have made, and that is why we will continue to talk not only with Europe and the European Union but all the communities of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, because of the Government’s unilateral actions regarding the protocol, the European Commission is set to launch legal proceedings for infringement. The European Parliament has postponed its ratification of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and decisions on data adequacy and financial services arrangements are put in jeopardy. Is it the Government’s strategy to wreck the Northern Ireland protocol and end up with no Trade and Cooperation Agreement, hence securing the no-deal they actually wanted but will try to blame on the EU?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, my Lords, it is not. We understand the commission will write letters of legal action, which we are considering, but we will defend our position vigorously. Our measures are all lawful.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, legal action for megaphone diplomacy will solve absolutely nothing. What is needed is proper dialogue, proper discussion and proper negotiation. There is not a scrap of evidence that any of those things is happening. Will the Minister agree to liaise with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and convene meetings with all the Northern Ireland political parties and their leaders as soon as possible? The only way through this is with the consent of all the communities and parties in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that that is the way forward, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, on Saturday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the Belfast News Letter that people in Northern Ireland are part of the United Kingdom and should enjoy the same products as people in the rest of the United Kingdom. I wholeheartedly support that position. Does my noble friend therefore agree that if the operation of the protocol is preventing that from happening, urgent change is required? Does she further agree that it is now EU intransigence on this subject that is destabilising the position in Northern Ireland and undermining unionist confidence in the Belfast agreement?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to respond to the outstanding concerns of the protocol, but we must be able to command confidence across the whole community, and that is why we have set out the need to take forward work here in the Joint Committee. All sides must take account of the political sensitivities and the realities on the ground.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Prime Minister made a welcome visit to Northern Ireland a few days ago, when he made it very clear that the protocol had to be supported by both communities. Does the Minister understand that the pro-union community and all three unionist parties in Northern Ireland totally oppose the protocol? Will she accept that tinkering will not change that view and that, ultimately, the protocol is not sustainable and will have to go?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, the Government do not agree with the noble Baroness. We are not tinkering; we are listening to businesses and putting in place obligations and changes so that businesses can survive and the communities of Northern Ireland have the exact same services as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the priority is, beyond doubt, the preservation of the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. It follows that there must be no hard border across the island of Ireland. Is a sea border between the EU and Great Britain possible? As we have Brexit, there will have to be a Northern Ireland protocol. That is why the protocol must be maintained, and we must ensure that it works by having continual meetings.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right; we must continue with meetings because the protocol is pragmatic and proportionate, and it takes account of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—north, south, east and west.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister knew, when he promised unfettered access during the election campaign, that that was untrue, which was even confirmed by the Government’s website at the time? Is not the reality, as other noble Lords have said, that the protocol can be maintained only by abandoning hostile diplomacy and unilateral sustained breaches of signed agreements and engaging in a constructive, long-term relationship to reduce friction that cannot simply be eliminated by Northern Ireland’s dual status?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am going to repeat myself again: the important thing with Northern Ireland is that we keep talking, both with the communities of the island and with the European Union, to make sure that this protocol works.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has, sadly, elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
India: Restrictions on Freedom
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of India about reports of that government restricting the freedoms of (1) non-governmental organisations, (2) academics, and (3) other groups.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, India and the UK have proud democratic traditions, and human rights form part of our dialogue. In December and January, my noble friend Lord Ahmad raised concerns about NGOs and human rights activists with the Indian high commissioner. In February, British high commission officials discussed university restrictions with the Ministry of External Affairs. On 3 March, senior FCDO officials discussed UK parliamentary interest in restrictions on civil society groups in India with the Indian high commissioner.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, to give just one of numerous examples, more than 24 Dalit rights activists are in jail on unproven charges, including an 80 year-old poet, Varavara Rao, and an 83 year-old Jesuit priest, Father Stan Swamy. When the Prime Minister’s proposed visit to India is reinstated, will he draw Mr Modi’s attention to the report of Freedom House published this week, in which India has been downgraded from a democratic, free society to one which is only “partly free”?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, our approach has always been to raise any concerns directly with the Indian Government. We will continue to engage India on the full range of human rights matters and raise our concerns where we have them—as we do—including at ministerial level.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, in my view these reports of restrictions on freedom of expression and organisation in India follow directly from the decision in 2019 to end the autonomy of the people of Kashmir and impose severe restrictions there, locking up political leaders and ending freedom of expression. Do the Government agree that India cannot claim to be the world’s largest democracy if it continues to restrict freedom of expression and freedom to organise? Will the Government make representations to India that, if it wants to be part of the democratic nations of the world, it must stick to these values rigidly?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
As one of the world’s largest democracies and one of the world’s oldest, India and the UK have a broad and deep relationship. Long may that continue. On Kashmir, India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the UK; we encourage both countries to engage in dialogue to find lasting diplomatic solutions to maintain regional stability. We are of course concerned by the lack of communication between India and Pakistan and its impact on tensions, but it is for them to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Government of India are reported to consider human rights there an internal matter. Does the noble Lord agree that lessons from the 20th century in particular show that it is vital that the world pays attention to human rights, even within borders? If so, what representations have been and are being made to the Government of India on the forced closure of Amnesty International India and the freezing of its accounts?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the right to peaceful protest is vital in any democracy and we encourage all states to ensure that their laws are in line with international standards. Any allegation of human rights violations is clearly very concerning and should be addressed. My noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised Amnesty International India’s case with the Indian high commissioner on 1 December and FCDO officials have raised our concerns with the Indian High Commission. Just a few weeks before, we requested in our representations that Amnesty’s accounts be unfrozen while the investigation is ongoing. We have noted the important role of NGOs in all democracies.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, until recently India has broadly upheld the democratic principles and traditions she inherited from the UK. It is now observable that the Indian Government have restructured some hitherto democratic freedoms in a number of areas, as the Question of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, implies. My question is whether it is the task of Her Majesty’s Government to raise this with the Indian Government, when the possible response might be that the UK is following a similar trend. It is also quite likely that the response will be that it is none of our business. Is this a major and not easily reversible stance?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope I caught the question adequately. I hate to repeat myself, but our approach has always been and will remain one which involves taking our concerns directly to the Government of India. We do this; we have many discussions and a close relationship. We will continue to engage on the full range of concerns that have been raised on this Question and on others. We have always taken that approach and will continue to take it, as we feel it yields the greatest possible results.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, in the interests of cricket and fair play, does the Minister share my concern about the use of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act and its very damaging effect on civil society and the mainstream aid agencies? Will HMG continue to complain regularly to the Modi Government about the imprisonment of journalists and the fear of persecution felt by non-Hindu minorities, Dalit activists, NGOs and all those campaigning against human rights violations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK is committed to media freedom, democracy and human rights all around the world. Independent media is a prerequisite to any vibrant democracy such as the UK and India. We regularly engage with India’s vibrant media, including through the annual South Asia Journalism Fellowship programme under our flagship Chevening brand. This year we are supporting the Thomson Reuters Foundation to run workshops covering issues such as human trafficking, child labour and more. In July, my noble friend Lord Ahmad discussed the UK’s commitment to promoting media freedom through the Media Freedom Coalition with India’s Minister for External Affairs.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the strong relationship with India, built on trust and mutual respect, should give us the confidence to play the role of a critical friend. That means stressing the importance of a free civil society in a democracy. Can the Minister say whether the Prime Minister will raise this issue not just through our connections with Ministers but with Prime Minister Modi at the G7?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister will visit India shortly. That will be an opportunity to discuss a very wide range of bilateral and multilateral issues directly with the Indian Government. Of course, where we have specific concerns, the Prime Minister will raise them directly with the Government of India, as you would expect of a close friend and partner.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, many reputable human rights organisations, including the UN Human Rights Council and Amnesty International, have reported that the Indian army in Kashmir is involved in illegal detentions, torture, rape and murder, with complete impunity under the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. Tens of thousands of political workers and leaders, including Shabir Shah and Asiya Andrabi, have been held in prison without trial for decades under another notorious law called the public safety Act. Can the Minister tell us whether our Prime Minister will make any representations to the Government of India to withdraw these draconian laws and free all Kashmiri political prisoners?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I believe that the former Chief Ministers who have been detained under the public safety Act have now been released. We welcome the Indian Government’s assurances that all those detained under the so-called preventive measures since August 2019 have now been released. We will continue to raise our concerns with the Indian Government where we have them.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is very sad to see the retrograde steps being taken towards civil society in India and how NGOs are being shut down there. I speak as a former member of the UK-India round table, a bilateral organisation that fostered free and frank discussion on such issues between our two countries. It had a successful track record of achieving progress but in 2014, almost as the then Chancellor, George Osborne, visited India and said “Let us link hands” and “Embrace the future together”, the round table was abandoned. Would the Government consider re-establishing this organisation that fostered strong links between our two countries at a level below government where people could actually speak freely?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, India—as the world’s largest and, as I say, one of the oldest democracies—and the UK have a very deep and broad relationship. Our trade and investment partnership is thriving, and we collaborate on defence and security. Together we are a force for good in the world. The unique “living bridge” that George Osborne described at the time, including a 1.5 million-strong Indian diaspora in the UK, connects our countries across sport, culture, food and more. During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to India in December, he agreed with his counterpart the key elements of the 10-year UK-India road map to deliver a step change in ambition for our relationships. We regard ourselves as friends, but as critical friends. We look forward to taking this plan forward into 2021.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Prisons: Self-harm Among Women Prisoners
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Eaton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the level of self-harm among women prisoners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, we are determined to reduce the level of self-harm in the women’s estate. We have established a women’s estate self-harm task force to address this. Alongside interventions to mitigate the impact of Covid-19, such as increased video calls with loved ones, the task force is co-ordinating longer-term work—including the introduction of key workers, expanding therapeutic services and improving gender-specific training—to address the factors driving self-harm in the women’s estate.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Female offenders are more vulnerable than male offenders and benefit from help and guidance from social workers. One of the recommendations in the Farmer review of female offenders published in 2019 was to have a social worker based in all prisons to support vulnerable women. What progress has been made to achieve this?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. We are working to improve the availability of social work in prisons. She will be aware, of course, that at the moment all prisons are hampered by the Covid-19 pandemic in what they can provide. However, for example, we have been able to reintroduce chaplaincy into prisons at a very significant level, and the relevant authorities are trying to ensure that all services, including social workers, can be reintroduced as well.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the levels of reported self-harm are extremely concerning. Five and half years ago my review, Changing Prisons, Saving Lives, found that the despair that led to self-harm and suicide was exacerbated by prisoners being isolated without access to purposeful activity and sufficient contact with their families. Over the last year, what proportion of time have women prisoners been on regimes that meant that they were locked in their cells for 23 hours or more a day? What has been the impact of Covid on the number of face-to-face contacts they have had with their families?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord asked two questions. On the first point, during the Covid pandemic, prison estates have tried to put in regimes which are as generous as possible given the surrounding circumstances. He will be aware, like everybody in this House, that those circumstances have changed rapidly from time to time, so the figures are not available because the data cannot accurately capture that constantly changing picture. So far as contact with family members is concerned, we have doubled the amount of phone credit given to prisoners, and we have introduced “purple visits”—video calls—so that prisoners can see their families and loved ones as well.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that correct nutrition can have a considerable impact on those considering self-harm? In asking this, I must declare an interest as president of the Institute for Food, Brain & Behaviour, one of whose fellows published an article on the subject as long ago as 1976.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, nutrition is obviously an important part of the picture, and perhaps it is a wider point than the noble Lord identifies. People come into prison having suffered from poor nutrition, which reminds us that a lot of them are self-harming before they come into prison. Self-harm is not just something which happens in prison; it is a problem brought into prison from outside as well.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, we hear that self-harm by women in prison today has increased by an alarming 8%. We know too that 60% of women in prison today have experienced domestic abuse. The vast majority in prison are held for non-violent offences on short custodial sentences, and many of these women go on to reoffend—a destructive and costly cycle. Does the Minister agree that short custodial orders should be a last resort and that we must seek alternatives, where appropriate, within the community? Will he inform the House on the progress made to pilot five residential women’s centres, as set out in the Government’s Female Offender Strategy?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend’s first question is yes. The reason is that women generally commit less serious offences than men; therefore they get shorter custodial sentences. Short custodial sentences are a problem because they can have significant negative impacts, in terms of family, losing accommodation and losing employment, while not really giving prison governors and the authorities an opportunity to do anything meaningful with regard to rehabilitation. So far as the first residential women’s centres are concerned, we announced that our first one will be in Wales. I am particularly pleased—if I may say so—that a suitable site in south Wales is now being looked at for the second site. That will provide a robust community alternative for women who would otherwise receive a very short custodial sentence.
Lord German (LD) [V]
Women prisoners engage in self-harm as a method of coping with being in prison and separation from their children, of whom they are probably the main carer. At the moment, without visits, and with increasing numbers held on remand and in solitary confinement, why have the Government not made use of their own early release scheme, which ground to a halt last year? Can the Minister tell the House how many times in the last year the 42-day maximum solitary confinement rule has been breached for women prisoners—or does 23 hours locked alone in a cell not count as solitary confinement?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we should not proceed on the basis that self-harm is something which starts in prison. On the contrary, a number of women—perhaps many women—have been using self-harm to cope for many years. That is exacerbated, no doubt, in the prison environment. We have to remember when we talk about the incidence of self-harm in prison that this is characterised by a small number of women who self-harm multiple times. That does not mean that it is not a problem; it means that we need to focus our resources on that relatively small number of women who self-harm repeatedly. The noble Lord asked for particular statistics; I will have to write to him on that matter.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, as has been said, anxiety is considerable for mothers in prison. The Visiting Mum scheme in HMP Eastwood Park found that the incidence of self-harm reduced when women had regular support contact with their children. What are the Government doing to ensure that motherhood is properly highlighted in pre-sentencing reports and that prison sentences are not used for mothers when a community-based intervention would be appropriate—as just highlighted by the Minister himself?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, whether somebody is a mother ought to be a factor in any pre-sentencing report. However, with great respect to the right reverend Prelate, we cannot have a rule that, merely and solely because someone is a mother, they can never be sent to prison. We are trying to ensure that mothers can maintain contact with their family, and in particular their children. As I said earlier, during the Covid-19 pandemic we have set up video calls, because our research shows, and the feedback indicates, that seeing children on the screen is a very different experience from merely listening to them on the telephone.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my trusteeship of the Prison Reform Trust, set out in the register. The recent PRT report What About Me?, on the impact on children when mothers are involved in the criminal justice system, highlighted the damaging but unsurprising consequences for children when their mothers are in prison. But will my noble friend agree that what is more surprising—and plain shocking—is that in a Written Parliamentary Answer to a Question in January 2018, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice stated that the number of women with children under 18 when sentenced is
“not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.”
How can a civilised prison system counter the incidence of self-harm if it does not know basic information such as that?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend raises an important point. As I said, one of the factors in self-harm is, no doubt, being separated from one’s children. One would therefore want to know how many women in prison are mothers, and indeed how many children they have. Perhaps I can undertake to look into the particular point which my noble and learned friend has raised and write to him on it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the stark 24% rise in self-harm by women in prison in the most recent Ministry of Justice statistics and the need for a whole-system approach to address substance misuse, stable housing and abusive partners, what measures are the Government advocating for the probation service to adopt to give sentencers the confidence to use community-based sentences? As we are coming out of lockdown, when will probation be able to offer women offenders on community sentences full access to face-to-face interventions and the support that is expected by the sentencers?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first question, we remain committed to the strategy set out in the Female Offender Strategy: that is, fewer women offending and reoffending, with a greater proportion of women managed in the community successfully, and therefore fewer women in custody and better conditions for those in custody. Through the community sentence treatment requirement programme, health and justice partners are working together to ensure that greater use is made of mental health, alcohol and drug treatment requirements as part of community sentences. On the second part of the question, on probation, given the pandemic, probation areas are working on their recovery plans and will gradually be recovering their service in line with the staged approach that is being taken by Her Majesty’s Government generally.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and that brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Business of the House
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the National Security and Investment Bill be reported from the Grand Committee in respect of proceedings up to and including Tuesday 9 March; and that the order of commitment of 4 February be discharged and the remainder of the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Private Members’ Bills ballots; Extending Secretary of State’s questions (7th Report, HL Paper 237) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move that the seventh report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee be agreed to. The report concerns two issues which the committee agreed to put to the House following its meeting on 2 March. The first is Private Members’ Bills ballots at the beginning of a Session, where we suggest a more streamlined approach which focuses resources better on the preparation of the Bills which are most likely to be considered in the House. The second is to extend what are currently Oral Questions for Secretaries of State sitting in the Lords to include departmental Ministers sitting in the Lords who are full members of the Cabinet. This extension would enable the House to question regularly the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on his ministerial portfolio, following his appointment as a full member of the Cabinet at the beginning of this month. Should the House agree to the Motion before it, it is envisaged that the first such Question Time would take place on Thursday 25 March, and a ballot for questions to be taken that day has been opened today in the Table Office. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have just one question. I must declare an interest: I have a Private Member’s Bill, the referendums Bill, which is first in the queue for consideration dating from the last ballot. Of course, we have not been able to have debates on any of those Bills because of the striking of Covid a year ago. Can the Senior Deputy Speaker tell the House whether the intention is to roll over the ballot that has not been fulfilled from last year or whether there is going to be a new ballot at the beginning of the next parliamentary Session?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for the question. My information at present is that there will be no rollover; there will be a new ballot, but I will confirm that to the noble Lord in writing.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. A participant who wishes to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 15th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 171-III Third marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2021)
16:13 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 67 - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 262 - Amendment 67 agreed.
17:47 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 70 - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 269 - Amendment 70 agreed.
19:56 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 73 - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 73 agreed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Criterion that may not be used in deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons
(1) In deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons under section 160ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) (allocation only to eligible and qualifying persons: England), a local housing authority in England may not use the criterion set out in subsection (2).(2) The criterion is that a relevant person must have a local connection to the district of a local housing authority.(3) A relevant person is a person who— (a) is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse within two years of the date of their application for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the 1996 Act; or(b) has recently ceased, or will cease, to reside in accommodation provided by a local authority in an area in which they have been subjected to domestic abuse and where—(i) the victim of domestic abuse has fled, or will flee, their local area; and(ii) the purpose of fleeing was, or is, to escape domestic abuse.(4) In deciding upon the allocation of housing to a relevant person, a local housing authority may not consider the location or whereabouts of the perpetrator of the domestic abuse.”
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, when we finished our proceedings last Wednesday, I had just spoken to a previous amendment that raised the issue of acknowledging local connection for those victims of domestic abuse who require housing. As we finished—it was rather late—I thought that my Amendment 66B, which I tabled subsequently to address the issues that my noble friend raised about social housing, was not going to be reached. However, by some quirk of luck, I find myself able to talk to it now.
Previously, I raised the potentially discriminatory way in which local authorities use local connection restrictions when responding to victims of domestic abuse who present as homeless or at risk of homelessness. My noble friend’s answer the other evening, and indeed in Committee, again focused on the fact that existing guidance should prevent this happening. However, evidence from domestic abuse services shows, sadly, that this is just not the case. I am particularly grateful to Women’s Aid for helping me and showing me examples of where this does not work. The guidance is exactly that and it is not producing the results that I think we all would like.
This new amendment addresses this issue of victims being denied social housing allocations because they have no local connection. Often, women who have escaped to a refuge need to resettle in a new area or a neighbouring one as they are still at risk in the area they fled. Women’s Aid estimates that
“over two thirds of women resident in refuge services in England had come from a different local authority area.”
Again, there is government guidance. It makes clear that
“those who have fled to a refuge in another local authority area are not disadvantaged by any residency or local connection requirements”
when accessing social housing. However, I contend that domestic abuse services continue to report that local authorities require a woman to have a local connection with their area to apply or be prioritised on letting systems.
The Government already require local authorities, when allocating housing, to make exemptions for certain groups from these local connection requirements or residency tests; this includes members of the Armed Forces and people seeking to move for work. I remember well from my caseload as a constituency MP that these exemptions exist. I am asking the Government and my noble friend: why is the same exemption not in place for victims of domestic abuse relocating for the purpose of safety? I acknowledge that there is guidance, but there is not the requirement.
It is also critical to recognise that, when women and children escape to a refuge, they start to build connections and support networks in that new area; these are vital for their ongoing recovery. After experiencing unimaginable trauma and the uprooting of their lives, children will have started to settle into nursery and school. The inconsistent way in which these survivors are then treated when seeking to access long-term housing leads to further disruption and insecurity. Again, the guidance is not doing enough in this area, I am afraid. It is vital that this law sends a clear message that local connection rules or residency requirements must never apply to allocations of social housing for victims of domestic abuse.
I want briefly to draw attention to a case study from a Women’s Aid member service that highlights the urgency and importance of my amendment:
“A has experienced domestic abuse for the last 10 years from two partners as well as witnessing domestic abuse perpetrated by her father against her mother growing up. She has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD. After fleeing her abusive partner with three children, she moved into a refuge in a London borough to be near her mother, who was her main source of support. She was only able to find a refuge in a different borough to her mother, and after six months she was required to leave that refuge. She presented to the borough her mother lives in, but she was informed she was not entitled to be housed there as she did not have a local connection. The local authority stated she had a local connection to the borough she had been living in for six months. This is despite her being a survivor of domestic abuse, having no option other than to live in the first borough where a refuge space was available at the time of fleeing and the fact that she felt at risk from the perpetrator’s extended networks there.
The borough her mother lived in then housed A and her three children, who were all under 14, in one room in mixed-sex temporary accommodation. This was extremely distressing for her. She describes feeling retraumatised from the experience of being forced to live alongside men she did not know. She also felt scared for her children, who did not feel safe in the mixed-sex hostel. The room was highly unsuitable as the entire family lived in it and were required to cook in it, which is of course unsafe for a toddler. Another child had ADHD, so A struggled to provide them with any quiet time and appropriate support. This experience also exacerbated her PTSD, depression and anxiety, and she reported feeling low and stressed regularly due to feeling unsafe in the accommodation. She is now having to live there indefinitely while the boroughs have been assigned an arbiter to decide who has a duty.”
I do not think that anybody could agree that this is a satisfactory situation. I urge my noble friend and Her Majesty’s Government to seek to put an amendment such as mine in the Bill to ensure that these sorts of examples do not occur again.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 87C, which I may press to a Division.
Last week, public discussion following the tragic death of Sarah Everard tended to emphasise that it is not for women to limit their freedom because there are violent men around—rather, that it is men who should change their behaviour and be educated into civility.
This amendment has a similar bent. It too is about shifting the burden of suffering from abusive behaviour away from the victim and on to the perpetrator. We are all agreed on the principle and I am grateful to the Minister for meetings and correspondence. The principle is that of ending the tenancy enjoyed by the perpetrator in social housing and leaving the victim in occupation, with that tenancy vested in her—if it is “her” because obviously this works both ways.
The only remaining issue is how best to draft this. It is common sense to leave the victim, possibly with children, in her home and make the perpetrator leave. It is cheaper too because rehousing the abused parent could cost from £3,000 to £11,000. We know that women’s refuges are overcrowded and short of funding. The pressure on them would be infinitely less if the woman could stay at home and not have to run away. This scheme is being tried out in Scotland and already operates in several Australian states. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 provides for the transfer of the interest from one joint tenant to another. The amendment says that if the victim applies to the court, the perpetrator may be removed as a joint tenant, provided that the tenancy is affordable for the victim. The tenancy shared by the victim and the perpetrator would be severed and the perpetrator’s tenancy would vest in the victim and any other joint tenant. The tenancy would continue in the name of the victim, but the perpetrator would remain liable for rent arrears incurred before the eviction.
Social housing providers can support the victim in managing debts, and they might even consider it right to rehouse the victim immediately in other suitable property. In the rare case where there are other joint tenants, their interests need to be considered, for their share of the housing costs might rise. The change in tenancy should have no effect on the landlord, but he or she could make representations to the court during the application process. No objections have been received so far from landlords who have been consulted by domestic abuse support organisations. Indeed, this amendment has been welcomed by the domestic abuse commissioner, the Local Government Association, Women’s Aid and related organisations.
The drafting needs to ensure that the perpetrator retains liability not only for rent arrears before he loses his tenancy but, for example, for damage he might have caused to the property. I respectfully disagree with the Minister’s concern that common law stands in the way of reassigning the property and the liabilities, because the statute would override common law. There are no human rights concerns as mentioned by the Minister. Protocol 1 of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects property enjoyment, is subject to the right of the state to interfere when necessary in the public interest. Indeed, it is the property enjoyment rights of the victim that would be interfered with if she is driven out by the violence of the perpetrator. Article 6 provides that there should be a hearing before deprivation of a civil right, and so there will be, because the perpetrator has the right to representation in the court proceedings.
Moreover, it has been possible for a long time for an English court to act ex parte; that is, on hearing only one side where there is an urgent case. When no-fault divorce comes into force this autumn, one of life’s most important civil rights, that of staying married, will be terminated at the will of one party with no right for the other to defend or have any say in it. That has been accepted as legitimate—rather surprisingly. A rather lesser upheaval, in this case eviction, can be managed safely without any infringement of human rights, as can any fears about Article 8—the right to a private and family life. It is the victim’s rights that have been disrupted and that article goes on to say that the right may be interfered with in order to protect other people’s rights or in the public interest.
I will give noble Lords chapter and verse. Article 3 of the human rights convention prohibits “degrading treatment”. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the state had failed to provide the victim with immediate protection against a husband’s violence in a case concerning Slovakia, and that offended against the prohibition of degrading treatment. On Article 8—the right to family and private life—the European court held that this had been breached by Bulgaria and Ukraine, among others, because the state had not helped the victim. It is the victim’s right to family life which the perpetrator has destroyed. In a 2010 case involving the United Kingdom—JD and A v the United Kingdom—the court held that the victim’s property rights were violated and that she should stay put. This was about Protocol 1—the right to property. The Government themselves do not consider that there is any Article 6 breach, covering the right to trial, in their Explanatory Memorandum. That is because the perpetrator has the opportunity to make representations at a subsequent hearing. That was in a case called Micallef v Malta. All human rights as listed are subject to interference in the public interest and proportionality, so there need be no concerns at all about human rights. Let us remember that it is the victim’s human rights that have been violently disrupted.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 87C and to support all the arguments made so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation, which is wholeheartedly behind this amendment as a means of protecting families and providing survivors with a choice to determine their own future.
Some very strong arguments were made in Committee on joint tenancies and those of us supporting this amendment were grateful for the opportunity to discuss the arguments with the Minister. I know that he is sympathetic to what we are seeking to achieve. I hope that he will focus on the need for what is called a “whole housing approach” to improve the housing options and outcomes for people experiencing domestic abuse so that they can live independently in a safe and stable home as a first step to overcoming abuse and its devastating impact.
Rather than repeating the points I made in Committee, I want to focus on what can be done by housing associations and social landlords to support those suffering abuse, since they are well placed to recognise the signs in their residents, including economic abuse, which create pressure on their tenancy. Case studies gathered by the National Housing Federation show the impact that housing officers with the right training can have in identifying domestic abuse. I will give just one case. During a meeting to discuss rent arrears, a housing officer adopting what is called a “trauma-informed approach” was able to identify the signs of abuse and became the resident’s main source of support, including during a police investigation, working with adult and child social care to ensure that the resident had access to all the help they needed. The resident was able to retain their tenancy, and in this case the abuser did not resist the change. In fact, they chose to relocate from the property linked to the abuse and, 18 months later, the housing officer continues to support the resident. In this instance, the survivor was successful in achieving what she needed and had a choice. In so many instances where there is a joint tenancy, this is not possible. As was said in Committee, the perpetrator must agree to the transfer of the tenancy if the survivor wishes to remain in the family home as the sole tenant. There are so many instances where he—and it is usually he—refuses.
Social housing providers have no legal mechanism to evict the perpetrator. This amendment, carefully crafted, allows the joint tenancy to be transferred in a simplified way to a sole tenancy. As we have heard, it is a more modest measure than that already proposed in Scotland, and I hope the Minister will consider that when he comes to reply. I know that he will listen carefully to this debate. We know that he is sympathetic to what we want to achieve and I hope he will accept this modest but far-reaching amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, who added powerful examples to the already clear and strong examples from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, as to why we should agree both these amendments. I will not detain the House for long, but I want to strongly express the Green group’s support for these two amendments.
The logical way to take them is in the opposite order to that in which they are numbered. Amendment 87C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and with strong cross-party support, expresses the ideal situation which, we have been told, is already being created in Scotland, with even stronger support for victims of domestic abuse. It is for people to stay in their own homes and communities and, very often, for children to stay in the schools that they are used to, with their friends. This is obviously the right thing to do to support victims of domestic abuse and to ensure that abusers do not profit from the situation, as they are often left with the home, tenancy, control and their place in the community.
Amendment 66B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, acknowledges that that is simply not always possible. Victims of domestic abuse, having fled to refuges, may have started to establish themselves in a new place, possibly on the other side of the country, and have started to make friends, and children have become used to schools. The amendments make an excellent package—in this case, the grouping works—to provide a bit more wraparound and support for the victims of domestic abuse, for whom we are all spending so many hours in your Lordships’ House trying to make this the best Bill it can be. These two amendments, or something very like them, are needed to make this the Bill that it should be, so I commend them to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I begin by commending my noble friend Lord Randall for the case he made for Amendment 66B. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on that. The case for Amendment 87C was capably made in Committee by a number of noble Lords and reinforced today by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Warwick and Lady Bennett. I will not repeat it, except to gently remind the Minister that in Scotland they have gone further than our modest amendment in giving security to victims of domestic abuse, even when they are not a joint tenant.
I want to focus on what has happened since Committee, and begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Parkinson for his patient and sympathetic approach in seeking to find a way forward. In his wind-up speech in Committee, he recognised that our amendment would simplify the current complex and uncertain legal mechanism available to victims, and would prevent perpetrators from exerting control over a victim. That was enormously helpful.
In our letter dated 15 February, we sought to address the concerns that he expressed on five separate issues. In particular, we amended the section on responsibility for arrears to clarify that the perpetrator remains liable for arrears before the joint tenancy is terminated. Then we added subsection (11) to the new clause proposed by the amendment, to give the Government time to assess progress in Scotland. We had a meeting with my noble friend earlier this month, for which again I am grateful, and he replied to our letter last week, in which he repeated his sympathy for the motives behind the amendment.
So where do we go from here? If there are defects in our drafting, we know that the Bill will go back to the other place, so there will be an opportunity for the Government to tidy it up. My preferred solution would be for the Government to accept the amendment, tidy it up in the other place and implement it as soon as it is successfully rolled out in Scotland.
I would understand the disappointment if the Government were to resist but, if they do, with some reluctance I would consider the more cautious approach suggested in my noble friend’s letter and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in her opening speech—namely consultation. I am not entirely convinced that this is necessary but, subject to some strict conditions—an early start date, a reasonable but not protracted time for consultation and a decision by the Government by the autumn—the proposition is worth reflecting on. The option would be even more attractive if there was also a commitment to include the necessary measures in the first relevant piece of legislation, be it on rights for renters or leasehold reform, both of which are likely to feature in the next Session. I will listen with more than usual attention to my noble friend’s response at the end of this debate, before deciding how best to proceed.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, first, I am happy to add my support to Amendment 66B in this group, from the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I am somewhat mystified as to why it was not included with Amendment 66A, to which I also added my name but was not present in the House at the beginning of the debate to speak to it. I take this opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord and the House for this confusion on my part. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House as to why Amendments 66A and 66B were not dealt with together.
Just as Amendment 66A concerned hard-pressed authorities using their local connection rules to deny refuge places to victims and their families fleeing to another area, Amendment 66B deals with another criterion, “qualified persons” who want more permanent accommodation in their new area. Guidance is not a requirement and guidance is not enough. The case study given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, speaks more eloquently than anything I could say in cogently making this point.
I have also added my name to Amendment 87C on joint tenancies. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained the amendment well, including the human rights implications. I start by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for the lengths that he and his team have gone to in investigating the practicalities of this amendment. I have no doubt of his sympathy for what it seeks to achieve.
The supporters of the amendment, assisted by Women’s Aid lawyers, have further amended our amendments proposed in Committee, in accordance with the points that the Minister made to us subsequently, including liability for debt if the perpetrator is removed from the tenancy, the interests of third parties and the interests and rights of the perpetrator.
In subsequent discussions with us, the Minister said that the Government would like time to assess how the implementation of a plan in Scotland similar to that which we propose will fare. But there are three issues with this. First, the changes in Scotland are not the same; they are much wider ranging than our comparatively modest proposal, so they will not be comparing the same thing. Secondly, property law is different in Scotland, so that will have to be factored in. Thirdly, it could take years before the implementation of the Scottish version is fully assessed. If it is or is not successful, how much will that tell us, given the differences that I outlined in the first and second points? We could potentially lose a huge amount of time for very little gain, given the prospect of a suitable Bill coming as a vehicle to implement it.
More promisingly, the Minister has offered a public consultation to help resolve some of the technical issues that he has raised in meetings and correspondence with us. This would bring interested parties from all sides of the argument to contribute and work together to find a solution fair to all. I am attracted to this idea, because I acknowledge that we are treading in quite a legally complex area, which incorporates several different aspects of the law. He tells us, in his most recent letter, when the consultation will start—this summer—but not when it will end, and he has not indicated any further steps to be taken and when they might take place.
Having been a Member of your Lordships’ House and the other place for over 15 years now, I have watched many times in frustration as consultations drag on for years, eventually for so long that the proposals under question can be forgotten and quietly dropped. So, if this kind offer of consultation is accepted, we would need some assurances on time. For example, an assurance that the Government would strive to have proposals in place in time for the next piece of appropriate legislation—say, for example, the renters Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, reinforced the important role that housing associations and social landlords can play. Could the Minister give the House this assurance today?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, chair of the Heart of Medway housing association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.
I am pleased to offer my support for Amendment 66B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As the noble Lord set out, victims of domestic abuse can often endure lifelong risk from perpetrators, even when a relationship comes to an end. The noble Lord is doing a good job of highlighting that, where victims want to get away from their perpetrators, the actions of some local authorities can make that difficult or impossible and that that should not be the case. The noble Lord has highlighted a very important issue.
I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 87C, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and if she is minded to divide the House, then these Benches will support her. In many ways, the amendment deals with the other side of the coin in respect of tenancies. Where a victim wants to stay in their home and a landlord is either the local authority or a private registered provider of social housing, the amendment would give the victim the power to apply to the county court for an order to remove the abuser as a joint tenant, and clearly sets out the approach the court must take.
Both these amendments are about enabling the victim to make the choice they want to, putting the power of choice in their hands—the choice that affords them and their children the protection they need and want. We all know that domestic abuse is all about power and control, and these amendments are about taking steps to address the balance and support victims, so that they can start rebuilding their lives. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for his engagement on the issue; it is very much appreciated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, set out carefully why the option to wait and see what happens in Scotland is not particularly attractive to us. If we are going to accept the offer of consultation, we will need very clear timescales. I have raised many times before the whole range of government consultations that we never seem to get to the end of, so I do not think a consultation in itself is sufficient; we need very clear timescales. I will wait to hear the noble Lord’s response, but I repeat: if the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, then these Benches will support her.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, these two amendments deal with two separate aspects of housing law. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, asked why they have been glued together and why we could not take Amendment 66B with 66A. The simple reason is that it was tabled too late to do so, as my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge accepted in his speech on the previous day of Report, but I am very glad that we are able to take it as first business today, on the third day of Report, and pick up where we left off.
As my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge explained, his Amendment 66B seeks to prevent local authorities applying a local connection test to victims of domestic abuse when applying for social housing. Since 2012, local authorities have had the power to decide who qualifies for social housing in their area. Many local authorities use their qualification power to apply a local connection test to social housing, and statutory guidance published in 2013 generally encourages them to do so. However, the guidance also advises local authorities to consider making appropriate exceptions, including for people moving into an area to escape violence or harm. Additional statutory guidance was published in 2018 which strongly encourages authorities not to apply a local connection test to victims of domestic abuse who have escaped to a refuge or other form of safe temporary accommodation.
Despite this, as my noble friend pointed out, there is anecdotal evidence from the domestic abuse sector that some local authorities continue to disqualify victims of domestic abuse from social housing where they do not have a local connection. I understand and sympathise with the motivation underlying the amendment, which is to put that matter beyond doubt. However, the Government have some concerns with my noble friend’s amendment as drafted. A key concern is that the new clause it proposes would prevent a local authority considering the location of the abuser. We believe that that is an important consideration which the local authority should be able to take into account to ensure that the victim does not inadvertently end up living close to their abuser, which of course would undermine the purpose of the amendment and what my noble friend is seeking to achieve.
We have, however, listened carefully to and reflected on the points put forward by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge on the use of a local connection test. We want to make absolutely sure that victims and survivors of domestic abuse who need to move to another local authority area are not put at a disadvantage when seeking a social home. I am pleased to be able to give a commitment today that we will consult on regulations to prevent local authorities applying a local connection to victims of domestic abuse applying for social housing. The consultation will consider the scope of regulations and the circumstances in which the exemption would apply. We believe that this level of detail is best left to secondary legislation, and we have existing powers to make such regulations.
Consultation will provide the opportunity to engage with the domestic abuse sector, survivors and local authorities, to follow up on the anecdotal evidence which my noble friend has outlined, and to ensure that all their interests are considered and that the regulations achieve the desired aim of improving the protections for victims of domestic abuse.
Turning to Amendment 87C, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has explained, this seeks to allow victims of domestic abuse who have a joint social tenancy with their perpetrator to transfer the tenancy into their own name. It also seeks to prevent the perpetrator ending the tenancy unilaterally. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords for bringing this issue to our attention again, and for the constructive conversations and engagement that we have had on this issue since Committee. We recognise and are sympathetic to the concerns which lie behind this amendment. We understand that, in the case of domestic abuse, the rules on terminating periodic joint tenancies may have the potential for perpetrators to exert further control over their victims. The amendment is intended to address this problem and enable the survivor to remain in the family home.
The proposed new clause would apply to social tenancies—both local authority and housing association ones. Most social tenants have lifetime tenancies, meaning that the tenant cannot be evicted provided that they comply with the terms of the tenancy. For this reason, a social tenancy can be an extremely valuable asset. That is why we are including provisions in the Bill which seek to provide security of tenure for victims of domestic abuse who have a lifetime tenancy and are granted a new tenancy by a local authority for reasons connected to that abuse.
Currently, where any joint tenant of a periodic tenancy serves a notice to quit, the law provides that the whole tenancy ends and that the landlord can seek possession of the property. This is a long-standing rule, established through case law and recently upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2014 case of Sims v Dacorum Borough Council. The rule seeks to balance the interests of each joint tenant as well as those of the landlord. This means that if a victim of domestic abuse has a joint tenancy with the perpetrator and has fled their home to escape abuse, they would be able to end the tenancy to ensure that they are no longer bound to a tenancy with their abuser.
When we debated this issue in Committee, I explained that the Government had several concerns with the amendment that had been tabled. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and all the other noble Lords who have spoken today for meeting me to discuss those concerns in greater detail with officials—I thank them too for their time and work on this. I note that the new amendment seeks to address some of the concerns that we outlined and discussed. In particular, the amendment now provides for notice of the application to be given to the perpetrator, the landlord and any other tenant. In addition, it deals with the issue of joint and several liability by providing that the perpetrator remains responsible for any rent arrears or other liabilities accrued before the court order for transfer is made.
However, we continue to have some concerns about the amendment, even as redrafted. It cuts across a number of long-established principles of common law—for instance the principle that an individual cannot be “removed” from the joint tenancy or cannot relinquish their share, as well as the rule on the termination of periodic joint tenancies, which I mentioned a moment ago. Given that these rules have wider application, we believe that it is important that any changes be considered in the round.
The amendment would introduce some new concepts to an already complex area involving not just common law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned, but housing law, contract law, family law, and matrimonial law. The history of litigation in the field of housing in particular means that we would want to consider very carefully the introduction of concepts of removal from a tenancy and a tenancy continuing as if one joint tenant had never been a party to it in order to think through the possible implications fully. I hope noble Lords will understand how important it is that any changes do not have unintended consequences in this complex area of legislation.
A key concern is that the amendment still fails to provide for how the interest of third parties might be taken into account by the court, including the landlord, any other joint tenant, or any dependent children. It is for landlords to decide whether to grant a tenancy for their property and on what basis. They may decide to grant a joint tenancy for a number of reasons, including affordability and because joint tenants are jointly and severally liable for paying rent or looking after the property. However, the amendment would mean that the number of tenants could be changed without consideration or consent from the landlord as the owner of the property.
We absolutely concur that it is essential for survivors of domestic abuse to have access to a safe and stable home. However, social landlords have to balance difficult decisions. In some cases where a property may no longer be suitable, or indeed safe, for a survivor to remain it might be more appropriate for a social landlord to offer a survivor of domestic abuse a tenancy on a different property.
In addition, the amendment could result in interference with a housing association landlord’s own rights under human rights law. Since this engages other parties’ human rights, including those of the perpetrator, we need to carefully consider the right approach to balance those rights, and to ensure that any interference is proportionate and justified. We also have some concerns about whether the proposals are sufficient for the purposes of the perpetrator’s Article 8 right to respect for home and family life. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the victim’s rights should be uppermost in our minds, but these are considerations that a court must take into account in possession proceedings. In addition, the requirement for the court to make an order “if not opposed” is unusual.
We have listened carefully to and reflected on the points raised by this amendment and during our previous debates. We want to consider the different issues and interests carefully, including the human rights case law that the noble Baroness mentioned, to ensure that any solution has the intended outcomes for all parties concerned. That is why I am pleased to give a further commitment today, as I did in my letter to noble Lords, that we will carry out a public consultation on this issue to help us better understand the complex legal and practical issues involved. Consultation will provide the opportunity to engage with the domestic abuse sector, survivors and victims, and local authorities to ensure that their interests are all considered, and that any changes to the law achieve the desired aim of improving protections for victims of domestic abuse.
The public consultation would also allow us to consider other solutions that have been put forward to this problem. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned, the Scottish domestic abuse Bill seeks to introduce a new ground for eviction that would enable social landlords to remove the perpetrator of domestic abuse from the property and transfer it into the survivor’s name. That has not yet been enacted by the Scottish Parliament, but if and when it is we will want to see how it works, albeit that I acknowledge the point correctly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about doing that swiftly.
I understand that noble Lords will be concerned about the extra time that this consultation will take, so I will say something about timing. We would seek to issue the consultation this summer, following Royal Assent to the Bill. We would expect to carry out a standard 12-week consultation to allow for proper consideration of these complex issues, then consider the responses and publish a government response as soon as possible in the new year. Thereafter, we would seek to legislate, if appropriate, at the earliest available opportunity. I am happy to provide that answer.
I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on how seriously we take these issues. We are committed to consult on both of them and to take forward the outcome of those consultations as soon as practicable thereafter. I hope that, having given those commitments, they will be content not to press their amendments.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank those who spoke in support of my amendment, particularly my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt of Solihull and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. In particular, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his careful and considered reply. I am satisfied that the Government have listened and will take some action. Therefore, I am delighted to say that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now move to the group beginning with Amendment 66C. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 66C
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Medical evidence of domestic abuseProhibition on charging for the provision of medical evidence of domestic abuse
(1) No person may charge a fee or any other remuneration for the preparation or provision of relevant evidence relating to an assessment of an individual carried out by a relevant health professional in England or Wales under a qualifying medical services contract.(2) No person may charge a fee or any other remuneration for the preparation or provision of relevant evidence relating to an individual by a relevant health professional in England or Wales if the services provided by the relevant health professional are wholly or mainly services provided under a qualifying medical services contract.(3) In this section “relevant evidence”, in relation to an individual, means—(a) evidence that the individual is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse which is intended to support an application by the individual for civil legal services, or(b) any other evidence that the individual is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse which is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) In this section “relevant health professional” means—(a) a medical practitioner licensed to practise by the General Medical Council; (b) a health professional registered to practise in the United Kingdom by the Nursing and Midwifery Council;(c) a paramedic registered to practise in the United Kingdom by the Health and Care Professions Council.(5) In this section “qualifying medical services contract” means—(a) in relation to England—(i) a general medical services contract made under section 84(2) of the National Health Service Act 2006;(ii) any contractual arrangements made under section 83(2) of that Act;(iii) an agreement made under section 92 of that Act;(b) in relation to Wales—(i) a general medical services contract made under section 42(2) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(ii) any contractual arrangements made under section 41(2)(b) of that Act;(iii) an agreement made under section 50 of that Act.(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the definition of—(a) “relevant health professional”;(b) “qualifying medical services contract”.(7) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“assessment” includes a consultation, whether in person or otherwise;“civil legal services” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.(8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to anything done by a relevant health professional before the coming into force of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent certain health care professionals who either assess a patient under an NHS contract, or provide services wholly or mainly under an NHS contract, from charging victims of domestic abuse for the provision of evidence of their injuries in order to support a claim for civil legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, when we debated the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which intended to prohibit GPs from charging domestic abuse victims for legal aid evidence letters, I made clear my intention to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion on this matter. I was also clear that the Government wholeheartedly agree that vulnerable patients should not be charged for evidence to support them in accessing legal aid. That remains the Government’s position.
In Committee, I gave an undertaking to give this matter detailed consideration before Report, while, I hope helpfully, pointing out some technical defects with the amendment tabled but ultimately withdrawn by the noble Lord. The current position is that GPs can provide services in addition to NHS contracted services. These are classified as private services for which GPs have discretion to charge the patient for their completion in lieu of their professional time. The provision of letters of evidence to enable access to legal aid is one such private service.
A GP is one of many professionals to whom a vulnerable person can turn for a letter to provide evidence of domestic abuse for access to legal aid. It is up to the discretion of an individual GP practice as to how much any charge for private services should be and, indeed, whether a charge should be levied at all.
As part of the 2020-21 contract agreement, the British Medical Association recommended to all GPs that a charge should not be levied for letters providing this evidence. That was a welcome and important step forward, and a recognition by the BMA that vulnerable patients with limited means should not be expected to pay for such letters. We recognise and commend the vast majority of GPs who are following this guidance, but we recognise that this is a non-binding recommendation from the BMA, so we now move with this amendment to remedy this gap, having considered the matter carefully since Committee.
Amendment 66C achieves our aim. It will provide that no person may charge for the preparation or provision of evidence demonstrating that a person is, or is at risk of being, a victim of domestic abuse for the purpose of obtaining legal aid. The “relevant health professionals” listed in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause are those providing services pursuant to any of the general medical services, personal medical services, or alternative provider medical services contracts. A “relevant health professional” who has assessed the patient in the course of providing services under any of those three contracts will be prevented from charging for such a letter.
Importantly, the same amendment also prohibits charging for this letter through any vehicle, the health professional themselves or the practice, be it a company or a partnership. Nobody who seeks evidence from such health professionals demonstrating that they are a victim of domestic abuse, or are at risk thereof, for the purposes of obtaining access to legal aid, may be charged under the government amendment. With the agreement of the Welsh Government, this amendment will extend to England and Wales, subject to a legislative consent Motion which is being debated in the Senedd tomorrow.
In these respects, Amendment 66C will go further than Amendment 71 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. As I observed on a previous occasion, that amendment relies solely on the definition of a general medical services contract in Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006, therefore covering only one of those three types of GP contracts, and would not apply to almost 30% of practices. Obviously that was not his intention, but it is an important drafting point.
We have also taken the opportunity to future-proof this prohibition through the two regulation-making powers in proposed new subsections (3)(b) and (6). Proposed new subsection (3)(b) enables the Secretary of State to extend the scope of the prohibition beyond legal aid, should a health professional’s evidence of domestic abuse ever be relevant in other contexts, while proposed new subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State, or the relevant Welsh Ministers, to alter the lists of professionals and contracts caught by the prohibition. Should a change in the delivery of health service necessitate a change in the scope, we can do that with the appropriate regulations.
The remaining government amendments are largely consequential on Amendment 66C. Amendment 89A amends Clause 73 to provide that the Secretary of State can issue guidance about the prohibition. Amendment 103A provides for commencement on the first common commencement date following Royal Assent. Government amendments 95A to 95C, 98A to 98C and 99A to 99C make consequential amendments to Clauses 74, 75 and 76 respectively.
I remember well that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, read out an impressive list of occasions when he had raised this matter. He went so far as to list the names of my illustrious predecessors with whom he had engaged, and I know that they worked hard to resolve this matter. On that occasion, I said that I hoped to escape the horrid fate of being added to his list, and I hope that I have achieved that very modest ambition. However, delighted as I am to be the Minister standing today at the Dispatch Box, moving these amendments to bring this very long-running problem to a close—I hope—I am conscious that many other Ministers, present and previous, have worked on this matter, and without their efforts we would not have got to where we are today.
We have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords, on this important matter. I am pleased that this Government have been able to table these amendments. I look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords, and I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted with the amendments tabled by the Minister. I thank him very much; the amendments have my full support. I will at the appropriate time not move my amendments on the Marshalled List.
This campaign has been a long one. I will spend a few minutes setting out how it started, thanking those people who have got us to this day, and paying tribute to those whom I cannot mention. The campaign was started by a domestic abuse survivor in the Wythenshawe area of Manchester, on discovering that their local GP was charging victims of domestic abuse for letters that they needed when applying for legal aid. They thought that this was wrong and decided to change the law. I thank Katy—I am not allowed to give her surname—who first raised the issue with my friend Tom Watson, when he visited Safespots Wythenshawe. He raised the matter in Parliament.
I thank Mike Kane, the local MP who supported the campaign for many years; Laura Hitchen, the local solicitor in Manchester who highlighted how widespread the problem was; Councillor Sarah Judge, who works at Safespots; all the Safespots women who are victims of abuse and who stood up and decided to change the law; Manchester City Council and the other local authorities that gave their support to the campaign; all the police and crime commissioners who gave their support, including my noble friend Lord Bach; Sue Macmillan, my good friend for many years, who got the Mumsnet campaigners on the case; Charles Hymas, the home affairs editor of the Daily Telegraph, for shining a light on the issue at the right time; my good friends Stephanie Peacock MP, for kindly raising the issue in the other place, and Stella Creasy MP, for her valuable advice and support; the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who supported me in Committee, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Burt of Solihull, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who has always been supportive and who encouraged me to carry on; and noble Lords of all parties and on the Cross Benches who have supported me in my numerous questions to a variety of Ministers, whom I thank for their responses to all the amendments to government Bills that I have moved over the years. I have involved officials from at least four government departments.
I also thank Victoria Atkins MP, a Home Office Minister who listened and was a great help in getting out of this position. I am also grateful to our Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar—who on 8 February, when I raised the issue in the House, listened, bringing these amendments back to the House today. My final thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. I have tremendous respect for her, and she is also my friend. She listened and understood the points being made and played a key role in us getting to where we are today. I am tremendously grateful to her.
I have always said that this is a good Bill, and it is undoubtedly a better Bill because of the work that we have done in this House. With these amendments being agreed today, we are ending the postcode lottery in which a victim of domestic abuse could be charged by their GP for a letter that they need to gain access to legal aid. With these amendments, that position ends. This is wonderful. I am delighted to have played a small part in achieving this.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has been a wonderful campaigner on this issue. I went back in history a little way because I have the privilege of being the husband of a retired GP. Under the old contract from the pre-Blair period, things were not quite as confusing as they subsequently became. We all know that any GP, when faced with this situation, would do a thorough medical examination. This has never been in doubt. In the period after the Major Government this became less clear; I do not know why, but it did. I thank all the people whom the noble Lord mentioned, and Her Majesty’s Government. It is not easy, particularly at times like this, when everyone is focused on Covid, to make progress on a difficult area. Obviously the Ministers have worked very hard on it, and I pay tribute to the hard work that they have put in.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle [V]
My Lords, I too address Amendment 71. As the lead bishop for health and social care, and with the support of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—as we have heard, she supported this amendment in Committee—I also thank the Government for listening and for tabling amendments that prohibit charging for medical evidence under these circumstances. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his hard work in raising this matter. I regard the Government’s proposal as an excellent addition to the Bill, which will greatly assist a group of highly vulnerable people in securing the support that they need, and I am glad of this opportunity to express our gratitude to all those involved in bringing this about.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall intervene briefly on Amendments 66C and 71, which I support. I have been involved as a beneficiary all my professional life with legal aid. Its roots go back to the Labour Governments of 1945 and 1951. When I began practising at the Bar in 1959, it was just about being given new life, and what a blessing it has been to people with limited or no means.
My noble friend Lord Kennedy has put down Amendment 71 which, together with the Government’s amendment, is a clear statement that no appropriate health professional may impose a fee for the purposes of obtaining legal aid by an applicant. Health professionals are paid in accordance with the terms of their contracts. My understanding is that on occasion, such as for medical certificates for insurance and travel purposes, they are entitled to charge extra fees. I am grateful for the Minister’s very careful explanation of what they can do.
There is obviously a loophole that needs to be filled. This is confirmed by the very fact of the result of the Government’s work, on which I congratulate them, in moving Amendment 66C. The need to fill in the loophole is confirmed. The Government seem to have covered all contingencies, and it obviously overtakes the Opposition’s amendment. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennedy on the hard work he and others have done; the result is what we see before us today. It confirms the value of this House as a reforming, confirming and improving Chamber. With those few words, I support the Government’s amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is next on the list, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on resolving the injustice of NHS providers charging for evidence of domestic abuse. It is an object lesson in persistence. I hope that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who I was hoping to follow, will meet the same eventual success with her plans on forced marriage. I am also grateful to the Minister for his amendments to ensure that this is properly and legally installed in law.
In my view, it is a scandal that it ever had to come to this. What hard-hearted group of medical practitioners ever made the decision to charge money for evidence that a woman has been subjected to violence as a qualifying condition for legal aid? I suppose that is what happens when you try to marketise the NHS.
The Minister spoke about the role played by the BMA, but according to the BMA this amendment should never have been necessary. It says:
“We believe that legal aid agencies should trust the word of victims without needing to consult with a medical professional, who themselves”
will rely on what the victim tells them and
“may not be best placed to confirm whether domestic abuse has taken place.”
It recommends that the MoJ should remove altogether the unfair requirement for medical forms in the domestic abuse legal process. It seems to me that this requirement is just placing one more obstacle in front of the victim, perhaps to test to destruction her determination to get justice. Will the Minister say why legal aid agencies are requiring these medical certificates in the first place? Should we not be legislating to remove this requirement, full stop?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I begin by taking up the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who said that this is a loophole that needed to be filled. I respectfully agree, and that is why the Government have tabled the amendments that have the effect that I set out earlier.
It was gratifying to hear the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, from my noble friend Lord Naseby, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. I shall not rise to the challenge in her phrase about marketising the NHS, but I should respond briefly to her point about why any evidence is needed at all. The short answer is that there is limited legal aid spend. We must target it at those who need it most, and we believe that the evidence requirements ensure that the legal aid scheme strikes the best balance between ensuring that victims of domestic abuse can evidence their abuse and access legal aid and ensuring that the risk of fraudulent or unmeritorious claims is as low as possible. To that end, we have significantly extended the accepted forms of evidence. We have removed all time limits and the government amendments seek a clear resolution of the issue of victims being charged to obtain that evidence.
Other than that, it is fair to say that the debate we have just had was something of a tribute band to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, but on this occasion, tribute is entirely well merited. He has been indefatigable and resolute, and he was very generous, although I associate myself with it, in mentioning my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who has also worked very hard to resolve this matter.
I shall not take up any more of the time of your Lordships’ House. For the reasons I have set out, the Government believe that these amendments will sort out this long-running problem, and I therefore commend them to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to Amendment 67. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 67
Baroness Meacher
“Victims of domestic abuse: data-sharing for immigration purposes
(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse is not used for any immigration control purpose.(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of a witness to domestic abuse in the United Kingdom that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of that abuse, or to assist the victim of that abuse in any legal proceedings, is not used for any immigration control purpose.(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) or (2) applies.(4) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to—(a) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom;(b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and(c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.(5) For the purposes of this section—“immigration control purpose” means any purpose of the functions to which subsection (4)(b) and (c) refers;“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services; and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;“victim” includes any dependent of a person, at whom the domestic abuse is directed, where that dependent is affected by that abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that the personal data of migrant survivors of domestic abuse that is given or used for the purpose of their seeking or receiving support and assistance is not used for immigration control purposes.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London who added their names to this amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to ensure that the personal details of a victim of domestic abuse or of a witness to domestic abuse which is processed so that the victim can seek support is not used for immigration control purposes. The amendment also requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure that victims, witnesses and relevant officials are made aware of this protection.
At the outset I thank the commissioner for putting at the top of her two key priorities for Report extending support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. The commissioner supports amendments, which certainly includes this one, to ensure equal access to support regardless of immigration status. She is concerned that without these additional provisions in the Bill, the Government will be unable to ratify the Istanbul convention. I hope that the Minister will comment on the significance of this amendment for the Istanbul convention.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for the meeting last week with those of us who have put our names to this amendment. The Minister made it clear that the Government are waiting for the results of their review of the Home Office treatment of the victims of domestic abuse and are therefore resistant to accepting this amendment.
The Government and I seem to be looking at two different sides of the mirror. The Government want to find examples of good practice where a victim’s immigration status is resolved and their life can move forward positively. The plan is then to publicise these happy stories. That is fine—in fact, it is splendid—but our concern is for the 50% of domestic abuse victims who never report the crimes committed against them for fear of detention and/or deportation if on leaving a marriage or relationship their immigration status is brought into question. These crimes cannot therefore be followed up by the police, which is surely a matter of great concern for the Home Office.
Is the Home Office more concerned about having access to information about vulnerable victims of domestic abuse in order to pursue issues of immigration status than it is about the inability of the police to pursue criminal perpetrators because victims are too afraid to report their crimes? I understand the Home Office’s dilemma but the moral imperative here seems overwhelming. For these extremely vulnerable women to face continued abuse and criminal acts against them to help the Home Office get information about other people is surely, quite simply, not right.
The Minister seemed to make it clear that the government review will not even be looking at the consequences for victims of the current free flow of information from victims to the police and then on to immigration officers at the Home Office. In fact, the Government have all the information we, and they, need to know that a firewall is needed to protect victims. We know that only with the firewall proposed by this amendment will 50% of these vulnerable women with insecure immigration status seek the assistance they need. As is surely important for the Government, this amendment would ensure that the perpetrators of domestic abuse against these women could be dealt with in the normal way by the criminal justice system. The review will not change these facts or throw any further light on the issue. Does the Minister accept that? That is how it is. During our meeting, the Minister was unable to respond to these arguments. This is not at all a criticism of the Minister—I believe there is no morally acceptable counterargument to make.
Before I conclude, I want to clear up a few misunderstandings. Some services may need to share data; for example, to establish an individual’s immigration status to determine whether or not they have the right to access the NHS. However, a victim’s data should never be used to trigger immigration enforcement proceedings. That is a completely different matter.
This amendment needs to be included on the face of the Bill. At present, the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on data-sharing is inconsistently adopted by police forces up and down the country. The police need absolute clarity on this issue and this amendment would provide it. We do not need to wait for the review. We know that we need a clear statutory duty to ensure safe reporting by domestic abuse victims. If a survivor of abuse with unsettled immigration status comes to the notice of the police, the police should refer them to a specialist who deals with these issues. To catapult these women into the immigration enforcement system without legal advice or support, just at the point when they are at their most vulnerable and have taken the first step to escape their abuse, is unnecessary, counterproductive and cruel.
Finally, we know that almost all the vulnerable women who are the subject of this amendment report that threats of deportation have been used by their perpetrators. The reality is that the Home Office is unwittingly supporting perpetrators in their criminal activities. Is the Minister content with that situation? The UK’s treatment of these women is not consistent with our claim to be a civilised society; that is certainly my view. I hope that Ministers will reflect carefully on this issue. If the Minister cannot assure the House that the Government will address this issue within the Bill, I will want to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be supporting the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Wilcox should they wish to press this amendment to a vote today. We all know that migrant women with no recourse to public funds face so many additional barriers to safety from violence. Abusers commonly use women’s fear of immigration enforcement and separation from their children to control them and stop them seeking the help that they need. Thanks must go to Elizabeth Jiménez-Yáñez, co-ordinator of Step Up Migrant Women, Janaya Walker of Southall Black Sisters, and all those organisations which work with migrant women and have kindly shared many heart-breaking testimonies with us.
We all, including the Minister, wish to ensure that safe pathways are established for migrant women to report abuse. To be honest, I am disappointed that our arguments for the Bill to play its part in achieving that have so far fallen on deaf ears. The Government are saying that the 2020 National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance simply needs better implementation. We are saying, however, that the super-complaint investigation, which several of us referred to in Committee, found that the guidance on data-sharing has been only inconsistently adopted by police forces in England and Wales; is discretionary, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said; and is therefore not fit for purpose.
If the guidance is not working adequately and there is no legal duty for the police to tell immigration enforcement if they know someone is in the country illegally, why are the Government not using this Bill to remedy the situation? Why also are the Government waiting until 21 June to respond to the super-complaint investigation by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters? Obviously, this will be too late for this Bill—and too late for so many women who are living in fear not only of abuse but of detection and of reporting that abuse.
Why are the Government also insisting that the police need to share the victim’s data to safeguard the victim? Surely, it is the role of the police to safeguard and investigate, and to refer the victim of abuse to specialist services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said—and it is the role of immigration to enforce immigration policy and rules. These roles should not be conflated at the expense of the victim. The Stand Up Migrant Women campaign also insists that there is a distinct lack of data on any positive effects resulting from such information-sharing. I ask the Minister to think again about the importance of this amendment to so many migrant women who are trapped in the sinking sands of irregular identity and regular abuse.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is about victims of domestic abuse who have—or, crucially, believe that they have—insecure status. Believing or being told that you are insecure is part of control, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, just said, and trust or lack of trust—indeed, fear of an authority figure—is a significant barrier to seeking help. In Committee, I quoted Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, who said:
“Victims should have every confidence in approaching the police for protection”,
and should
“never be in a position where they fear the actions of the police could unintentionally but severely intensify their vulnerability”.
That was about organised crime but it applies precisely also to this situation.
The Government have, or will have, their pilot on the needs of migrant women. They are not a homogeneous group: there are different groups and communities, and so on, but the subjects of this amendment are characterised by the common factor of insecure status. The issue is about process. Without a firewall, quite a lot of women—and some men—will not even get to square one of “victims first and foremost”.
At the previous stage, the Minister spoke of the benefits to sharing information. I do not dispute that there are certain benefits in some situations but this is a matter for the individuals’ consent. I am very concerned that in Committee, in referring to victims’ needs being “put first”, she talked about there being a “clear position” on the police exchanging information about victims of immigration enforcement. There should indeed be a clear position, and the amendment provides it. She also said that the Government are
“equally … bound to maintain an effective immigration system”,
that
“individuals … should be subject to our laws”
and that if their status is irregular, they
“should be supported to come forward … and, where possible, to regularise their stay”.—[Official Report, 1/2/21; col. 1912.]
We could have a debate about safeguarding from exploitation, which I acknowledge that she mentioned, too, but that is not the issue here.
This sounds too much like “status first” and is not consistent with “victims first”, which is what we have heard throughout the debate, and rightly so. I support the amendment. We on our Benches will support it not only because of the Istanbul convention, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but because of its intrinsic importance.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is extremely unfair that someone who is a victim of domestic abuse and has sought help is twice victimised. It shows an astonishingly unfeeling and callous approach to these victims, entirely at odds with the understanding and caring approach of the Government, as shown in this otherwise excellent Bill. I wonder how they can allow the data of domestic abuse victims to be used in this way. Does it mean that immigration and the deportation of victims trumps the importance of this legislation, and that certain groups of victims are not to qualify for support?
The groups of victims include foreign wives of unregistered marriages, which are not seen in English law as lawful. This is an important amendment, and failure by the Home Office to recognise its significance sends a sad message: that the Government are not willing to treat all victims of domestic abuse equally.
The Lord Bishop of London [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her work on this amendment. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Amendment 67, to which I give my support, speaks to an underlying issue with several amendments that concern migrant women: namely, the balance between the Home Office’s commitment to immigration enforcement and the support of victims, which is too often weighted too heavily towards the former. From my own work exploring how varying circumstances, such as migration, affect one’s health outcomes, I hear far too often of victims of crime too nervous to come forward to the police for fear that, rather than receiving the help and support that they need, they will instead find themselves indefinitely detained, split from children and families and deported. The result is that they simply do not come forward, for fear is weaponised by abusers to prevent their victims escaping. This is all too common.
Confidence in the authorities to protect migrant survivors is low, and the lack of a clear firewall to prevent data being used for enforcement is a significant contributing factor. By producing such a firewall, Amendment 67 would go a long way to build confidence and encourage survivors to come forward. I was grateful for the time given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and officials who sought to explain how work was being undertaken to review what actually happens. Unfortunately, the results of this will come too late for the Bill—and even when they do, migrant women will not have access to such a review. All they will know is that they are at risk of their information being passed to the Home Office.
This amendment is one of the structural changes required to reduce violence against migrant women. We have heard the arguments from the Government, here and in the other place, against the amendment. I must admit to being disappointed by the lack of movement or engagement with some of the points which have been repeatedly raised by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service. We have heard from the Government that such data-sharing is necessary for safeguarding; it is not clear how this can be the case. The recent findings on police data-sharing for immigration purposes established that the investigation has found no evidence that sharing personal victim data between the police and the Home Office supports the safeguarding of victims of domestic abuse.
While some services may need to share data to ascertain an individual’s immigration status and the right to access the service, there is absolutely no reason that the police should need to share victims’ immigration status with the Home Office. This does nothing to enhance safeguarding and everything to undermine survivors’ confidence that they will be treated by police as victims of crime, rather than as perpetrators. This issue is of enormous importance. We must find a way of ensuring that survivors have confidence that they can come forward without fear. This is demonstrably not true at present, and a clear solution is present in this amendment. I therefore hope that the Government may think again on this amendment, which I wholeheartedly support.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 67 and if it comes to a vote, the Green group will vote for it. It was a particularly nasty part of the Data Protection Act 2018, which contained provisions that allow the near-unlimited sharing of personal data for the purpose of immigration enforcement. A small group of us tried to fight that at the time, predicting problems as we see today. It was part of a trend by this Government towards turning every single person in this country into a border enforcement agent.
People are currently at great risk when they engage with any kind of public service that information will be passed on to the Government and used to deport them. This really should not be the case. When a survivor of domestic abuse reaches out for help, they should be treated as a human being and given the help that they need unconditionally. There should be absolutely no doubt in their mind that they will be helped and not harmed by accessing support.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked the Minister whether she could say what significance this amendment has for the ratification of the Istanbul convention. Perhaps I can assist the House. As we will hear in the next group, the Istanbul convention requires signatories, of which the UK is one, to take the necessary legislative steps and other measures to promote and protect the right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and private spheres. It goes on to say that the implementation of the provisions of the convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground, specifically mentioning migrant or refugee status, among other things, in the convention.
If a migrant or refugee is deterred from seeking protection from violence because they believe that their details will be passed to immigration officials for immigration control purposes, the UK is in my view in breach of its obligations under the Istanbul convention, as well as it being morally reprehensible and, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said, callous and unfeeling.
We know for a fact that the police pass the details of victims of crime, including rape victims, to immigration officials for immigration control purposes, and this needs to stop. Amendment 67 seeks to stop it, at least in relation to victims of domestic abuse, and we strongly support it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, divides the House, we will support her.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, divides the House, the Opposition Benches will strongly support her amendment. The amendment calls for the Secretary of State to ensure that the personal data of a victim of domestic abuse in the UK is processed only
“for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse”
and not for immigration control.
Government policy is clear: victims of crime should be treated without discrimination. Therefore, the separation of immigration enforcement and protection of domestic abuse victims who are migrant women must be delineated. A failure to do this puts migrant women at risk of the double jeopardy of both danger from their abusers and fear of deportation.
The Istanbul convention, the landmark international treaty on violence against women and girls which the Government have signed and are committed to ratifying, requires in Articles 4 and 59 that victims are protected regardless of their immigration status. Still, FOI requests reveal that 60% of police forces in England and Wales share victims’ details with the Home Office—prioritising immigration control over victims’ safety and access to justice.
While some services may need to share data to ascertain an individual’s immigration status and right to access the service—for example, some NHS services—there is no legal requirement for any data sharing with the Home Office related to domestic abuse victims. Without any national policy guidance on this practice, the police approach to safeguarding migrant victims of crime will remain inconsistent.
The blind spots contained in this Bill are resolved by this amendment. I fear that this blind spot enables offenders and abusers to use police involvement as a threat to their victims, rather than the source of protection that it should be. Various countries around the world have demonstrated that firewalls can be and are being implemented in different ways to create a separation between public services and immigration enforcement. It is entirely possible that the training and cross-sector relationships we are calling for through this Bill can establish safe reporting pathways that include access to specialist support services and legal advice to address a victim’s immigration status, as necessary.
Another consequence of putting immigration control above the safety of victims is that perpetrators can commit these crimes with impunity—a risk not only for survivors but for wider communities. Better trust in the police to protect victims of abuse and investigate crime for migrant women will improve responses for all survivors and the public.
I challenge the Government to establish safe reporting pathways by incorporating a clear statutory obligation preventing public authorities and other support services sharing data with the Home Office for the purpose of immigration control, to ensure that safe reporting is available to all women, regardless of their immigration status.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the other signatories of this amendment for setting out their case for a firewall so that the personal data of domestic abuse victims which are given or used for seeking or receiving support are not used for immigration control purposes. I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issue with the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Wilcox of Newport, and others after Committee.
While I appreciate the case they are making, the Government remain of the view that what is provided for in Amendment 67 would hinder the safeguarding of victims of domestic abuse and that it is premature given the process set out by the policing inspectorate following its report on the recent super-complaint about this.
I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment, which is to ensure that migrant victims of domestic abuse come forward to report that abuse to the police and are not deterred by concerns that immigration enforcement action might be taken against them. As my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford made clear in Committee, our overriding priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. Guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which was updated last year, makes it clear that victims of domestic abuse should be treated as victims first and foremost.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council remains clear in its view that information sharing between the police and Immigration Enforcement is in the interest of the victim. Sharing information can help prevent perpetrators of abuse coercing and controlling their victims because of their insecure or unknown immigration status. In such circumstances, bringing the victim into the immigration system can only benefit them. This amendment would prevent that and could cut against other assistance that can be provided to domestic abuse survivors.
It might assist the House if I give one example of the possible unintended effects of this amendment. We will shortly be debating Amendment 70 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. That amendment seeks to expand the destitute domestic violence concession so that any migrant victim of domestic abuse can apply for temporary leave to remain while making an application for indefinite leave to remain. I will leave the debate about the merits of Amendment 70 to my noble friend and the debate which will follow. For the purposes of this debate, I submit that an application under the destitute domestic violence concession is, in the words of Amendment 67, a request for
“support or assistance related to domestic abuse”.
Under this amendment, the Home Office could not lawfully process any application under the DDVC because the applicant’s personal data could be used for an immigration control purpose. I fully accept that that is not what the sponsors of this amendment have in mind but, were it to be added to the Bill, I fear that would be one effect.
More broadly, I hope that noble Lords will understand that the Government are duty-bound to maintain an effective immigration system, not least because of their obligations under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which permits the Home Office to share and receive information for the purposes of crime prevention and detection and effective immigration control. As such, it was particularly disappointing to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, say that the Labour Benches would vote in favour of this amendment, were it put to a Division. We have an obligation to protect our public services and to safeguard the most vulnerable people from exploitation because of their immigration status.
The public rightly expect that people in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that, when people with an irregular immigration status are identified, they should be supported to come in line with the law and, where possible, to regularise their stay. Immigration enforcement staff routinely help migrant victims of domestic abuse and other crimes by directing them to legal advice to help regularise their stay.
Articles 6 and 9 of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 provide the statutory framework within which this information is exchanged. I remind noble Lords that the Government are committed to reviewing the current data-sharing arrangements in relation to victims of domestic abuse.
It was not very long ago that, in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, your Lordships’ House approved legislation establishing a system of police super-complaints. The first super-complaint to be considered under this new system was on this very issue. The outcome was published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services in December 2020. It made eight recommendations in total: five for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, two for the Home Office and one jointly shared between them. HMICFRS said that the Government should respond within six months—that is, by June—and we are committed to doing just that. However, having legislated for the super-complaint process, we should not now undermine it by not allowing it to run its proper course.
It is only right that we take account of the recommendations in the report in proper detail. In response to the report, we have committed to reviewing the current arrangements, and, as I have said, we will publish the outcome of the review by June. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London lamented the fact that this would be too late for this Bill, but I reassure her that it is highly probably that the outcome of the review can be implemented through further updates to the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance or other administrative means—so action can be taken swiftly.
We understand the concerns that have been raised about migrant victims who do not feel safe in reporting their abusers to the authorities for fear of enforcement action being taken. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has proposed undertaking further research into the experiences of this cohort of victims, which we are committed to doing. We will engage with domestic abuse organisations to understand those concerns and assess what more we can do to allay those fears. We welcome the input of all noble Lords as we conduct this research.
In conclusion, while we understand the concerns that lie behind it, we respectfully believe that this is the wrong amendment and at the wrong time. If adopted, it would prevent victims of abuse from obtaining the support that they need, whether under the DDVC or other routes, and it prejudges the outcome of the super-complaint process, which was endorsed by your Lordships’ House just four years ago. I would be glad to undertake to keep the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others informed about the progress of the review and to discuss its conclusions with them. On that basis, I hope that they might yet be willing to withdraw their amendment today.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank most of all the many noble Lords who have contributed so powerfully in support of Amendment 67. I also thank the Minister for his response, but I do not accept at all his view that it would reduce the support or protection for victims of domestic abuse. It very clearly talks about the information process
“for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance”.
Obviously, that information being passed from the police to the immigration officials would be unacceptable under this amendment. On the other hand, if the victim were to go to the immigration officials with a representative and with their information, saying, “I want you to sort out my immigration status”, the immigration officials could of course proceed absolutely without any problem. As such, this is a bit of dancing on a pin, if I may put it that way. Basically, I do not accept that at all.
The Minister referred to working to allay the fears of victims of domestic abuse. This is not about allaying fears; it is about removing a very real risk for these very vulnerable victims of domestic abuse. As such, simply trying to allay fears really does not deal with the problem at all.
The Minister suggested keeping us informed; certainly, that would be helpful, and I hope that Ministers would do that. However, in view of the very disappointing response of the Minister, I want to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 70. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 70
“Victims of domestic abuse: leave to remain and the destitution domestic violence concession (DDVC)
(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (“the immigration rules”) to make provision for any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom to have a route to apply for leave to remain.(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must—(a) set out rules for applying for indefinite leave to remain by any person subject to immigration control who is a victim of domestic abuse in the United Kingdom; and(b) provide for those rules to be commenced no later than one month after the laying of the statement.(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for granting limited leave to remain for a period of no less than six months to any person eligible to make an application under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2); such leave must include no condition under section 3(1)(c)(i), (ia), (ii) or (v) of the Immigration Act 1971.(4) The Secretary of State must make provision for extending limited leave to remain granted in accordance with subsection (3) to ensure that leave continues throughout the period during which an application made under the immigration rules for the purposes of subsection (2) remains pending.(5) Where subsection (6) applies, notwithstanding any statutory or other provision, no services shall be withheld from a victim of domestic abuse solely by reason of that person not having leave to remain or having leave to remain subject to a condition under section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971.(6) This subsection applies where a provider of services is satisfied that the victim of domestic abuse is eligible to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.(7) The Secretary of State must, for the purposes of subsection (5), issue guidance to providers of services about the assessment of eligibility to make an application to which subsection (3) refers.(8) In this section—(a) an application is pending during the period—(i) beginning when it is made,(ii) ending when it is finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned;(b) an application is not finally decided while an application for review or appeal could be made within the period permitted for either or while any such review or appeal remains pending (meaning that review or appeal has not been finally decided, withdrawn or abandoned);“person subject to immigration control” means a person in the United Kingdom who does not have the right of abode;“provider of services” includes both public and private bodies;“services” includes accommodation, education, employment, financial assistance, healthcare and any service provided exclusively or particularly to survivors of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide migrant victims of abuse with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds, for a period of no less than six months, so they can access support services while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I should like at the outset to acknowledge the assistance that I have received from Southall Black Sisters in preparing this amendment, and also thank the Minister for her time and compassion in discussing this with me. Amendment 70 is tabled in my name with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Hamwee, and I am grateful to every one of them.
I know that the protection of all victims of domestic abuse is a priority of noble Lords across the House, and I am grateful for the support shown for this amendment, which aims to provide migrant victims of abuse with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds for a period of no less than six months, so that they can access support services while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status. The mechanism for doing so is straightforward: extend the eligibility criteria of the existing domestic violence—DV—rule, which is a proven route for a limited group of survivors, including those on certain spousal and partner visas.
The Government raised concerns over the interpretation of the amendment, so we have made a couple of minor changes to proposed new subsections (1) and (2) to clarify the purpose of this amendment. There is also an updated explanatory note. I hope that what is now clear from the minor changes to the wording is that we are asking for temporary leave to remain and access to public funds while these extremely vulnerable people escape their abusers and regularise their immigration status. This is not about guaranteeing indefinite leave to remain to all migrant victims of abuse.
In Committee, I highlighted the need for such an arrangement and will not go over similar ground here or repeat the stories that I shared then. In response to the Government’s counter-arguments, received in Committee and in discussion, I make three points this afternoon.
First, I shall speak about legitimate expectation of settlement. When the DV rule was introduced, the stated purpose behind the measure was to enable abused migrant women who would otherwise remain trapped to leave an abusive relationship. There was no suggestion that the DDV concession, as it was then named, was being introduced primarily because of a legitimate expectation by spouses to remain in the UK. I would argue that the law should provide protection for people on all visa types when there is evidence of domestic abuse, since many have insecure status through no fault of their own. We know that domestic violence often dramatically changes women’s circumstances and expectations, and the Immigration Rules should reflect this. I say “women” not to exclude men but because the experience and data has come from those working with women.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 87 I will not repeat all my arguments from Committee, but I will reiterate two key points. First, it would allow us to ratify the Istanbul convention and, secondly, it relates primarily to access to services and is separate from the question of immigration control. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece and Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for joining me in sponsoring the amendment, to all noble Lords who supported it in Committee and are supporting it now, and to End Violence Against Women and Southall Black Sisters for their invaluable assistance. I add my support to Amendment 70.
Amendment 87 would ensure that all victims of domestic violence, whoever they are, get the support they deserve. When a crime is committed, when a man or a woman is abused, we offer them help, compassion and justice as our first response, not as a final stage. Domestic abuse cannot be hidden behind discrimination. That principle is central to the Istanbul convention, which insists on non-discrimination, including on the grounds of migration status. This will be the only area of the convention left outstanding once the Bill has passed and there is every sign that it will remain unresolved for some time yet.
Nine years after we signed the convention, we seem to have no plan to ratify it. Ratification enshrines the substantive requirements while still allowing the detail to be developed by the Government. Alignment of the legislative framework can be an ongoing process but it is clear that an international commitment is a powerful statement of intent. It has great symbolic meaning: that we are committed to treating every victim with dignity and will take every incidence of domestic abuse seriously from the point of disclosure. Ratification would be a signal to other countries around the world. It would also be a ray of hope for victims in this country.
In Committee, the Minister pointed to the Government’s pilot project, the migrant victims scheme. I am concerned for two reasons. First, it misunderstands the crucial purpose of this amendment. The pilot is a way of deciding what specific support migrant women might need but the amendment is about establishing their fundamental right to support as victims. Those issues are related but they are not the same.
Secondly, as other noble Lords have already explained and specialist organisations repeatedly tell us, the migrant victims scheme seeks answers that we already know to problems that we can address today. It is an unnecessary delay that creates the appearance of action without any lasting resolution to the terrible situation faced by migrant victims of domestic abuse.
The history of the Bill should be a cautionary tale for all of us. It has taken more than two years to get to this point. Set that alongside the nine years since we signed the Istanbul convention, and I fear that if we do not take our chance to ratify it now, we may be in for a very long wait indeed. If we insist on delaying for the migrant victims scheme, we are saying that migrant women can have protection but only at some unspecified time years in the future. That is not good enough. The Government’s failure to lay out a timetable for ratifying the Istanbul convention only confirms that. I was especially concerned to hear suggestions that the convention could be ratified with reservations so that the Government did not have to address this issue. That would be a very bad outcome indeed, above all for the migrant women themselves.
There is a point of principle here about fulfilling our international commitments. There is also a practical point: the amendment would ensure that the migrant women who are at such great risk could access those services they need. I reassure those who might have concerns about immigration that the amendment would not affect immigration control; it would not require changes to immigration regulations or to the Government’s ability to control who comes to Britain and who gets to stay. However, it would offer protection from serious crimes to those who are here. If someone is attacked on our streets, we do not stop to check their passport before offering them assistance. Abuse behind closed doors should not be any different.
A non-discrimination amendment would mean that public authorities would be expected to take into account migrant victims’ needs when dealing with them or making strategic decisions. It would ensure that survivors could access the services they needed to protect them from harm. It would make sure that the Government’s stated desire to treat victims first and foremost as victims was a reality. It would guarantee that the provisions of the Bill truly worked for and applied to everyone, which they do not currently do, rather than just those lucky enough to be born in the right place. This can be the landmark Bill that we need, for which the domestic abuse sector, and victims and survivors of abuse, are calling, but it cannot do that while it ignores a section of society at serious risk.
I will close with the words of one migrant survivor. She was sexually abused by her ex-husband and other men before finding support from a refuge. She said, “The centre has allowed me to get independence. I have learned so much about life. I have joined college. I am learning every day and I am doing well. I have my autonomy back. I feel safe and less anxious about my future. I can now finally focus on getting help and getting better. I have met many women from different cultures and religions, and we live in harmony at the refuge. We go on courses together and help each other with the homework. We taste all sorts of food that we cook, and we share our lives, our experiences and hopes for the future. I love it here at the refuge. It is my home. It has honestly made a massive difference in my life.”
We have heard many difficult testimonies throughout these debates. This is a reminder of the hope that we can offer and of the power of support and dignity to transform women’s lives. That is what the Istanbul convention seeks to do; that is what the amendment can do. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can offer the necessary commitment on swift ratification.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I wish to address just three issues in support of these amendments, which have been moved so powerfully. First, in Committee the Minister argued that the DDVC and domestic violence rule were designed to
“provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 98.]
The position of those who entered on other types of visa was addressed by the right honourable Theresa May on Report in the Commons. She took the point that generally they would have to show that they have independent financial support but noted that
“it is perfectly possible that they might find themselves in a relationship where the removal of that financial support is part of the abuse they are suffering. We have to take account of that as we look at this issue.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/20; col. 712.]
I wonder whether the Minister has taken account of that.
Secondly, the Minister explained that
“we have worked with the sector to launch the support for migrant victims scheme.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 101.]
This is welcome and, as I said in Committee, it is to the Government’s credit that they revised the scheme in response to some of the criticisms of the draft prospectus. However, as already noted, it remains the case that the sector does not believe that such a scheme is necessary and has real concerns that the funding made available will not meet the needs of many of the women who will be seeking help from it. I asked in Committee whether it would be possible to at least suspend the “no recourse to public funds” rule for this group during the lifetime of the pilot. However, I did not get a direct response, so I would appreciate one now.
Thirdly, with regard to the Istanbul convention, the Minister noted that
“the position on whether the UK is compliant with Article 4(3) … to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59, relating to residence status, is of course under review, pending the evaluation and the findings from the support for migrant victims scheme”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 100.]
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to both these amendments. The points made in the previous debate substantially apply, as well as the powerful speeches we have heard in Committee and today. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, ended on a very positive note. Amendment 70 is about the destitution domestic violence concession, and I found myself thinking about the meaning of each of those words. At the previous stage, the Minister said that the system was designed for a different purpose,
“to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who held spousal visas”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 98.]
and had a legitimate expectation of a permanent stay. However, given the definition of domestic abuse, the term included in the amendment as part of the Bill and defined in it, even if one thought that any extension beyond someone with a spousal visa was inappropriate, there would surely be unlikely to be any substantial numbers.
Even if one thought that an extension of limited leave to remain from three to six months was too generous, it is only limited leave, as has already been said. Do the Government really believe that this would
“lead to more exploitation of our immigration system”,—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]
as was said in Committee? If we consider victims as victims first, what is the Government’s proposal for the victims we are discussing here, who are in a very particular situation on top of everything else that they have to contend with?
Amendment 87 is about equality—positive equality without discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status. This prompted me to think about the unconscious, sometimes perhaps conscious, prejudices that there are against equality and, indeed, against migrants—some migrants, sometimes all migrants. My noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece made a very succinct point in Committee that the amendment would enshrine a more consistent and cohesive approach which must be adhered to by all public authorities in providing for victim protection. She had hoped to be able to speak on the second day of Committee, but was unable to, so withdrew her name, and the procedures mean that she cannot speak on it today. I am sorry, because her voice would have been welcome.
This is another amendment that would deprive an abuser of a means of control and abuse. We were told in Committee and on other occasions that the ratification of the Istanbul convention is, of course, under review, pending the evaluation and findings of the support for migrant victims scheme. I am afraid that “under review” and “pending” sound to me rather like “parked”. Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic and Lady Lister, mentioned the suggestion that we have heard from the Government—not in the debate, but before today—about ratification with reservations. I share their concerns.
I am baffled that there should be any resistance to ensuring that all victims of domestic abuse receive equally effective treatment and support, irrespective of who they are and how they came to be in the UK. In view of what has been called an inconsistent and even haphazard response by the police, we need to make clear that this is about equality. It is not about some victims qualifying and some not. Surely we accept equality. We accept that legislation is not necessary for ratification of the convention, but this is our opportunity to move ahead. What is the problem? Are the Government concerned about challenges to particular decisions? Is this in fact, as it was beginning to sound at the Bill’s previous stage, about not victims first but Treasury first? If so, could we at least hear that said?
To me, the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, are irrefutable, and she put them very clearly and powerfully. Our Benches support her. I hope that she will give the House the opportunity to support her. If she does not, I give notice that when we get to its place in the list, I will move Amendment 87 to put it to the House and, if necessary, take it to a Division, and I would be grateful if my voice could be taken accordingly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I agree with everything she and the previous speakers, particularly the right reverend prelate Bishop of Gloucester, have said. These two amendments follow on from Amendment 67, and it really is time that the Government at last implemented the Istanbul convention without reservations, treated all victims of domestic abuse equally and made provision for those subject to immigration control to have a route to make the appropriate applications. The Government would retain control, but it would at least give these people, who are not married, or not treated as married, a possible route to remain in this country—without having certainty of it, which would remain in the hands of the Government.
Without these amendments, like with Amendment 67, there is a danger of serious discrimination against groups of victims and the creation of a flawed piece of legislation negating much of what would otherwise be, as so many people have said, a landmark Act. I add that the pilot project is just delaying an important and necessary decision.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation. I will not repeat what I said in Committee on this issue. Suffice it to say that migrant women are particularly vulnerable in an abusive situation because their insecure immigration status can be used as a tool against them. They often cannot access refuges or other safe accommodation because they have no recourse to public funds.
Women’s Aid, whose excellent briefing I acknowledge, considers that the Government may be in breach of several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and in breach of the Istanbul convention obligations because they have failed to ensure that survivors with insecure immigration status can access equal support for and protection from domestic abuse. Assurances by the Minister in Committee that
“the Secretary of State is taking steps to ensure effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]
have not convinced anybody. Amendment 70 provides a way through by regularising survivors’ immigration status irrespective of whether or not they are on a spousal visa, and by extending the destitute domestic violence concession from three months to six months to underpin that.
In Committee, the Minister was reluctant to extend the rules in this way because it would undermine their original purpose. That rather begs the question of whether the original purpose was sufficient, and the trenchant points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and all the evidence from migrant survivors suggest that it is not. It also begs the question: how do the Government otherwise propose to assure the International Agreements Committee that they are fulfilling their obligations under the Istanbul convention, when all those most closely involved can show quite clearly that they are not? I would appreciate it if the Minister would address both these points directly in her response.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who referred to the International Agreements Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve. We considered the question of the ratification of the Istanbul convention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the chairman of that committee, will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate in a few moments, so I will not pre-empt what he has to say by way of an authoritative description of the committee’s views.
I want to add just three points. First, the Istanbul convention was signed by the coalition Government in 2012, a Government of which I was then a member. We would not have anticipated then that it would have taken so long for it to be ratified or that there would have been any difficulty in respect of non-discrimination in achieving that. I am glad the Government are bringing forward Clauses 66 to 68 to enable the extraterritorial jurisdiction measures to be dealt with. Surely now is the time and this is the Bill to take ourselves to the point where we can ratify.
Secondly, a number of us in your Lordships’ House served in the other place and realise what it takes to get as many as 135 Members of Parliament to turn up on a Friday morning to support a Private Member’s Bill, but that is what happened on 24 February 2017 to support what is now the Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017. There is a tendency in government to say, “Well, that was just a Private Member’s Bill.” No, it is an Act of Parliament that requires Ministers to set out in a Statement to the House when they have a timetable for ratification and, in the absence of such a timetable, to report annually on the situation. Back in 2017, the 135 Members who turned up on a Friday morning to support that Bill and turn it into an Act would not have expected that there would have been four annual reports, with no resolution yet in sight and no timetable published by the Government. The evidence from this House and, indeed, the other House, is that Parliament expects that to happen.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, that was a powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, particularly in relation to the ratification timetable. I hope the Minister is able to respond positively.
Listening to the debate, both at Second Reading and in Committee, and indeed today, I fail to see how any Member of this House could not be concerned at the plight of migrant women who are victims of domestic abuse. Given the vulnerability of these women in general, the Government need to agree and accept both these amendments. It is clear that the current, large proportion of migrant women who have no recourse to public funds are having real problems, being barred from accessing certain types of financial support from the state, including homelessness assistance and other welfare benefits.
As my noble friend Lady Warwick has just said, survivors staying in refuges most commonly support their stay using their housing benefit. The funding crisis within specialist domestic abuse services means that many are unable to support women who have no recourse to public funds. Migrant women in that situation have found it very difficult to secure a stay in a refuge.
We know that survivors in the UK on a spousal visa or one of a small number of family visas can apply for the destitute domestic violence concession, but only migrant women on a very limited number of visa types are eligible, and this arbitrarily leaves out an enormous proportion of migrant survivors with NRPF status, who have few options of where to go if they are experiencing domestic abuse. The Covid crisis has served to demonstrate how precarious the position of migrant survivors is and how essential it is they can access financial support from the state to keep them and their children safe.
I always thought it significant that the domestic abuse commissioner has stated that the no recourse to public funds rule means that a significant number of the most marginalised victims of domestic abuse in our society are unable to access the support they need. Not only does this leave people facing destitution, homelessness or staying with their abuser, it is discriminatory in the terms the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just referred to.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the Minister’s comments at Second Reading and in Committee. They have commented on what she had to say about the use of the DDVC. But I would like to go back to her saying that the Government lacked data and, as a result, launched the pilot scheme. The problem I have with this is that this is the Bill that everyone is committed to supporting; noble Lords have worked very hard to achieve a consensus on the outcome. I, for one, find it difficult to allow this Bill to go forward without resolving these issues and the evident discrimination that applies to many migrant women.
As for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, I thought the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission was significant:
“Migrant survivors often find themselves in particularly vulnerable situations owing to their insecure immigration status being used as a tool of control by perpetrators. Their immigration status in turn bars them from access to essential services and support. These barriers are compounded by other factors such as language and a lack of understanding amongst services of relevant cultural and social issues.”
I hope the noble Baroness will put this to the vote.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who always speaks with great reason.
My meetings with the excellent charity Kalayaan during previous immigration Bills—which some here will remember—left me in no doubt about the exploitation of migrant domestic workers in London and elsewhere. We heard some chilling case studies of how their employers confined them, did not pay them and removed their passports, among other forms of flagrant abuse and exploitation, which continue today. Noble Lords will also remember that the strength of such stories led directly to the Modern Slavery Act.
I have not yet spoken on this Bill, but I speak now, more narrowly, as a member of the International Agreements Committee, like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to support Amendment 87, persuasively argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and Amendment 70, which also concerns migrant workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the committee recently listened—with some surprise, I might say—to the Minister for Safeguarding proposing the pilot project to collect further evidence instead of ratifying the Istanbul convention. The Home Office problem is, as usual, that it cannot catch up with unregistered migrants. One can sympathise with that but, as was said, the procedure could take another 14 months at least. My noble friend Lord Kerr questioned her on this specifically, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will explain that we all thought the evidence was already running strongly in the other direction, and we were overwhelmingly in favour of the solution proposed originally by the End Violence Against Women Coalition, urging the Government to skip the pilot and adopt this amendment, which could then lead directly to ratification.
The relevant provisions of the convention relating to non-discrimination on the grounds of immigration status are Articles 3, 4 and 59. They say simply that all women, of whatever status, who are victims of domestic violence and abuse must be protected. Surely, delaying ratification any longer will seriously damage the UK’s international reputation. This message also comes from our Council of Europe delegation, which has already made its position clear. I support both these amendments.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who spoke as a member of the International Agreements Committee—I am its chair—as did the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and as will the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, when he follows me.
Reference has rightly been made to our inquiry into why the Government have not yet ratified the Istanbul convention, which is described by the Council of Europe as the gold standard for the protection of women against violence. That is why I speak in this debate. We had the benefit of the evidence of the Minister for Safeguarding, Victoria Atkins MP; I believe we were all impressed by her determination to push the work forward, but I am afraid we were less impressed by the reason why this ratification had not yet taken place. She identified three reasons, two of which are being dealt with. The third was the issue covered by the amendment which has been spoken to so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and other noble Lords today.
We took the view as a committee, as noble Lords have heard from our letter—which I signed with the authority of the committee on 11 February 2021—that we were very concerned that the Minister could not give us assurances that the necessary measures would be implemented this year to ensure that ratification could take place promptly. Indeed, it appeared clear from the evidence that ratification might not take place until 2022 or 2023. I think it was in that context that the Minister suggested that a way to get to ratification earlier would be to enter a temporary reservation against certain provisions, particularly those under Articles 4(3) and 59. The committee did not welcome that at all, because its potential effect would be to leave these important provisions—including non-discrimination provisions—outstanding for even longer. In the committee’s view, that would be bad both in terms of the lack of protection for women covered by those provisions and for the reputational standing of the United Kingdom in this important area.
While I think the Minister, whom I commend on her frankness and candour, was trying to help in one sense by suggesting this reservation, it was not an answer to the problem. In the letter I have referred to, we said that what is in effect Amendment 87 would solve the problem and enable a much speedier ratification. She said she hoped the committee would recognise the direction of travel; I hope the Minister here today will recognise that the travel has now arrived at your Lordships’ House with this amendment. It is time to vote for it, as I will gladly do if it is put to a vote, and bring that obstacle to ratifying the convention to an end.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a passionate debate that has focused on a group of people who in normal circumstances—normal for them—have little opportunity to articulate their needs. That makes its importance all the more obvious and necessary. I have a carefully written speech, but its points have been made and I have no intention of repeating them.
I have nothing to add on the vulnerability of migrant women; this has been amply, eloquently and passionately described. Nor have I anything to add to the setting out of our long-overdue need to fulfil our international obligations by ratifying the Istanbul convention—that has been done in detail, again and again, by previous speakers. I also express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for painting a picture of the 135 Friday attendees, which is itself a considerable statement.
I am interested in the question because I and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who is no longer in his place, are the two representatives from the delegation to the Council of Europe who sit on the Council’s migration committee. We met last Friday, where one of our major topics of discussion was how the Council of Europe, with its focus on human rights, the rule of law and democracy, could play its part in conscientising the European Union—which is establishing a pact to deal with immigration—and affect and engage it in bringing to fruition an outcome which will both in this area and across a broader spectrum of issues enhance the diligent observation of the human rights of these vulnerable people.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. He opened by saying that noble Lords before him had said almost everything he wanted to say and then managed to contribute a huge amount of valuable observation. It was very interesting to listen to him; I agree with every word.
Other noble Lords have said virtually everything. I add only that I am concerned by the Government’s hostile environment, which I have always found difficult to understand. It plays to a right-wing agenda with which I have no sympathy at all and poses a moral question as to what their aim is. What is the Government’s priority? Do they care more about helping survivors of domestic abuse end that abuse and making them safe, or about catching and deporting migrants, even where the only thing affecting their lawful residence in this country is the fact that they have fled an abusive relationship? I would very much like an answer. I also invite the Minister to put aside her bold face and perhaps tell us that the Government just want to help people—in which case, these two amendments do exactly that. I very much hope that the Government will perhaps accept these amendments and, to a tiny extent, drop the hostile environment for survivors of domestic abuse.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as we have heard, the first of these amendments
“would provide migrant victims of abuse”
who do not have secure immigration status
“with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds … so they can access support services”,
such as refuge places,
“while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.”
Less than 6% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds, for example. It would extend the domestic violence rule and destitute domestic violence concession to a few thousand more migrant survivors of abuse who are not covered by the existing provisions, which cover only a limited group of survivors on certain spousal and partner visas. It would also extend the period covered from three months to six to allow sufficient time for their immigration status to be regularised.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, the phrase
“we require a more complete and reliable evidence base”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]
is being a little overused in the course of the Bill; she has already deployed this argument in relation to community support services. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said in Committee, the evidence
“has already been submitted by key specialist organisations”
in
“response to the Home Office’s migrant victims of domestic abuse review in September 2020.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 80.]
The government pilot announced at Second Reading in the other place covers only about 500 women for a period of 12 weeks. I am always sceptical of pilots announced in the face of amendments designed to make permanent changes.
Amendment 87 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, receive equal protection and support; this would include the migrant victims of domestic abuse in Amendment 70.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Istanbul convention. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was a member of the coalition Government that signed the convention in 2012. He also mentioned the Private Member’s Bill, now an Act, that was passed by Parliament in 2017. Getting 135 MPs to turn up on a Friday when their allowance, unlike ours, does not depend on their attendance—and they were giving up valuable time in their constituencies—showed the strength of feeling on this issue.
This amendment cites Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Article 4 requires parties to
“take the necessary legislative and other measures to promote and protect the right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and the private sphere.”
I mentioned this in the debate on the previous group. Article 4(3) states:
“The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”.
It then goes on to list a whole range of factors in the convention, specifically listing the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and “migrant or refugee status”.
We support Amendments 70 and 87, and expect Divisions on both of them. We will support their movers when it comes to the votes.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I seek to be relatively brief. Amendment 70, moved so compellingly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would extend the destitution domestic violence concession to all migrant victims of abuse, providing them with
“temporary leave to remain and access to public funds, for a period of no less than six months … while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.”
Amendment 87, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, spoke so powerfully, would ensure that
“all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status, in line with Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.”
Amendment 70 addresses a major gap in the Bill—namely, the lack of provision for migrant women in particular. They are probably one of the most vulnerable groups suffering domestic abuse. Despite that, they do not get the same level of support as other domestic abuse survivors, with the suspicion being that migrant women in this position are all too often regarded as immigration cases rather than victims of domestic abuse—making it even more likely that abuse of migrant women will take place and simply continue.
This is because the reality is that migrant women who do not have established immigration status find it difficult, if not impossible, to access refuges and other essential support services to escape abuse. Also, their abusers know that they do not have funds of their own—their abusers make sure of that—and have no recourse to the public funds necessary to access that support because of their lack of status. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, reminded us, less than 6% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds because refuges cannot carry out their vital work without income.
I await the Government’s response, particularly to see whether it still seeks to put off making any meaningful specific commitment to address the plight of migrant women suffering domestic abuse, and whether the response also suggests that, at heart, the Government still regard migrant women without established immigration status who suffer domestic abuse as primarily an immigration issue rather than a domestic one.
In Committee, the Government spoke about a pilot exercise. Again, the right reverend Prelate highlighted the inadequacy of that exercise and the fact that it does not actually commit the Government to doing anything.
The domestic abuse commissioner-designate supports this amendment, and the evidence in support of it is already there in the public domain. The terms of this Domestic Abuse Bill have been debated and discussed for a number of years, going back to when Theresa May was Home Secretary. No doubt as a result of that discussion and consideration, the Bill marks real progress in a number of areas.
However, the fact that the Government still say that they do not know enough about the plight of migrant women faced with domestic abuse to agree to this amendment says a great deal about their attitude to, and the priority they give to, this particular highly vulnerable group. The time to act is now. Action should not be delayed or kicked into the long grass any longer.
We support Amendment 70. We will also support Amendment 87, which seeks to ensure that
“all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status”,
if it is taken to a vote.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic for their continued commitment to providing support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. I want to take this opportunity also to thank the International Agreements Committee, which is represented so well this afternoon.
As I highlighted in Committee, I know that we all share the view that anyone who has suffered domestic abuse, regardless of their immigration status, should be treated first and foremost as a victim. Although the Government appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments, we still do not think that they are an appropriate way forward.
Amendment 70 seeks to provide at least six months’ leave and access to public funds to all migrant victims of domestic abuse, as well as providing them with a route to apply for leave to remain. Amendment 87 seeks equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, while also referring to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her very full reply. She said, rightly, that I had pressed her and that there was no intention to park the issue, but what I really pressed her on was an assurance that there is no intention to enter a reservation to the Istanbul convention on the question of migrant women.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I can state quite honestly from my point of view that I know of no intention to enter a reservation.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Again, I thank the Minister for her very full response and for her real passion about providing support for all victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
I do not want to repeat everything I said in my opening speech, because I think we are at risk of going round in circles. But the Minister herself said that this is not a homogenous group and that it was about treating each person as an individual. That is why we are asking for this temporary leave to remain and access to public funds, so that each person can be treated as an individual and the right action can be taken.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 73. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 73
“Monitoring of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(2) In section 325 (arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327;” insert ““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;(b) in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”. (3) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—“327ZA Section 325: interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator (1) For the purposes of section 325, a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—(a) P is a relevant serial offender; or(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.(4) In this section—“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(5) Within 12 months of this Act being passed the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions of this section.(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (5) which must include a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers for the purposes of—(a) improving the early identification, assessment and management of perpetrators;(b) increasing the number of rehabilitation programmes;(c) increasing specialist work to tackle abusive attitudes and behaviour; and(d) ensuring a co-ordinated approach to data collection and management of perpetrators across England and Wales.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for the establishment of MAPPAs, to make arrangements for serial domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators to be registered on VISOR and be subjected to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA. It would require the Government to provide a comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers within one year of the Act being passed.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who moved my amendment in Committee; to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for also adding their names to the amendment; to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, whom I regard as my noble friend, who cannot speak due to procedural issues but who has given me her strong support; to my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper MP, who moved a similar amendment in the Commons; and to the Minister, for all the work that she has done on this important Bill—as she knows, I hold her in the highest esteem.
We have been on a long journey, but there is more to do to tackle gender-based violence and misogyny. Following the appalling murder of Sarah Everard, it is with deep sadness but increased determination that I speak to my Amendment 73. The disappearance and murder of Sarah highlights yet again the fear and reality of male violence for all women. The one thing that unites all women is the fear of male violence. As Margaret Atwood once said, men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them.
Women are tired of domestic abuse and stalking being considered a women’s issue. They have spent years being told that they should change their behaviour, they have made thousands of reports to the police which have not been listened to or properly recorded and they are desperate for change. The culture of misogyny has to change. Just last week, women were told not to go out after dark—the same advice that was given after the Peter Sutcliffe murders 40 years ago. As ever, the onus was put on women, whereas violence against women is a man’s problem. We need men to step up, to take ownership and responsibility and to create the urgently needed change that holds other men to account for their behaviours. We need to focus on perpetrators.
This is a time to look to the future to prevent the violence, abuse, coercive control, stalking and murder of women in our society. I cannot help but reflect, however, on the fact that, together with victims, survivors, their families and professionals, we have been urging the Government for many years to legislate for the effective identification, risk assessment and management of perpetrators and their inclusion on a national register.
Laura Richards, in the 2004 report Getting Away with It, a profile of domestic violence, sexual and serious offenders, published by the Metropolitan Police Service, highlighted that many domestic abusers and stalkers are serial perpetrators who go from victim to victim and that one in 12 of them raped inside and outside the home. The recommendation was made for serial domestic abusers and stalkers to be proactively identified, assessed and managed by police, prison and probation services, using the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements and the violent and sexual offenders database. However, 17 years later, this is still not happening.
Two HMIC inspections revealed deeply troubling findings. The 2014 inspection into the police response to domestic abuse revealed no risk management of perpetrators, and the 2017 HMICFRS report into stalking revealed 100% failure by every police service and Crown Prosecution Service in six areas. Recommendations were made in both reports, but action was there none.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to four cases that are personally known to me, in which women were failed abysmally by lack of action and by not having a register or a perpetrators strategy including risk assessment and management. Jane Clough, an A&E nurse, warned police that her violent ex-partner Jonathan Vass was going to kill her when she separated from him. Vass coercively controlled Jane and threatened to kill her when she left him. He raped her repeatedly and assaulted her. Jane was terrified when Vass was bailed, having been charged with seven counts of rape and three assaults. She moved to her parents’ house, the extraordinary John and Penny, with her baby. She did not leave the house for three months because she was so scared, but Vass started stalking her on Facebook. He waited for her to return to work from maternity leave and arrive at the hospital car park, and stabbed her 71 times. He had a history of abusing other women that was not joined up.
Hollie Gazzard was stalked and murdered by Asher Maslin in the hairdressing salon in which she worked. Hollie reported to police many times. There was no proactive investigation, risk assessment or risk management, despite Maslin being involved in 24 previous violent offences, including three on Hollie, 12 on former partners, three on his mother and four on others.
Helen Pearson called Devon and Cornwall Police 144 times over five years. She told police that she thought the person writing threatening graffiti saying, “Die, Helen, die”, damaging her car and putting out the windows of her flat was a man called Joe Willis. Helen was terrorised and became a virtual prisoner in her own home. Each time she reported another terrifying event, Helen told the police that it was part of a pattern and she read out the crime report number. The police closed the investigation and Helen attempted to take her own life, as she was at her wits’ end, but the abuse continued to escalate. Not only was Helen and her property targeted, but he targeted her parents and made their lives a living hell. The police did not investigate him, nor was he ever spoken with despite the fact that he had a history. Two weeks before he grabbed Helen off the street and stabbed her eight times with a pair of scissors, he left a dead and tortured cat on her doorstep. At no point was Helen or Willis proactively risk assessed or managed. The police in fact focused on investigating Helen, as they believed that she was making it up.
Zoe Dronfield was almost killed by Jason Smith, who had previously abused 13 women. No one checked his history and she was told to get a nicer boyfriend. His history was all at one police force, the West Midlands. He had victimised a police officer before Zoe, who said that he would seriously harm or kill a woman one day, yet nothing was done.
On 10 October 2017, the Minister told me, in answer to an Oral Question:
“Domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators can already be captured on the dangerous persons database and managed by police and probation under multiagency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA.”—[Official Report, 10/10/17; col. 106.]
We knew at the time that that was not working and now we have even more proof, with more women living in fear, being abused physically or mentally or, at worst, being murdered.
In that time, a great deal of guidance has been issued: a new framework has been adopted by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, setting out arrangements for working with people whose convictions or behaviours include domestic abuse; and the College of Policing has adopted a set of eight principles on the
“identification, assessment and management of serial or potentially dangerous domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators”.
The amount of money being spent by charities on programmes to work with perpetrators has increased, thanks to the Government. All of this is very good, but not enough.
Since the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships’ House on 5 January, 30 women have been killed—the perpetrators all men: Sue Addis, Carol Hart, Jacqueline Price, Mary Wells, Tiprat Argatu, Christie Frewin, Souad Bellaha, Anne Turner, N’Taya Elliott-Cleverley, Rose Marie Tinton, Ranjit Gill, Helen Joy, Emma Robertson Coupland, Nicole Anderson, Linda Maggs, Carol Smith, Sophie Moss, Christina Rowe, Susan Hannaby, Michelle Lizanec, Wieslawa Mierzejewska, Bennylyn Burke, Judith Rhead, Anna Ovsyannikova, Tina Eyre, Samantha Heap, Sarah Everard, Geetika Goyal, Imogen Bohajczuk and Wenjing Xu. We honour these women, including through our determination to bring about change.
In a recent meeting with the Minister and her officials, for which I am grateful, it was agreed that the current system is not working. It was suggested that the problems resulted from gaps in practice, rather than gaps in process, and that more strategies and guidance will suffice. It will not. No matter how many tools are added to the tool-box, the gaps between practice and process will not be narrowed, as they must be, until there is a coherent and co-ordinated national system and those implementing the process have to do so by law. It is, for example, not good enough to rely on best practice; we know that that does not work. There are some great examples of best practice, but they are rare. That is why we need a clear, consistent, national approach, which must include the proper identification, assessment and management of serious perpetrators.
The amendment makes explicit the importance of utilising data and technology in the prevention of domestic abuse and the management of perpetrators. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will focus on this. However, it is important to stress that, at the moment, perpetrators travel with impunity, but information about them is static.
On process, domestic abuser and stalker cases are currently not heard at MAPPA meetings. Ofttimes the cases are not seen as “serious”, despite guidance, and specialist domestic abuse and stalking services are not invited to attend MAPPA. Ofttimes there may be no physical abuse but high levels of coercive control. This is not seen as a risk by most professionals, yet research shows that it correlates significantly with femicide. In 94% of murders of women there was coercive control preceding separation and stalking post separation. That comes from a report from the University of Gloucestershire in 2017. The fact that a perpetrator is serial also increases the risk, yet this is not currently taken into consideration.
That is why my amendment requires a change in the law to create a new category—category 4—to ensure that serial and high-harm domestic abusers and stalkers are identified, monitored and managed by MAPPA-plus. MAPPA-plus would include domestic abuse, coercive control and stalking specialists around the table. This would create much-needed clarity that these perpetrators must be proactively identified, assessed and managed by police, prison and probation via the statutory body of MAPPA. A new category would arguably create more clarity and ensure that perpetrators did not get lost or deprioritised among others. Guidance could include that each area must identify 10 to 20 serial and high-harm domestic abusers and stalkers to be heard at MAPPA under category 4. Equally, “serial” has been defined as two or more victims, and offences can be specified just as they currently are at MAPPA. The perpetrators must also be included on ViSOR, the violent and sex offender register. Data collection is needed as perpetrators travel and their detailed history must follow.
I was delighted to read in the Sunday Times:
“Ministers are considering plans for a national register to monitor men who harass or are violent to women in response to an outcry over the murder of Sarah Everard.
Priti Patel, the home secretary, and Robert Buckland, the justice secretary, are understood to support a ‘super-database’ that would log details of the estimated 50,000 men convicted annually of offences including harassment, coercive control and stalking.
Police and social services would be given access to the register, which would act as an ‘early warning system’ when men commit certain crimes or move into local areas. A minister involved in discussions over possible legislation”
is alleged to have said:
“‘These people are often in the system, but who’s keeping tabs on them?’”
How true.
Speed is of the essence. We need the Bill to deliver the register of perpetrators, but this amendment is not just about the register; is it also about a comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers that would improve the identification, assessment and management of perpetrators and ensure a more co-ordinated approach to data collection across England and Wales. Following the murder of Sarah Everard and the outpouring of concern, anger and grief by hundreds of thousands of women who live in fear, it is time to act. It is not for women to modify or change their behaviour: it is for men to change, to cease their violent actions; it is for society to bring about a cultural change in which misogyny is unacceptable; and it is for government to take leadership.
We can no longer rely on guidance, past or impending strategies or the potential sharing of best practice. We can no longer simply focus on victims; we have to focus on perpetrators. I am therefore pleased to support Amendment 81, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, and I strongly urge the Minister to accept this amendment. If she is not minded to do so, I will seek the view of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 73, to which my name is added. I also support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Strasburger. I too extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Sarah Everard, but also to all the families and friends of those murdered since the beginning of this year. That there have been 30 murders of women since your Lordships’ House had its Second Reading of this Domestic Abuse Bill in January this year is deeply shocking. I suspect, as many of their cases come to court, that we will hear details time and again of how women sought help but were not able to get it from the people they should have been able to trust: the police and other parts of our judicial system.
I will briefly focus on three women murdered in the last five years, because what went wrong for them is still going wrong on a regular basis for this most heinous crime. They are Shana Grice, Pearl Black and Janet Scott.
Michael Lane stalked and murdered Shana in 2016. He had abused 13 girls before Shana and they had reported him for stalking. Shana herself reported him multiple times to Sussex Police. Despite this, there was no focus on Lane’s behaviour or his history, only on Shana’s. Outrageously, she was issued with a fixed penalty notice for wasting police time. She was polite and terrified, and went to the police for help. Shana did everything right, but there was no proactive investigation of Lane. In fact, he was interviewed by the police for just 12 minutes. There was no intelligence or information sharing, or referral to MAPPA.
Simon Mellors murdered two women, Pearl Black and Janet Scott. He murdered Pearl in 1999 when she split up with him. When he came out of prison, he began a relationship with Janet Scott. He coercively controlled her, threatened her and tried to kill her, which she reported to Nottinghamshire police and probation. At this point, Mellors should have been recalled on licence but no action was taken, despite her repeated reports. She was brutally murdered in 2018. The probation officer had told Janet that he doubted Mellors would reoffend, yet, when he did, police and probation took no action, saying that they just did not identify stalking behaviour. So why is it that a man who has killed his previous partner is not seen as a risk when Janet is terrified and reporting him for threatening to kill her? Janet did everything she could, and, despite the fact that Mellors had killed before, nothing was done to manage the risks and to stop him doing it again.
That is why Amendment 73 is necessary. I also heard yesterday that the Government are now considering consulting on a register for stalkers and serious and serial domestic abusers. That is not good enough. The need for a register is now and, as important, arrangements for MAPPA and ViSOR need to be strengthened. There is some very good practice, but it is not consistent, because the agencies are not being forced to work together and the impact that it is having on victims is appalling, as evidenced by the 30 murders we have seen this year alone.
My own experience was when a campaign of harassment, intimidation and then stalking started against me when I was the general election candidate in Watford. The perpetrator was my Conservative candidate opponent, a man called Ian Oakley. One of his particularly unpleasant traits was to harass and intimidate members of my local team to get to me, including poison-pen letters delivered to many houses in my area about our councillors, alleging that one of them had not supported his child in a previous marriage, and then later that he was a child sex abuser. None of this was true. He also perpetrated increasing levels of criminal damage to properties of people who supported me at election time. He sent obscene hand-drawn cartoons showing me in graphically sexual acts to our constituency office on postcards so that Royal Mail staff would see them too.
But for me, as his main target, on top of all these things happening day after day, week after week, there was more. He sent false letters about me to the weekly newspaper, the Watford Observer, making allegations about my family circumstances, trying to have us investigated by children’s services, as we were guardians and carers to two bereaved children. He reported me to Special Branch for falsifying my nomination papers; I had not. He dropped letters through my letterbox just so I knew that he knew where I lived. He phoned me very late at night and then did not talk. He sent me the most disgusting pornographic magazines in envelopes, but without stamps on, so I had to go to the Royal Mail collection office and pay for an envelope without knowing that it was yet another form of abuse. His messages would let me know that he had been following me at night when out canvassing. It was utterly relentless for three years.
Initially, I coped by cataloguing, reporting and helping others to report incidents to the police; I had a comprehensive Excel spreadsheet that grew. For the first 18 months, each reported incident was dismissed as “not serious”. Then the incidents grew and became more serious. Once we were at over 130 incidents on my spreadsheet, two detectives suddenly got it—they joined up the dots. By this time, we knew who it was, but there was no proof. We were issued with an operation name and mobile numbers for the detectives.
Publicly, I was very angry and determined that he would be caught, but privately, I felt constantly sick and nervous most of the time. I became tearful and anxious about having to go out campaigning in the evening in winter months; always watching, anywhere I went. I also felt personally responsible for the incidents targeted at my friends, colleagues and supporters, and I know that other victims of stalkers feel the same when their families and friends are targeted too.
Even when we had the evidence, after my husband bought and installed 10 CCTV cameras at the sites repeatedly targeted by Oakley, two things happened that still shock me today. The first was that a very senior police officer warned the detectives that they would be unlikely to prosecute a case like this, seen as political. That changed when Oakley started on my noble friend Lady Thornhill, who was then the elected Mayor of Watford, and an arrest was made very swiftly, thank goodness. The second thing was that not one of the more serious charges—to which Oakley had pleaded not guilty—was taken any further. This included incidents using 10-inch knives to slash car tyres, defamatory poison-pen letters distributed to large numbers of people, and the sending of pornographic images. For all of this, he received an 18-week suspended sentence—for a three-year campaign—and a year’s community order.
I relate my experience because the nature of the progression of the stalking is of utter relentlessness, and the police reaction is still not unusual. In 2016, eight years after my case, only 37 stalking offenders and 93 harassment offenders received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or more and were therefore automatically eligible to be managed under the MAPPA process as category 2 offenders. However, we do not know how many of these offenders were either referred to or subsequently managed under MAPPA, but as the number of automatically eligible offences is low, and the number of prosecutions for serious harassment and stalking is considerably higher, we can infer that a substantial number of potentially dangerous individuals were not managed under recognised offender management processes.
The Violence Against Women and Girls report shows that in 2017-18 80% of stalkers did not face a charge. Out of over 10,000 only 1,800 were charged, 212 were convicted and only 48 went to prison. Furthermore, most cases were recorded as harassment or something lesser, as in my case, and in 2018-19 there was a further 10% decrease in stalking prosecutions. It is probable that the new stalking protection order will make sure that this continues to decrease as it is an easy alternative. In many domestic violence and stalking case prosecutions—where it is rare that convictions occur—unduly lenient sentences resulted for stalking, domestic violence and coercive control: namely, weeks, months or suspended sentences, which in no way reflects the severity of the crimes.
Stalkers have specific and complex needs to address due to their fixated and obsessive behaviour. For some, this behaviour becomes more serious as time goes on. There is a lack of suitable programmes for stalkers that will reduce the likelihood of reoffending and protect members of the public. It is vital that police, prosecutors, probation, judges and magistrates are trained to understand stalking, including the risks and dangers of stalkers, as well as the stalking legislation which was introduced in 2012 following the stalking law reform inquiry, which I worked on with Robert Buckland. This assumes even more significance if there is to be a stalkers’ and serial perpetrators’ register database, which we are calling for in this amendment. We believe it is urgently needed—now. We urgently need the elements to ensure that people such as stalkers are included in MAPPA.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My goodness me, I am almost left speechless by the account of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of what happened to her; I am so sorry that she had to endure that, and it is hard to disagree with a word that she said. Having taken the now enacted Stalking Protection Bill through this House, I understand the very serious nature of this issue. I would also like to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has spoken passionately to her amendment.
One note of caution is that MAPPA adviser arrangements are far from perfect as they stand. Only one thing that could be worse than not monitoring serial offenders and stalkers in this way is to say that we are keeping track of them, but in fact the opposite turns out to be true, due either to poor resourcing or a systems failure. So, if my noble friend the Minister is minded to reconsider this amendment, we must make sure the systems have the resource and the capacity—but it is hard to disagree after hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, make that speech.
I will now speak to Amendment 81. Sometimes events happen that make society stand up and say, “No more”. The tragic murder of Sarah Everard has done exactly that. As we know, she is the 118th woman to be killed over the past year. Their names may be less familiar, but each and every one of them must be remembered. I praise the honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley for doing just that in the other place, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who just now read out the 30 women who have been killed since the Bill was brought to this House.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I mention my own cousin once again. Her name was Christine Bertin. At the age of 18 she had her whole life in front of her. Instead, she was murdered by a complete stranger. He had been harassing local girls in her neighbourhood in a suburb in Paris and she, also, had caught his eye. Unbeknown to her and my family he stalked her movements over a period of time, and when he knew she was alone in the house he forced himself in and he strangled her.
My heart therefore goes out to all those families who have lost loved ones at the hands of a killer. The journey they are now on is a long and lonely one, with no real end in sight. My cousin died many years ago now, but the sorrow we still feel is as acute as on the day she was murdered. No family should ever feel this. Sympathy and anger can and will spill over, but the only real thing we can do for them and their dead daughters, sisters and mothers is to ensure that they have not died in vain. We have to match heartfelt words with the far harder task of making changes that will actually drive down this death toll for good. I believe there is a lot in this Bill that will work towards that.
Stranger attacks and domestic abuse are inextricably linked. The media will alight on the former, and the latter, quite unacceptably, often just gets a shrug, as though it is some kind of inevitability. But the reality is that abuse and misogyny in the home flows freely into the street; they are the same crime. I often reflect that, if the police at the time of my cousin’s murder had taken that man’s harassment of young girls more seriously, if his behaviour had been called out as grossly unacceptable by his peers, or if he had been put on a perpetrator scheme such as the ones we now know work, my cousin just might still be alive today. His behaviour, and that of so many potential murderers and serial abusers, was simply allowed to carry on unchecked and unstopped. This must end.
However, the debate should not be about men versus women. If a boy is seeing only abuse and violence at home, compounding it with violence and abuse online, without the right support and guidance there is a chance that he will carry on that cycle. Early intervention and recognition of this are essential. I am grateful to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, for relaying this amendment. It was in my name in Committee and I support it wholeheartedly.
In the interests of time, I will not repeat what I said in Committee, but it feels more urgent than ever to focus attention on the perpetrator—the person actually committing the abuse. We will never see any real change in behaviours and attitudes if we carry on putting this as an afterthought. The new funding for perpetrators announced in the Budget was very welcome; more will be needed if we are to ensure a quality response everywhere, but it is certainly a really important move to building up a quality-assured national capacity to respond to perpetrators. We know that fewer than 1% of perpetrators receive any kind of intervention; that is a shocking statistic.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am in an unusual situation. When I am fourth on the list, I would usually feel that I had something to contribute, but listening to the harrowing experiences of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bertin, it makes me feel that this is the most challenging amendment I have ever spoken on. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, very clearly explained the need for this amendment and the fear that women face. I feel very privileged that I have met the family of Jane Clough, whom she mentioned, and listened to their heart-breaking experiences and how time and time again they felt that they were not being listened to.
Like so many women in public life, I have experienced very uncomfortable situations where I have had unwanted attention, been bombarded and had threatening behaviour. I have been incredibly lucky that people have helped and supported me through it, but even with that support and police support around me, I was not able to sleep, I could not eat, I was scared to go out and I was constantly looking over my shoulder. It changed how I felt about myself and my ability to cope with everyday life, and that was with help and support around, so imagine what it must be like to feel that nobody is listening to you and nobody is helping. That is why I strongly support Amendment 73 and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.
I thank the London School of Economics, which provided incredibly useful information and support on this amendment. Gathering data is important, but so is sharing that information with police forces. It does not seem right that this data is not systematically shared and is shared only through the Police National Computer, which records only charges.
I urge the Minister to listen to the speeches tonight. A comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers is essential. It is needed more urgently than a year from now. It must help the identification, assessment and management of perpetrators. We must focus on perpetrators’ behaviour and not blame victims. We must support the victims to enable them to have a chance to get through it. I shall not say any more on amendments tonight, but I strongly support the amendment and will vote favour of it if the noble Baroness divides the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Royall. Like her, I essentially want to see a co-ordinated, consistent and mandatory approach to the flagging and targeting of perpetrators, with a statutory obligation on police, prison and probation services to identify, assess and manage serial and serious domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers. Without such a comprehensive approach, we will not get anywhere with this problem.
The appalling murder of Sarah Everard yet again highlights the fear and reality of male violence for all women. Femicide is at an all-time high; a woman is murdered by a male ex-partner every three days. These are not rare occurrences, as the police so often claim to justify the lack of priority given to the protection of women. The list of women killed by men since this Bill had its First Reading, read out by my noble friend, is surely testimony to that. Throughout the first lockdown. five women a week were killed by a male partner or ex-partner.
It is so striking that most of those men had a history of harming other women—yet there is no proactive risk identification or assessment or management of the perpetrators. Ministers attribute this, essentially, to poor practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has argued that offenders should be managed under MAPPA—but the reality is that domestic abuser and stalker cases are just not heard at MAPPA meetings; they are screened out as cases not seen as serious.
In a moving, courageous speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to three cases. I want to talk about another one: that of Cherylee Shennan. Cherylee was stabbed to death outside her home by convicted killer Paul O’Hara in March 2014 in front of police officers who had been called to investigate reports of domestic abuse. She had suffered a broken nose, repeated facial bruising and a broken jaw at O’Hara’s hands. She was held hostage at knifepoint at least twice before O’Hara killed her.
O’Hara was previously given a life sentence in 1998 for killing ex-partner Janine Waterworth, but he was released on licence in 2012. He had other previous serious convictions for violence against women. He had been assessed in prison as displaying traits of psychopathy. At the time of his release, he was assessed as posing a serious risk to women. Despite his history, O’Hara’s risk was not required to be managed within MAPPA.
Cherylee’s family first suspected that O’Hara was abusing her when they saw her with serious facial injuries at a family gathering on bonfire night. At the time, Cherylee gave an alternative explanation for the injuries but, on 1 March 2014, she told her sister Ellen that it was O’Hara who had caused them, that he had also fractured her jaw and that he had held her hostage at knifepoint. She also told her sister his offending history.
The family called the police. Police officers attended what they believed to be an ongoing domestic violence incident, without any knowledge of O’Hara’s history. They discovered his history on doing a PNC check at Cherylee’s home, but they took no positive steps to arrest or risk-manage O’Hara. They also did not take a full account either from Cherylee, who was fearful of the consequences of police involvement, or from the family members present who could confirm the injuries.
Coroner James Newman published a “prevention of death” report, raising alarms over the lack of interagency communication between probation services and the police. In his findings, he questioned the role of MAPPA. He said that, following O’Hara’s release,
“there were no local MAPPA meetings, no inter-agency meetings and no significant inter-agency communications regarding the perpetrator, no detailing of his licence conditions, and no information regarding either his nature or the trigger factors of his offending. My concern is despite this, and the findings of the report, there is still no mandatory process for the sharing of information between agencies where the offender, despite a known extensive history of domestic abuse and identified trigger factors, is then managed at MAPPA Level 1.”
This is the tragedy of the current system. Chief constables apologise when these cases come to light and promise to do better, but history repeats itself time after time. The Government set great store by guidance; the police and probation services are awash with it, but it is not read, it has no teeth and very little has changed in 20 years. Serial perpetrators and stalkers are simply not visible or held to account, even though past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. We know that they are transient; they seek to control the most vulnerable women and children, and if that includes moving across borders to meet their needs, they will do so.
There is no duty on the police to add any information or intelligence about a perpetrator’s previous offending to a local or national system; if information is put into the local system, it often lacks the detail required. The burden is placed on the victim and too often the perpetrator’s narrative is believed rather than the victim’s. As my noble friend said, how many times do we see the depressing response from the police that women in the wake of these terrible crimes should stay indoors at night for their own safety? It is as if it is women’s responsibility and, essentially, they are to blame.
My noble friend also referred to the 2014 to 2017 inspections by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary into the police response to domestic abuse perpetrators. The recommendations from these reports still have not been put in place locally or nationally. It is the same with homicide reviews. Why is that so? The reality is that domestic abuse and stalking responses are woefully underresourced. Misogyny and institutionalised sexism are rife and no amount of guidance will change that.
On data, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is so right. Police forces do not have systematic ways of recording the same person, victim or perpetrator; hence, repeat victims or perpetrators are not spotted and no action is taken to protect and prevent. As she said, police forces do not share data systematically with each other apart from through the Police National Computer, which records only charges. The advice of LSE researchers Professor Tom Kirchmaier, Professor Jeffrey Grogger and Dr Ria Ivandic—which suggests that police forces should use machine learning predictions based on two-year criminal histories because it would be more effective—is ignored.
Last year, over 80 signatories, including charities such as Women’s Aid, Respect and Action for Children, as well as academics and individuals, called on the Government to invest in a perpetrator strategy. Nicole Jacobs, the designate domestic abuse commissioner said:
“I support the call on Government to publish a Strategy on Perpetrators of Domestic Abuse.”
As she said:
“Current prevention work is patchy and too often perpetrators go unchallenged and are not offered opportunities to change their abusive behaviour.”
If we are to better protect women and girls, the Government must act now to support these amendments and shift the focus onto the men who cause the fear, terror and violence. It is time, too, that we eradicated misogyny and sexism from our criminal justice system. It is time these dangerous domestic abusers and stalkers were registered and monitored in the same way as sex offenders, and that the victim’s right to safety and to live free of fear was realised and prioritised over an abuser’s right to freedom.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has made several powerful speeches during the passage of this Bill. I shall speak to Amendment 81 in my name. It requires the Government to devise a perpetrator strategy to prevent, identify and assess perpetrators. It would increase the number of rehabilitation programmes and better tackle attitudes before they lead to a crime. It goes without saying that it is far better to prevent repetition of domestic abuse before it occurs. Even better, we should aim to prevent abuse happening in the first place.
At a time when violence against women is sadly in the headlines once again, we have a duty to do all we can to prevent crimes that can be entirely predictable, as we have heard, and often follow a multitude of warning signs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, illustrated in her four examples and as other speakers have done. Domestic abuse is a crime hidden in people’s homes. Behind the doors of ordinary homes, tens of thousands of victims live in pain and fear with their own families. Domestic abuse is a terrible, secret crime.
Several noble Lords have used the phrase “murder in slow motion” because when domestic abuse reaches its logical end, often after years, the murder is so very predictable. And yet it still happens, time after time—women mostly, dying after years of injury at the hands of the men they loved. The Bill sets out to help those victims when they leave their abuser and report them—when they have had enough.
However, Amendments 73 and 81 seek to prevent the crimes happening in the first place, so that victims do not have to leave and perpetrators can see what they are doing and choose to stop before another tragedy, of which there are so many, ending in injury, pain or death. We need to step in before children who witness this tragedy grow up and take everything they have learned into their own relationships, playing out the same tragedy again 20 years down the line.
Good-quality perpetrator programmes help those who assault, coerce or frighten those closest to them to stop. The best programmes help perpetrators realise that they do not do it because anyone makes them; they do it because they choose to, and they can choose not to. Good perpetrator interventions have stunning success rates, which I and other noble Lords have already rehearsed in this House. How can we possibly fail to do everything we can to stop the pain, the destruction and the transfer of this tragedy down through the generations? The Government must do everything they can to discover the best of these programmes, roll them out over the entire country and fund them in such a way as to make them a part of a well-used and reliable method of reducing this sickening secret crime.
We must do more. In their sex and relationships education classes, the children of this nation must be taught not only what good relationships look like and how to treat their future partners with respect, but also what an abusive relationship looks like. Then they will be able to recognise when a relationship of their own, which may have started well, begins to sour. Once we have shown them what it looks like, we should tell them where they can get help, what they can do, how they can stop it, or how they can escape it and who they can call.
In Committee, the Minister responded to this amendment with an assurance that a perpetrator strategy will be included within the forthcoming domestic abuse strategy. It has also emerged that a total of £25 million of initial funding is available. However, the Minister’s statement was rather short on important detail and I hope she will be able to fill the gaps in her reply. I invite the Minister to tell the House the Government’s position on the following matters, for all of which I provided her with advanced notice.
Will the Government not only fund behaviour change interventions but stimulate changes across public service delivery to better detect and prevent abuse in the first place? Will the perpetrator strategy set measurable targets? Will the Government lay out plans to stimulate social change to end any lingering tolerance of abusive behaviour? Will the Government commit the Home Office to work with other departments to shape the perpetrator strategy and ensure their buy in? Will they consult experts outside government across public services and the specialist women’s sector?
Will the perpetrator strategy contain clear guidance on quality for commissioners to ensure that there is no risk of public money funding poor practice? Will the perpetrator strategy set out the Government’s funding intentions for the next three years? Above all, will the Government no longer allow perpetrators to fly under the radar and abuse time and again? We must stop asking: “Why doesn’t the victim leave? Why doesn’t she keep her children safe?” We must start putting responsibility to change on those who are being abusive, until the abuser can ask himself: “Why don’t I stop?”
I look forward to the Minister’s response. If necessary, I will test the opinion of the House, depending on what she has to say.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 73 and 81. I applaud the intentions of both amendments but will raise a couple of practical points. I hope that they do not seem inappropriate after the shocking testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the very powerful and moving speech by my noble friend Lady Bertin.
In relation to establishing a register, the aim of adding serial abusers and stalkers to ViSOR is to make it easier for agencies across the country to identify and monitor perpetrators. In principle, this seems sensible. It puts the burden on the perpetrator, not the victim, and, given that many high-harm perpetrators are repeat offenders, it could help manage the risk. However, there are concerns from some working on the front line as to whether it would achieve that goal in practice.
ViSOR is a vital tool for the police, prison and probation services, but its effectiveness depends on the quality and timeliness of the information recorded within it. If we are to extend it, then there must be questions about who goes on it, how long they stay on it and, given the potential size and complexity of such a database, how we ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will it be able to do the job for which it is intended? No one has yet found satisfactory answers to these questions. As I said, I applaud the intention, so I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could outline some of the alternative ways in which the Government can and will strengthen oversight in relation to perpetrators.
The call in Amendments 73 and 81 for a perpetrator strategy is more straightforward. Thanks to the innovative work of SafeLives and its partners in the Drive project, we know that targeted intervention programmes work. As they say, domestic abuse is not inevitable. We can and must stop it recurring and, indeed, occurring in the first place. I question whether we need to call for this on the face of the Bill, given that the Minister has already assured us that it will be part of the forthcoming domestic abuse strategy. However, like others, I do not question the need for it. As recent events have shown us, the focus should be on the perpetrator, not the victim.
Like others, I put on record my deepest sympathies for Sarah Everard’s family and friends. We all hope that something good can come out of something so unfathomably bad, but we should never forget that at the centre of this national debate is a very personal tragedy and a private grief.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I could not believe the three opening speeches we had. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, I thought, “Well, that’s unbeatable.” Then we heard the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which was equally unbeatable, and then from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, who was also unbeatable. I am not sure that I have very much to contribute except that, over the past week, I have had several hundred abusive emails. Those men—virtually every single one was a man—felt that it was all right to send to my parliamentary account the most incredible abuse. I am well aware that some women MPs at the other end have this sort of thing all the time, sometimes thousands of emails every week. It is just staggering that these people think that they can write this abuse, send it and let someone else read it. I am absolutely astonished at this.
The problem is that misogyny is embedded in our society, and we have not dealt with it. The only way we can deal with it is through education, and this is education that starts with children—but it also starts with educating our police force. We have heard these stories about how the police just do not take it seriously, because they do not understand it. Just as there is a lot of misogyny in wider society, there is misogyny in the police. Many times, 20, 30 or 40 years ago, one would hear police officers saying about domestic abuse incidents, “Oh, it’s just a domestic.” It sounds very much as if they are not taking it seriously now, all these decades later.
I am going to repeat myself—and I know that I am not allowed to do so on Report—but I have said on several occasions that police forces should have mandatory training on how to recognise and deal with domestic violence. Some forces have done it and, where they have done it, it is noticeable that they have a better attitude to women, but we also see the prosecution and sentencing of male offenders increase dramatically. Nottinghamshire Police has had that training and improved its rate of prosecution of male abusers, and it behaved phenomenally well on Saturday night, when our dear Met police really messed up.
Here we have these amendments, which pose the question: how seriously do we want to take domestic abuse and domestic violence? There are processes in place administered by specialists for managing and monitoring serious sexual and violent offenders, and I do not understand why this apparatus is not being used for domestic abusers and stalkers. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that best practice does not work, but why does it not work? I just do not understand. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it is not working.
It is high time that we got serious about domestic violence. The perpetrators should wear a label and have to disclose it with anyone they try to form an intimate relationship with, and they should be monitored and managed in line with the seriousness of their offending behaviour. These people are generally very unlikely to display one-off behaviours of domestic abuse and violence; these patterns of behaviour are totally engrained into their personality, for whatever reason. Perhaps they saw domestic violence as a child or perhaps there is some other underlying reason—but whatever it is, it happens and we have to protect women against it.
We can have all the support for the survivors that we possibly could, but it is infinitely preferable to have a world where there are no perpetrators, rather than supporting survivors. Without stamping out the behaviour of perpetrators or forcing serious consequences on their behaviour, we cannot stamp out the evil of domestic abuse—and, yes, I am afraid that it has to be in the Bill. First, most of us do not actually trust the Government to do it if it is not in the Bill. Secondly, if it is there it is visible, and people understand that it is being taken seriously—so I ask the Government to accept these amendments. Obviously, the Green group will vote for whichever are brought to a vote.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I associate myself with many of the comments made by previous speakers. I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Bertin for being so brave as to share their thoughts and experiences. Obviously, we are all deeply touched by the murder of Sarah Everard. I also record my growing concern. In 2009, Claudia Lawrence disappeared on her way to work as a chef at the University of York and has never been found. No one knows whether she is alive or dead, and, very sadly, her father passed away without knowing any more. I am very aware of the extent of the concern about the crime of stalking and more serious offences against women.
Some of the thoughts I would like to share this evening are my own, but I am also grateful for the briefing I have received from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. We should also remember the tragic loss of Suzy Lamplugh.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support these two amendments. Many of the points that I would have made have been covered much more eloquently by others, so I shall try to be brief.
My first point is that we are not even accurately recording stalking and other domestic abuse cases. There have been consistent failures in this respect: apparently no common form of data recording is being applied, so flitting from one police area to another seems to be the workaround of choice for the serial perpetrator. That really has to stop.
Secondly, even when incidents have been reported, and one assumes recorded, they are not being followed up. The problems around information sharing have been voiced widely by other noble Lords, and I agree with them.
Thirdly, it is therefore not surprising that multiagency attempts to deal with this issue have not been sufficiently effective. I will pause to applaud the many instances of good and effective work being done in this field, but it is not universal and domestic homicide reviews have pointed out consistently how earlier and/or effective intervention could and should have been made, but was not. There may be multiple reasons for this: differences in available skills, divergences in policies and priorities, sectoral protocols, funding streams, management or policy direction, and gaps between policy and operational decisions. There may also be a deficit in accountability on the latter point, not only in the police but in other public institutions. Perhaps no one is in overall charge, a point that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others. Even if there was, as matters stand, funding and co-ordination would remain questionable.
Further than that, as noted by others, the provision for perpetrators is utterly inadequate—although I appreciate that the Government now appear to be minded to start addressing this.
At Second Reading I pointed out the work described by the Sussex police and crime commissioner about the cost-benefit of dealing with perpetrators. This is the critical point of this group of amendments: the proper identification, assessment, monitoring, management and application of therapy to perpetrators is cost-effective and of lasting general societal benefit. My information is that, while some perpetrators may be psychopathic and incurable—with apologies if I have used the wrong term—many are themselves suffering from deep-seated inadequacies that can and should be addressed.
Amendment 73, which has been put forward so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, addresses the need for a coherent approach. If I have any reservations at all, it is that it may not go far enough, which might have been the point behind the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Amendment 81, which is specifically about perpetrator strategies, has been spoken to eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger. I agree with him for all the reasons he has given. He covered everything that I would have addressed, and more besides. This needs to be the stuff of a national network to which any court in the land can effectively refer the convicted and in which those who want to change their ways voluntarily may also participate. The programme would have to be coherent and delivered to consistent standards. We should aim to rehabilitate offenders and those who may not yet be in the criminal system. I noted with satisfaction that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, did not advocate locking up and throwing away the key, which has been the subject of some of the comments that I have received from outside the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, noted the many indicators that can and should be picked up to facilitate early intervention. So, despite all the shortcomings that I recognise, I would simply remind noble Lords of the research done by the University of Manchester and others: it is not that we cannot afford to deal with this resolutely but that we cannot afford not to. The amendments get my wholehearted support and, if it comes to a Division, will get my vote.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly to give maximum support to my noble friend Lady Royall, but in effect to all speakers, since I have not heard anything that I disagree with.
I have four short points to make. First, I was very struck that buried in the short but useful briefing from the London Assembly was a warning that carrying on on a more casual, non-statutory basis does not work. It points out that in London from January to November 2019, the current domestic abuse protection order was used in only 0.5% of domestic abuse offences recorded by the Metropolitan Police. So the warning is that we have these well-intentioned tools but they are not used by the police or magistrates. I was very struck by a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, in her powerful speech, and it is a warning to the Minister: saying “We’ll do it” but then not doing it makes the position far worse. It is a question of resources in finance and of course in will, and that is a crucial point that has to be made.
Secondly, I share the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, having read the briefing from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about domestic and non-domestic stalking. As the previous speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, Amendment 73 probably does not go far enough.
Thirdly, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath made a point about the numbers affected each week, but we also have to remember not just what happened last week and what has happened since the Bill came into your Lordships’ House, but the fact that we know for certain that by the end of this week another two females will have been murdered.
Fourthly, regarding perpetrators, we have heard the range of examples that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have given. Now I know this might be classed as fanciful because it is not correct, but I ask the Minister to think of perpetrators as an organised perpetrators’ grouping. I know they are not and there would be very little evidence for it, but there is a pretty consistent pattern, not only over some cases but over many years, as if they were such a group. If they were treated as an organised perpetrators’ group by Parliament, the Home Office and law enforcement then by now we would be having strategic views, risk management and people’s names on registers in the same way as with existing registers. We would really be toughening it up. I would take that as a starting point for the debate today, not a finishing point.
As I said originally, I do not disagree with anything I have heard today and I give my full support to these two amendments, both verbally and if they are pushed to a vote.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
And so, my Lords, we come to tail-end Charlie. What is probably not obvious to those listening or watching today’s proceedings who are not around the Palace of Westminster is that they have been taking place with the sound of helicopters circling almost ceaselessly. I think that is because a group of people who feel strongly about what we are discussing, some of whom may even have been on Clapham Common on Saturday evening, have decided to come to Parliament Square today while we are having this discussion, and I suspect while another place is beginning to talk about the policing Bill, to voice their concern and—in a respectful way, I am sure—are trying to demonstrate how strongly they feel about this issue.
What an irony that we have a female Home Secretary and a female head of the Metropolitan Police, and that it was a female assistant commissioner who, under huge pressure, took a decision on Saturday evening that with the benefit of hindsight she may possibly regret. The evidence around the country of demonstrations taking place where the police decided to be judicious and hold back is that they seem to have gone off without event, while the two that I have heard of—one in London and one in Brighton—where the police decided to take a different decision have ended badly. I hope lessons have been learned from that.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this debate has been filled with harrowing examples, including powerful personal testimony such as the moving account the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, gave of her cousin.
In Committee, a similar amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, was introduced to make it a legal requirement that serial domestic abuse offenders or stalking perpetrators are registered on ViSOR, the violent and sex offender register, and that they be subject to supervision, monitoring and management through existing Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA. In Committee, I suggested that existing legislation and codes of practice may already require dangerous serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators to be supervised, monitored and managed through MAPPA, and that the issue may be one of the police and other agencies not complying with existing legislation rather than a problem with the legislation itself. The Minister appeared to agree with me. However, clearly something needs to change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, so powerfully set out. Women are dying because serial offenders are slipping through the net and, if this part of Amendment 73 is not the answer, the Government need to explain very clearly what they are going to do.
My noble friend Lady Brinton’s personal experience, so bravely and powerfully put, and the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, should leave the House in no doubt that action is needed urgently. Unlike the amendment in Committee, this amendment includes a requirement to review the operation of its provisions and to lay a report before Parliament that includes a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers. Amendment 81 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strasburger also requires the Government to lay before Parliament a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abuse, the case for which he has so clearly set out.
I will not repeat the arguments I made in Committee. Suffice it to say that we on these Benches support both of these amendments, and were the opinion of the House be tested, we would support them.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 73, proposed by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon with my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has my full support, as does Amendment 81, tabled and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.
Like other noble Lords, I send my condolences to the family of Sarah Everard and of all the other women who have been murdered since Second Reading. As was pointed out, 30 women have been murdered since Second Reading, which is an absolutely horrific figure.
My noble friend Lady Royall made a powerful case and laid out a comprehensive framework to deal with the perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers. Her amendment would require there to be a report before Parliament within the next 12 months looking at the operation of the provisions as set out in the amendment. My noble friend was right when she said that it is time for men to step up and take ownership, and take responsibility for this issue. The cases she referred to are harrowing but, sadly, they are only the tip of the iceberg: horrific abuse and a catalogue of failure by the authorities to understand the risk that these women were at, often only understanding that risk when it was too late and they had been killed. As has been said, 30 women have died, murdered by their partner, between Second Reading and today’s debate. That figure should be enough in itself for the Government to want to act. We have had a complete failure of practice and process, and we need to ensure that there is a proper, national framework to identify, assess and manage perpetrators. It is most important that people are not lost in the system. We need a comprehensive perpetrators strategy: nothing less will do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in setting out the case for women who are murdered, demonstrated the need for that national solution and the failed system. I am very sorry to learn of the personal abuse the noble Baroness has suffered at the hands of a political opponent. Sadly, it means that she can speak with first-hand experience as a victim of appalling abuse and stalking. It seems to me, from what she told us, that the perpetrator was treated very leniently for the crimes that he committed. I was not aware of the murder of the cousin of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and she is absolutely right that we have to match heartfelt words with actions. We have to break this horrific cycle, and that needs a proper multi-agency approach that leads to action. We need to ensure that we bring up better boys to become better men. That is what needs to happen here. That happens in the home, but if people in the home are seeing violence and abuse as part of their daily lives, are we surprised that when they become older, they behave in an equally appalling way and we get these dreadful, horrific crimes?
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, reminded the House of the abuse that women in public life have suffered, which, again, is totally unacceptable. One of my best friends—I will not mention her name—is a Member of the other place. We used to work together at the Labour Party. She was proud to be elected to Parliament to represent the constituency she lives in. She and her family suffered appalling abuse from a stalker, who found out where they lived and would turn up outside their front door, sent abusive emails and generally made their lives a living hell. In the end, my friend and her husband sold their home and moved to another part of the constituency, and the perpetrator went to prison for his crimes. In the new home, there are panic alarms, a special thing on the letter box and other security measures. This is no way to live, just because you want to represent your community and are good enough to stand for a party and get elected. It is appalling. I remember my friend telling me, when we had a coffee in Portcullis House, “Actually, Roy, I’m quite safe here. But I’ve left my husband and two kids under 16 at home, where this person knows we live. That is what really worries me while I am down in London during the week.” It is awful. She is not the only person; there have been horrific cases of women of all parties facing horrific abuse, particularly in the House of Commons. That is outrageous, and we must stop that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I join others in sending our thoughts and prayers to the family of Sarah Everard. We do not know the history of her murderer, but we do know that she is just another murdered woman. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, there have been 30 such women since Second Reading. I heard the story of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as a horror story; it is something you would never wish on anybody. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, paid tribute to Jane Clough and her wonderful parents. I have met Jane Clough’s father, and I pay tribute to her parents, who have campaigned so tirelessly so that what happened to their daughter will not happen to somebody else. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned some of the horrendous things parliamentarians have to put up with. I am so sorry for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for the abuse she has suffered in the last week or so, and I am sure I speak on behalf of every other noble Lord in the House. And the story of my noble friend Lady Bertin was awfully sad and horrific.
To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, this set of amendments is not about political digs. I totally agree with him. We all seek the same end, so it might seem odd that the words I am going to say disagree with noble Lords’ amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I have campaigned and worked together for years, trying to fix the gaps that we find in the provision.
Amendment 73 seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so that individuals assessed as high risk and high harm, as well as those convicted of more than one domestic abuse or stalking offence, should automatically be subject to management under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, commonly referred to as MAPPA. Management under MAPPA may result in these individuals being recorded on VISOR, which is the dangerous persons database. The amendment would also place a duty on the Government to review these changes to the Criminal Justice Act and issue a report 12 months after Royal Assent. It specifies that the report would need to include a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers. This links to Amendment 81, which also calls on the Secretary of State to issue a perpetrator strategy.
Noble Lords have spoken passionately about this issue and it is impossible not to be moved. I am simply horrified by some of the stories raised, not only today but in Committee. I indicated then and say again that I totally agree with the intention behind these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, so much works, so why are there gaps? We want to make sure that there are no gaps and that we have the right systems in place to enable the police and partner agencies to accurately identify the risks posed by high-harm, repeat and serial perpetrators, and to act accordingly to protect victims.
We recognise that there is more that can be done to fill the gaps and ensure that the system works as intended, but we do not think that Amendment 73 addresses or resolves the underlying issue of improving risk assessment and case management. We fear, therefore, that it will not achieve the outcomes that it is intended to achieve.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said—I will paraphrase—that serial and high-harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators can be managed under the current MAPPA legislation, but that it is not always happening in practice. My noble friend Lady Bertin echoed this and we agree, which is why, instead of amending the current legislation to add an additional category, we think there is more value in making better use of the existing MAPPA framework and related police systems.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering talked about upskilling. There is a range of things, of which upskilling is one, which will drive an improvement in the system, including a better focus on the outcomes that we seek. We have already taken steps to improve MAPPA and related systems. Last spring, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service published the Domestic Abuse Policy Framework, which sets out arrangements for working with people whose convictions or behaviours include domestic abuse. The framework mandates an adherence to the referral pathways for domestic abuse perpetrators and ensures that the required actions for these cases are fully laid out. It focuses on the need for an investigative approach, sets clear expectations about information exchange and the use of MAPPA, and draws together expected practice into a clear framework. This will significantly strengthen the consistency of our approach. It is right that we put our focus on embedding this framework, which will have a real operational impact to ensure that it is working to better safeguard victims and those at risk.
We are also introducing measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 9 March. These measures will clarify the information-sharing powers of those agencies subject to the duty to co-operate under MAPPA. It will also explicitly extend these information-sharing powers to those agencies or individuals who can contribute to the assessment and management of risk—for example, GPs.
As my noble friend Lady Bertin says, we know that there is still more we can do to address the areas of concern that this amendment intends to resolve. I would like to outline the programme of activity that we will undertake to best achieve this. First, the Ministry of Justice will revisit and refresh all relevant chapters of MAPPA statutory guidance to include the sections on domestic abuse. This will ensure that all agencies involved take steps to identify offenders who are domestic abuse perpetrators whose risk requires active multi-agency management.
Secondly, we will introduce a thresholding document for local MAPPA strategic management boards to improve the consistency of assessments of MAPPA levels to ensure that those requiring greater oversight are correctly identified. We will ensure that there is a reference to domestic abuse perpetrators to assist relevant agencies in making decisions on the level of MAPPA management needed for individual cases.
Thirdly, HMPPS will issue a policy framework setting out clear expectations of the management of all cases at MAPPA level 1 by the National Probation Service, including domestic abuse perpetrators. This will further help to improve the quality of information sharing, the consistency and regularity of reviews, and the identification of cases where additional risk management activity is required.
Finally, we will improve the MAPPA sharing database —known as ViSOR—used to manage offenders, including through exploring alternative digital offender management systems, building on the success of the existing system in bringing agencies together to share information, and strengthening risk assessment, management and mitigation. To answer the point of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as I said before, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill makes provision for that better data sharing under MAPPA.
There are provisions in the Bill which will also help to improve the management of risk posed by domestic abuse perpetrators. The new domestic abuse protection orders—or DAPOs—will provide an additional tool for managing the risk posed by perpetrators by enabling courts to impose a range of conditions and positive requirements. DAPOs will also require perpetrators subject to an order to notify the police of their name and address and any changes to this information. This will help the police to monitor the perpetrator’s whereabouts and the risk that they pose to the victim.
Stalking protection orders, which were introduced last year—I am glad that my noble friend is in the Chamber—can also impose positive requirement conditions on perpetrators. These orders enable early police intervention, pre-conviction, to address stalking behaviours before they become deep-rooted or escalate.
Ultimately, adding an additional MAPPA category into legislation specifically for domestic abuse offenders will not improve the practical issues it is truly seeking to resolve—and if it did, I would be fighting for it to happen. In fact, if we were to use the definition of domestic abuse offender as outlined in the amendment, we would make a large group of offenders not defined by specific offences automatically eligible for MAPPA. This would risk creating a level of complexity not reflected in the current legislation that will distract resources and could overwhelm the current system.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what an extraordinary debate—powerful, passionate, distressing and harrowing in many ways. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Bertin and Lady Grey-Thompson. It is extremely painful to relive the sort of experiences that they have relived today, but I hope their courage in putting their experiences on the record will help others.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right when he said we need to fix the system for victims and their families, and for us to live at ease with ourselves as a society. Today, having named so many victims and cited the cases, we must remember the families of those victims and the great pain that such debates must cause them. Equally, I hope the fact that we are debating ways of improving systems will ensure that other young women, older women or girls will not be subjected to the same abuse, the same stalking and the same murders as their loved ones had to experience.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her comments, and she is right: we all seek the same end. But we have always had a slight difference in how to get to that end. If she does not mind, I would like to ask her something before she sits down, as it were, although I know she has sat down. I quoted some words from the Sunday Times suggesting that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary were thinking of a register for stalkers and perpetrators of domestic abuse. I wonder whether she can give us any further information about the comments made to the Sunday Times.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Like the noble Baroness, I saw that article. I have not had a chance to corroborate with the Home Secretary and my right honourable friend Robert Buckland the contents of that article. I can get some more information for the noble Baroness, because it would be useful to have their thinking on it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, apparently in answer to a question from my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary said, “I will be very candid: I will look at all measures”. That was in response to a question about this very amendment.
The noble Baroness mentioned the fact that more guidance is coming and that there are more policy frameworks and strategies. All that is very good, but unless people have to do what we need them to, and unless they can be accountable to the law in some way, these things will not happen. We know that, for the last 20 or 30 years, there has been a plethora of guidance et cetera, but, still, people are falling through the cracks. This is why it is extremely important to have something in the Bill to put these things in statute. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, police forces are awash with guidance—people do not need guidance; they need to know exactly what they have to do, and we have to hold them to account and ensure that they do it.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, my amendment might not be perfect—I have no doubt that it is not. However, I would like to test the opinion of the House, so that I can perhaps enter into some discussions with the Government, especially as they are now—from what we know from the newspapers and what the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons today—looking at a register. I suggest that perhaps the amendment before us provides the basis of such a register and of the way in which the Government might move forward.
Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House, so that we can, I hope, enter some negotiations. It will be up to our colleagues on all sides of the House of Commons to take this forward. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have supported this amendment in the Chamber today, and I have had messages from many other Peers, on all sides of the House, who are very supportive of what we are doing.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, that I think his amendment is excellent. I do not know if he will test the opinion of the House, but I am delighted to have been able to participate in the debate on his amendment. With that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Royal Assent
Monday 15th March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 March 2021 - (11 Mar 2021)
Domestic Abuse Bill
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 75. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 75
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Code of practice: employer’s duty of care
(1) In this section—(a) “worker” means an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment or any other contract, whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing, whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual; and(b) “employer” means the person to whom the worker undertakes to perform the work or services in question.(2) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice (a “code”) containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer in relation to their work.(3) A code may include provision requiring an employer to make reasonable adjustments for the purpose of ensuring that persons affected by domestic abuse are not, by reason of being so affected, placed at a substantial disadvantage in relation to their work in comparison with persons who are not so affected.(4) The Secretary of State may revoke or amend a code.(5) Before issuing, revoking or amending a code the Secretary of State must— (a) issue proposals, and(b) consult the Commissioner and such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.(6) Failure to comply with a provision of a code does not of itself make a person liable to civil or criminal proceedings; but a code shall be—(a) admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and(b) taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant, including (in particular) any case in which a question arises as to whether an employer is in breach of a duty of care owed to a worker.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice containing provision designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support from their employer.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support of this amendment. Time is getting on and we have a lot to go through tonight, so I promise I will not detain the House by repeating the arguments I used in Committee.
I am very encouraged by the letter I received from Minister Scully outlining all the steps that the Government have taken and are taking to make employers aware of what they can do to support victims and signpost them towards help. I also commend the Government on their recent review, Workplace Support for Victims of Domestic Abuse. As we know, the workplace is one of the few places where the victim is usually separate from the abuser. If the workplace culture is positive and the employer knows how to help by signposting the victim, this can make all the difference. Sadly, the review outlined a mostly different picture: a lack of awareness of the warning signs of abuse; stigma around talking about it; and a lack of knowledge of what to do to help.
In his letter to me, Minister Scully said:
“We will now work together with employers, representatives of victims and trade unions to continue to build awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and drive good practice across the board.”
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission have produced an oven-ready code of practice. It is only one small step to put implementation into government guidelines on duty of care. What will these guidelines consist of? Will they be incorporated into the other duties of care required of employers? If not, what will it look like?
Regrettably, this knowledge will not filter down to employers by osmosis. We need one small step, such as a government extension of the duty of care to extend to larger organisations incorporating a policy on employee domestic abuse victims into their existing employee policies. That in itself would send a powerful signal not just to victims but to abusers that this behaviour is not okay and that help is at hand. Now, when employees are coming back to work, is an ideal time to welcome them with a policy that confirms their self-worth and the fact that they are regarded and cared for.
The Government have made great strides already. The establishment of a code or duty is just half a step more. The result is a big benefit for all concerned: employees who feel able to bring their whole selves to work; other employees who also feel valued and supported; and, not least, employers, who reap the rewards in terms of enhanced loyalty and productivity. It is a win-win, and the only cost to the employer is a little thought. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to speak in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for moving the amendment. I was very pleased that the Government confirmed in Committee that domestic abuse protection orders would cover the workplace as well as the home. This is a very important step in ensuring that victims remain protected at work, and it is a first step to ensuring that domestic abuse is seen as a workplace and trade union issue. Home and work cannot be neatly separated, and this has never been truer than during the Covid pandemic.
I declare my interest as a member of UNISON, and I was particularly pleased that its campaign was so successful. I warmly congratulate its new general secretary, Christina McAnea.
There is no room for complacency, as the noble Baroness said. I am certainly convinced of the need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected at work and that their employers do everything they can to support them. I have already said that home and work issues cannot always be neatly separated. Abusive and violent behaviour does not always take place in the home; it can frequently cross into the workplace, where victims experience stalking, threats, harassment and even worse. Equally, work can be a lifeline to independence and survival for victims of domestic abuse, as they are ordinarily able to leave their homes to go elsewhere and can maintain a level of income independent from the perpetrator.
All victims should feel safe in the knowledge that they can take action to put their lives back on track with their employment secure, and that they will be protected while they are at work. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected at work and that their employers do everything they can to support them.
We know from a TUC survey from 2015 that one in 10 of those who experienced domestic violence reported that the violence continued in the workplace. Over 90% of respondents to the survey who had experienced domestic violence reported that it had caused conflict and tension with co-workers, and a quarter of respondents reported that their co-workers were harmed or threatened.
This is where discussion about the code of practice comes in. The requirement that the code should be
“designed to ensure that persons affected by domestic abuse who are workers receive appropriate care and support”
is certainly an interesting suggestion. From listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I can certainly see the attractions of a code of practice. As she said, she has had discussions with relevant organisations on it.
However, I put to the noble Baroness the risk that, in any criminal or civil proceedings, compliance with the code by an employer may become the issue, rather than the domestic abuse carried out by a perpetrator. In the experience of UNISON, with which I have discussed the amendment, the introduction of a policy would seem to be much more effective in encouraging victims to volunteer that they are affected by domestic abuse, enabling referral to appropriate support agencies. In other words, while employers must ensure that they are meeting their duty of care, this might be seen as a blunt instrument. But I recognise that it is being moved with the best of intents and, in the work that goes forward, I am sure that it will be important to consider a code alongside the other measures that are clearly important to take.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as someone involved in a small business as an employee, and having run a number of small businesses over many years, I can certainly applaud the general sentiment behind this amendment. However, its scope would potentially enmesh a category of small business that could be regarded as disproportionately wide. We should bear in mind that many are microbusinesses: they do not have HR departments and may well operate, as my employer does, in a very dispersed and diffuse mechanism. Setting in place a code and signposting this issue is, however, certainly desirable.
Work environments are not always on fixed premises—they may be in all sorts of places. In construction, certainly, they can be literally anywhere and in all sorts of circumstances. All sorts of people may be involved in those setups as an employer or employee, within the definition proposed here.
I want to refer to the other examples that we have for ensuring better workplace consciousness. We had this on health and safety: ultimately, that was backed by statutory provisions but it had a massive effect on the culture of safe working in construction, in particular—possibly not so much on farming, where children were particularly at risk. More recently, we have had what might be described as a much more voluntary process on mental health. Much has been said about this over the last two or three years to do with employees looking out for what might be troubling their colleagues and just asking them: “Are you all right?” So often it is that which is brought to the attention of somebody who matters and can achieve an effect, rather than necessarily the employer, who may be somewhere else and not in direct contact.
This is a matter of best practice. It goes along with general health and bereavement, and that sort of thing. I am less sure that making it prescriptive is the right way forward. As I said, I applaud the principle and general sentiment behind the amendment. If the Minister felt that she could concede to the point of at least producing some detailed statutory or other guidance that could be followed, it would be a material step forward.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to make one brief point. A code of practice or something which is a guide to employers—and is obviously to be shared with people in the workplace—would and should be welcome to employers. I say that in the context of increasing awareness of domestic abuse, that it happens so often and what it comprises. There must be employers who are now and have been wondering what they should be doing. Assistance to employers is a part of the range of responses that we are becoming so conscious of needing to be in place.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to build on her points. In the hugely powerful debate on the previous amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said that the system has to change. That is what this amendment is all about. Employers are very much part of the system that has to help the victims and potential victims of domestic abuse. I rise briefly to offer the support of the Green group for the amendment and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for tabling it. I am pleased to join the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in supporting it because that expands the cross-party nature of its backing. I thank in particular Hestia, the London-based domestic abuse service, for its useful briefing, and the charity Surviving Economic Abuse.
As I said in Committee, the statutory need for paid leave to deal with the impact of domestic abuse is urgently needed and a code of practice for employers, including a provision for reasonable adjustments, would be a good start. An economic case can easily be made for allowing employees to sort out their issues to end any drag on their productivity, but there is also the humanitarian case and indeed simple responsibility and duty of care, as well as the basic principles of health and safety in the workplace. For everyone to be safe at work, both the survivors of domestic abuse and those around them need to know that the framework is in place. A 2017 study found that 86% of employers agreed that they had a duty of care to support employees experiencing domestic abuse.
The will is there but the knowledge can often be lacking. I have been thinking back over my professional life as a journalist and a manager of journalists. That management started in my mid-20s when I frequently had a pastoral duty of care to staff, which, in retrospect, as a young and untrained manager, I was not well equipped to handle. I have never knowingly had a staff member who was the subject of domestic abuse, but I had a much older male boss, who I suspect was rather at a loss, who asked me to do what I could to support a colleague, which I did, although I fear not terribly well. That was a long time ago and there was certainly no guidance then, although there should be now: a binding code of practice with the resources to back it up, along with a step-by-step guide to action, would be a great relief to the many businesses and managers facing the complicated pressures that they are today.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, expressed concern about the extra pressure on very small businesses. I think that they would be among those most relieved to have a code to follow—a map that should, I suggest, recognise the different capacities of different sizes of business, and provide appropriate support routes where businesses do not have the resources themselves. The vast majority of businesses want to do the right thing, but they need government support, help and guidance to do so. It also makes economic sense for individual businesses and for the whole community to do so.
A broader point can be made here, not only in terms of this amendment but on something that has arisen across our debates, but perhaps it has not often been set out explicitly. Domestic abuse is a problem for the whole community, not only for victims, law enforcement and social workers; every part of the community needs to be involved in tackling it, and that includes employers in particular.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 75 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, to which I have added my name. Surely one of the attractions of this amendment for the Government is that it will not cost any taxpayer money, but it would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has indicated, make a big difference to the lives of an awful lot of people and, indeed, improve their productivity at work.
Many employers are already extending their duty of care responsibilities to employees who are the victims of domestic abuse. The aim of the amendment is to extend this good practice to all employers through the use of a code of practice. There are strong reasons for the Government to accept this amendment. According to research carried out by the Home Office in 2016-17, police handling of domestic abuse in England and Wales cost £1.3 billion—10.2% of the policing budget. The same research showed that the lost output and reduced productivity resulting from domestic abuse cost the country £14 billion, although presumably a lot of that will have been borne by employers in lost output. It is therefore not surprising that BEIS has made it clear in a recent report that it supports employers acting on domestic abuse. The department pointed to three challenges, including the need to raise employer awareness and to spot the signs of abuse. What better way to do that than with a code of practice for employers issued by the Government? The BEIS report committed to establishing a working group made up of the Government, employers, representatives of domestic abuse victims, and trade unions to convene regularly to find practical solutions, drive culture change and establish best practice. Of course, such a working group could usefully contribute to a code of practice.
As has been widely publicised, Covid has greatly exacerbated the problem. Calls to the Refuge national domestic abuse helpline have increased by 66% and visits to the website increased by an extraordinary 957% in the two weeks prior to 27 May 2020. These are extraordinary figures, and this is therefore a peculiarly appropriate moment for the Government to support this proposal. We know that domestic abuse remains shrouded in shame and secrecy, so that too often victims do not seek the help that they need. As one victim, a police officer, said: “There is no way that I would have even framed what I was going through as abuse. It had just gradually become my normal. The chances of me reaching out for help or support would be zero.” Hence the importance of employers taking the initiative to make it clear that they understand the issues and are there to provide support in relation to work.
Thanks to the tireless efforts on this issue of Elizabeth Filkin, chair of the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and her colleagues, many well-known employers are already offering support to employees who are domestic abuse victims. I quote from a report by Elizabeth Filkin, Theresa May and others, to illustrate the examples of employer support which could and should be followed by others, and which would be stimulated by a code of practice as proposed here by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. The report says that
“Lloyds Banking Group has informed staff that if they need to leave home, it will arrange hotel accommodation and help them move”,
which is pretty impressive, and
“Chelsea Football Club are supporting Refuge. Boots, Morrisons and pharmacies are providing safe spaces in their shops for customers facing domestic abuse to gain access to domestic abuse services. … Thames Valley Police created a Vulnerability Task Force during lockdown which focussed on historic victims of domestic abuse who may have been unable to report due to COVID-19 restrictions. From the beginning of lockdown to 5 June they had over 1500 contacts with victims … The feedback from these contacts has been extremely positive”.
Following on from the contribution by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, clearly the code would need to take account of the very different circumstances of many small businesses. One government department, BEIS, is already committed to the employer domestic abuse agenda represented by this amendment. I hope that the Minister can assure the House today that the Government accept the proposal for a code of practice on this issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull. As she explained, it will require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice containing provisions designed to ensure that workers affected by domestic abuse have appropriate care and support from their employer.
We had a good debate on this issue in Committee. We are all aware that we spend a lot of time at work, so a victim of abuse can spend a lot of time with their work colleagues. This code will set out the reasonable steps that an employer should be taking to support their employees, and is very welcome. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I have been a manager in the past, and I certainly had staff who had problems and issues and I have tried to be supportive. I do not believe that anybody had domestic abuse issues, but there were certainly other problems. I hope that as a manager I took the right actions to support work colleagues and get them over their problems. Having a code provides, for the employer, staff and managers, guidance on what reasonable adjustments can be made. That is really important.
We all know what goes on with abusers: they seek to disrupt and cause chaos in the victim’s life, drive them out of work and make them economically dependent so that they are even more under the abuser’s control—and, of course, abuse is all about control. This code is important; it would be a really good tool for employers. I hope the Minister will be able to get this right and put it on a statutory footing. The overwhelming majority of employers want to do the right thing; the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, listed a number of organisations which are clearly doing just that—but we should not assume that everyone knows the right thing to do. I hope we can support this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for again raising the important issue of support in the workplace for the victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate again this evening. As the noble Baroness said in Committee, the workplace can be an important safe haven for victims, and the Government are clear that domestic abuse is everyone’s business. We know from our recent review just how important the role of employers can be, and that guidance is an important and useful tool. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, employers and managers want to know how they can best help in this area. That is why we are including information for employers in the statutory guidance associated with the Bill.
The guidance that we have published in draft form refers to the exemplary toolkit provided by Public Health England, Business in the Community and the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, which will improve the support available for employers and their employees. We have also welcomed and promoted the excellent guidance provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
The power to issue guidance under Clause 73 is wide-ranging; it would enable guidance to be issued on any matter relating to domestic abuse. Accordingly, we do not believe that it is necessary to include in the Bill a separate, specific provision relating to guidance for employers. Moreover, we have committed to producing guidance and tools for employers which will enable more victims to come forward and ask for help in the workplace. Amendment 75 recognises the importance of the consultation process in developing guidance and sees a role for the domestic abuse commissioner. As we set out in a report earlier this year, we will work with employers, trade unions and representatives of victims and survivors.
We are grateful for the support provided by the designate commissioner for the BEIS review last year and we want to continue to make use of her expertise as we move forward in this important area. This approach will help to design effective guidance and to reach the maximum number of employers. It is important that we continue to bring employers with us, and work together to harness their full potential to tackle domestic abuse. It is also important that guidance can be responsive to changing circumstances and evolve with best practice and the examples of employers in different areas.
However, guidance is not the only tool to engage employers in relation to this issue. There have been some significant achievements already. Last year, we partnered with the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse to raise awareness and provide guidance to employers on domestic abuse in lockdown. We continue strongly to encourage all employers to join the Employers’ Initiative, which I believe has seen a remarkable growth in its membership. This shows just how interested employers are in this important issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned a couple of specific employers; I was pleased to mention some other examples in Committee.
The Government have also implemented the Ask for ANI scheme in thousands of pharmacies. Most recently, the Department for Work and Pensions, together with the Sharan Project, has launched the Employers Domestic Abuse Covenant. By signing up to this covenant, businesses pledge to raise awareness and identify opportunities to help women affected by domestic abuse with access to work and skills. I hope and believe this demonstrates that the whole Government have a clear course of action and a strong commitment to working in partnership with employers and the specialist sector to support victims in the workplace.
In summary, we wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness on the important role that employers have to play in supporting victims of domestic abuse. I hope that she will recognise the work that we have set in train to build on the important work of the Employers’ Initiative and others and that, on that basis, she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. Their knowledge always delights and surprises me, and we have heard knowledgeable contributions tonight from different perspectives.
I thought the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was very perceptive; he said that you cannot separate home from work. One of the things on which I probably bore for England is the fact that work is so important—you cannot just be a different person when you go to work; you have to bring your whole self.
We learned from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the experience of small businesses. He expressed one or two concerns. I do not think the code was intended for implementation straightaway, certainly for small businesses—larger businesses will have to show the way.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee talked about how the code of practitioners would be welcome to employers; it is a help, not an effort to dictate to them. That theme was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; employers would certainly reach out for a guide, because of the lack of knowledge within companies.
I loved the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that it costs nothing to the Government—it also costs very little to employers—who reap the reward many times over in the savings and in terms of misery to them and to the country. Figures of £1.3 billion to the police and £14 billion to the country were given. There are also examples of what companies are doing already, which demonstrates the willingness and thirst to embrace that code of practice and to incorporate that duty of care into the other duties of care that employers have.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a number of very supportive comments, for which I am grateful.
In conclusion, I want the Government to accept the proposal for a code of practice. It does not have to be in this Bill; I am persuaded of that because of the progress they are making. Taking all that into consideration and having raised the issue, I am hopeful that this will spur on the Government, the trade unions and other organisations to start to look at the practicalities of how a code would move things forward and all the different things they can do to embrace and understand how employers can help. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 77. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 77
Lord Ramsbotham
“Screening for acquired brain injury in domestic abuse cases
(1) A woman who has been the subject of domestic abuse, including female prisoners and those awarded community sentences under probation supervision, must, with her consent, be screened for traumatic brain injury, and other forms of acquired brain injury, including concussion.(2) For the purposes of this section, a woman has been the subject of domestic abuse if—(a) she is the person for whose protection a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order has been issued, or(b) she is the person against whom it has been alleged that domestic abuse has been perpetrated when the accused is charged with an offence within the meaning of section 1 of this Act.(3) The purpose of screening under subsection (1) is to assist in the determination of whether a woman has been the subject of domestic abuse.(4) If screening under subsection (1) shows that there is an acquired brain injury—(a) an assessment must be made of whether such an injury has been acquired as a result of domestic abuse, and(b) the woman must be given appropriate rehabilitation treatment and advice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to improve the state’s understanding of the prevalence, causality and impact of brain injuries sustained during incidents of domestic abuse. It seeks to ensure that this is done quickly and thoroughly in order to start rehabilitative treatment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
Amendment 77, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is an amalgam of the two amendments I tabled in Committee. It is also an amalgam of the amendments tabled in the other place by Chris Bryant MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Acquired Brain Injury, in which I should declare an interest as a vice-chairman. I should also declare an interest as chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group, which consists of a number of practitioners in the field and officials from the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice.
In Committee, I outlined just why it was so important that all victims of domestic abuse should be screened and assessed for any acquired brain injury as quickly as possible after the event, and was very happy that the draft guidance to be issued by the Home Office to the police contains just such an instruction. I am keen that such an instruction should also be issued to the Prison and Probation Service, I hope statutorily, based on evidence produced by one of the members of the interest group the Disabilities Trust at HMP Drake Hall, a women’s prison in Staffordshire.
After Committee, I wrote to Ministers appealing to them to adopt my amendment as a government one, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for seeing me to discuss that. I am still hopeful and will not decide whether to divide the House until I have heard what he says in response.
Noble Lords often raise matters that they think should be in legislation during the detailed scrutiny that all Bills receive in this House, which Bill teams almost invariably brief their Ministers to turn down, but there is often method behind the apparent madness of the mover of a particular amendment, because officials simply cannot be expected to know as much detail as professionals in the field, and their successors may one day be grateful that they included a particular reminder or nuance.
I admit that I had not realised the importance of domestic abuse victims being screened for an acquired brain injury before I was educated, any more than did some of the victims screened at Drake Hall. Some of them realised that an injury had been inflicted during the abuse only when the reason for some of their symptoms was explained.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I am not getting any messages through on my iPad or my phone, so if there is anything I need to know I hope the Whip will let me know. I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. The noble Lord has scratched, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is important and it has been carefully worded to cover all the suggested improvements, as my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham said. It must be incorporated into guidance to prisons. The victim of a domestic abuse brain injury, normally a woman, may suffer memory loss, get confused and her speech become slurred because of brain injury. There is no physical wound or bruise; the damage is internal and invisible. Some in the criminal justice system doubt her because she appears confused and disorganised through loss of some executive functions. The brain injury remains unrecognised, and most victims will never have consulted a doctor, often through fear of talking about the abuse.
The Disabilities Trust’s work in Drake Hall prison which my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham referred to found that 64% of women prisoners coming on to the secure estate for the first time had a brain injury, and almost two-thirds were from a domestic violence incident. Some 40% of the women had a traumatic injury labelled as a mental health diagnosis, and for many this was the first time anyone realised the cause of their behavioural symptoms. Similar work with male prisoners has verified exactly the same situation.
Women who have experienced domestic abuse need treatment. They may need surgery to remove a chronic clot on the brain, and they certainly need neurorehabilitation services to understand the condition and cope with it. As I said, the data from male prisoners is similar, and it is similar in young offenders too: around 40% have an acute brain injury affecting their behaviour.
We cannot ignore the size of the problem, with almost two-thirds of women having a brain injury that came about from domestic abuse. This must be incorporated into guidance. I feel that if the Government will not agree to do that, my noble friend will be forced, unfortunately, to divide the House.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is so immensely knowledgeable in these matters. I recall clearly the debate we had in Committee and what we learned about the shocking prevalence of acquired brain injury among prisoners and domestic violence victims alike.
As regards this amendment, women victims should be screened if they have been subject to domestic abuse, including women in prison. The amendment sets out quite strong qualifying criteria for screening and treatment for whether the woman qualifies as a domestic abuse victim.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, expressed concern about the practicality of being able to perform scans within two weeks, given the large waiting lists, which have been made appreciably worse by the pandemic. She also cast a depressing light on the fact that much acquired brain injury is irreversible. Therefore, I believe it is a balance between what is practical and what is desirable.
However, we know that productive discussions have been had by the Safeguarding Minister, with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and Chris Bryant MP in the Commons. The noble Lord has done a great service to the House in raising this issue, and I greatly commend the work he has done over many years to raise awareness of the importance of acquired brain injury.
The noble Lord also secured a commitment from NHS England and NHS Improvement to add further questions to their existing screening tool to identify how an acquired brain injury occurred and whether violence was involved. He told the House about the extensive health examination given to new prisoners. That has certainly improved since my prison days. Much seems to be being done—or planned—by the NHS through non-legislative means. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who spoke in Committee, that it is not totally necessary to include this amendment in the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham; he has a long-standing interest in this subject and I have heard him bring it up in other forums many times. As he said, he has worked constructively with Chris Bryant in another place; they have worked in tandem in bringing this issue to the fore and to the attention of Ministers. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has met the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for once again outlining the case for his amendment. Along with Chris Bryant MP, he has raised the importance and profile of the issue of acquired brain injury and the importance of early screening, for which both he and Mr Bryant should be commended. I was grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the issue in greater detail with the noble Lord, as he mentioned. However, as I indicated in Committee, we remain of the view that legislation is not the right course of action, for the reasons that I will now set out.
The amendment would introduce screening for acquired brain injury for female victims of domestic abuse, including female prisoners and those to be protected by a domestic abuse protection order. It is important that the healthcare and support provided for victims of domestic abuse and female prisoners, including those with acquired brain injury, meets the healthcare needs which may result from their abuse. We believe that this Bill is transformational in the support that it will provide for victims of domestic abuse in bringing their perpetrators to justice and raising awareness of domestic abuse, including the impact it can have on survivors.
It is for the NHS to provide the most appropriate care and treatment, based on an individual’s medical history and clinical need. That is the basis on which the NHS operates, providing healthcare and diagnostic tests for those who need it, including urgent referrals.
As I mentioned in Committee, domestic abuse can manifest itself in many ways, not just through physical injuries but mental harm through coercive control and financial abuse. We do not think that such victims should be screened for brain injury, or that this would be an effective use of NHS resources. In addition, we would not want to deter women from coming forward to receive support if they are concerned about the possible outcomes of a brain screening.
I set out in Committee the improvements we have made to existing screening processes through non-legislative measures in prisons. This was in acknowledgement that more could indeed be done to improve current screening processes. The process I described will now identify and address specific circumstances where head injury or loss of consciousness has resulted from domestic abuse and other forms of violence. That is an important step forward.
As I explained, the national screening tool is reviewed and updated by NHS England and NHS Improvement on an annual basis to allow for any changes in NICE guidance or any recommendations arising from a coroner’s report to prevent future deaths. NHS England and NHS Improvement have agreed the precise questions to be asked and how these will be reported against. The coding within the clinical system has been agreed, and we expect these changes to be implemented next month. I am sure noble Lords would agree that this is an important and significant step forward and a good demonstration of how we can make improvements without legislative measures.
In addition, NHS England and NHS Improvement are continuing to work with the Disabilities Trust on a training package for healthcare practitioners to increase effectiveness when supporting people with impaired neurological functioning, either as a result of domestic abuse or due to other reasons. This training is also designed to provide practical steps for those working with patients, and self-help tools for the individuals themselves to reduce and overcome the impact of any brain injury.
In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to link screening to the issuing of a domestic abuse protection order against a perpetrator. It is important not to conflate the two issues. Domestic abuse protection orders, like other protection orders, are designed to impose requirements on the perpetrator. They cannot impose requirements on the person to be protected by the order, such as requiring them to undertake a screening for an acquired brain injury. However, we can, and we will, use the statutory guidance to the police on DAPOs to recommend that the police refer victims to an independent domestic violence adviser or other specialist advocate who will be able to advise victims on their options on a range of issues, including healthcare. We will also include information on where victims can go to seek medical attention in the DAPO advice materials for victims which we will be producing ready for the pilots of the orders.
We remain of the view that these non-legislative interventions are the appropriate way forward to address the important issue that the noble Lord has again raised and will help improve screening for acquired brain injury. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will be reassured and will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that considered response, and I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am very relieved to hear that NHS England and NHS Improvement are working with the Disabilities Trust, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 82. Anyone wishing to press the amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 82
“Repeal of defence of reasonable punishment
(1) Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 is repealed.(2) In relation to any offence, battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, as we approached the start of Report, I looked at the progress made in the Government adopting a significant numbers of amendments proposed in Committee and at the sensible amendments achieving broad cross-party support on Report, some of which I hope we will see adopted, and there was cause for some satisfaction. There was a feeling that this Bill, pushed along by a huge amount of hard work by campaigners outside your Lordships’ House who have provided us with extensive briefings and support showing the level of society’s concern about the failure to protect victims of domestic abuse, truly can protect people in their own homes. This is a humanitarian Bill about preventing physical and mental suffering, damage to health and well-being, and even death.
But as the deadline for amendments approached, it struck me that there was one remaining gaping hole in protections for children. There is the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on in utero protection, but until now we have not even debated broad protection for children in the domestic setting, despite this being the major, long-awaited and much-debated Bill specifically covering that area of life.
In retrospect, that is extremely surprising, particularly when we look at what is happening elsewhere on these islands. Last November, in Scotland, a law giving children the same protection from assault as adults enjoy, in domestic and all settings, came into force. In Wales, the same protection will come into force in 2022. In Northern Ireland, it is under serious consideration. And of course the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK adopted in 1990, requires the abolition of corporal punishment in all settings.
There are now also 58 other nations around the globe that have brought in what is generally known as a smacking ban, Sweden having been the first state to do so, way back in 1979. I am not generally, however, going to use the term “smacking ban”, because, although it is helpful for public understanding, having wide currency, it to some degree trivialises the protection from assault that I am talking about.
Let us make no mistake: children in England can now be assaulted in ways that, were one adult to do to another, would be considered absolutely unacceptable by the law and the public. Imagine being on a bus and seeing one person lean over and slap another across the legs with clear intention to shock and cause pain; you would be on your mobile phone to the police in a second. At night, down the pub—if you can still imagine such a thing—the same behaviour would see the bouncers approaching in full force to restore order. Yet we still explicitly in law allow such behaviour towards children, the most absolutely vulnerable individuals in our society.
In the school playground, should one child behave towards another as their parent may have done the previous evening towards them, officialdom would rightly swoop down, and, should it be a pattern of behaviour, there is a real chance that that child might receive the extreme penalty of exclusion from school.
Amendment 82, which I am presenting, is simple. I apologise for my oversight in not providing an explanatory note, but I think the meaning is clear: it abolishes the defence of “reasonable punishment” that currently exists under Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, and it says that
“battery of a child cannot be justified”.
I know well that this debate is not new to many in your Lordships’ House. A quick internet search demonstrated just how hard many participating in the debate today worked back in 2004 to try to bring protection from assault to children. That led to restrictions on corporal punishment by a parent, so a parent can still be charged with common assault if a physical punishment causes bruises, grazes, scratches, swellings or cuts. However, a defence of “reasonable punishment” is still available in the law, even when there is physical evidence of severe punishment. It is pretty well impossible to prove that punishment is unreasonable. It is a test of intent, and we are talking about events that generally happen behind closed doors. That was a degree of progress in 2004, but not nearly enough, and it is certainly not enough for 2021.
Among the people who worked enormously hard back in 2004 were the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Whitaker and Lady Finlay, who have kindly signed this amendment—bringing broad cross-party and non-party support to it—and who will be speaking shortly. I know that a number of others would have signed the amendment, had there been space. I thank all of them for their support and their experience.
They are reflecting the view of a large number of campaigners and experts. Many noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Association of Educational Psychologists that contains a very long and distinguished list of organisations, from campaigning to medical professionals, that support such a move as this. I particularly thank the Social Workers Union, which has published an article doing that just today. That the AEP has been leading recent campaigning in England on the issue is not surprising when you see the evidence that it has assembled. It reports how the physical punishment of children causes anxiety and depression, damages self-esteem and models aggressive behaviour, which is often copied. The evidence also shows that it damages the quality of parent-child relationships.
I suggest that we also have to consider the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, which affects everything today. Children have had a hugely difficult time: for a five or 10 year-old, it is a major chunk of their life—a dominant experience that will certainly continue to have impacts on them. They need our protection and support.
Before I bring this intervention to a close, I have one final point to make. I have no doubt that some will suggest that this amendment would run the risk of unreasonably penalising struggling parents trying to do their best in extremely difficult circumstances, with the lockdown, poverty, inequality and all the other stresses of life today. But this is very much the opposite—a necessary message from a society that, surveys show, already understands that physical attacks on children are not a good thing.
We need to support parents to use positive parenting strategies to better understand and anticipate their children’s behaviour and be more confident about how to set boundaries and support their children in developing self-regulation—and to control their own behaviour. Force escalation is a key issue in protecting children from assault. Research shows that when force is used, there are changes in brain activity that can lead to an escalation in the degree of force used. The AEP notes that, in a survey of parents, two in five admitted to going further than they had intended.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. Is she there? No. Let us go on to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Lady Walmsley, we cannot hear you.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry; I had not realised I had been called and did not hear the Deputy Speaker.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for seeing the opportunity to bring this really important issue before your Lordships again. As she said, now is a very good time to return to a subject I first raised in your Lordships’ House 20 years ago, soon after I was introduced as a Peer. The time was right then, and it was also right when a group of us tried unsuccessfully to completely remove the reasonable punishment defence during the passage of the Children Act 2004. It is even more right now, as violence against children has increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. Any time is a good time to stop violence against children.
The fact is that if this country cannot give its children equal protection under the laws of assault, such as their parents enjoy, it cannot say that it values its children and protects their rights. The committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child agrees and has been very critical of the UK. Public opinion also agrees: 20 years ago, 80% of the public thought it should be illegal for anyone to hit a child. Indeed, many thought it already was. I suspect it is even higher now. Most people think violence against a child is a particularly egregious act, especially when it happens in a child’s own home, from which she cannot escape, and is done by someone she should be able to trust to protect her.
Of course parents have a right to bring up their children to behave well, but there are many more effective ways of demonstrating right and wrong. In the 58 countries where the law bans parental violence against children, parents have been helped to learn better ways of carrying out their duty to discipline their child. It is often called “positive parenting”. Violence against a child is definitely negative parenting, and most young parents today agree and would not dream of hitting their child.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said, children learn by example. Parents who beat their child cannot be surprised if the child copies that behaviour and hits other children in the playground and, because violence begets violence, they may also grow up to beat their own children. Violence is also detrimental to the development of the child and should be regarded as an adverse childhood event—an ACE—deserving of intervention.
Recent research supports a ban on hitting children. A large long-term longitudinal study by Ma, Lee and Grogan-Kaylor, published in the Journal of Pediatrics in February, of a range of adverse child experiences with particular focus on violence against children, reached the following conclusion:
“ACEs and spanking have similar associations in predicting child externalizing behavior. Results support calls to consider physical punishment as a form of ACE. Our findings also underscore the importance of assessing exposure to ACEs and physical punishment among young children and providing appropriate intervention to children at risk.”
In other words, they found that hitting children does not stop them misbehaving; indeed it can make it worse and has an adverse effect on their development, so services with a duty to protect the child should intervene to stop it. That starts with the law of the land. In the UK, we have already acknowledged that a child who watches violence against its mother in the home is at risk of mental and emotional trauma. How much more trauma will a child suffer who is treated to the same violence himself or herself?
We all want to help parents with the hardest of tasks—bringing up a child healthy and happy—but the current law does not do that. It is discriminatory to children and unhelpful to parents. Hitting a child hard enough to cause a bruise is illegal, but some children do not bruise easily, so could be hit harder without the parents breaking the law. How does a parent know how hard they can hit a child before overstepping that limit? Of course, the answer is not to do it at all and find a better way that does not damage the child you love. The law is nonsense and must be changed.
People have realised this in other countries, including the other three in our own union. Scotland has banned and Wales is about to ban violence against children, and Northern Ireland is looking at it. It is instructive to look at how other countries did it; there is a common approach. When I was in New Zealand, I heard directly from the Minister there about how a lot of help was put in place for parents to learn better ways of disciplining children before removing the very damaging option that we are discussing today. Help with positive parenting and someone to turn to for advice—we need to do that too. It is not that difficult or expensive, but the benefits are enormous for families.
I have a final point. Sweden was the first country to ban parents from hitting children, over 40 years ago, yet Swedish prisons are not and were not full of caring parents who occasionally lost their temper and gave their child a trivial smack. By the way, most parents who do that regret it very much afterwards. Those who fear criminalising otherwise caring parents should remember that the CPS will charge someone with a criminal offence only if the situation meets two tests: first, there is a good chance of obtaining a conviction and, secondly, it is in the public interest. The situation I have just described would not fulfil those tests. However, the law on assault should be clear, helpful to parents and fair to children.
The Government need to show leadership here. When Sweden banned hitting children in 1979, there was not a majority of public opinion in favour of the change, as there is here, but its Government went ahead and did the right thing anyway. Now, Sweden could not get away with legalising hitting children as, I am pleased to say, strong public opinion would prevent such a move. I beg the Government to show similar leadership and accept this amendment, or do I have to spend another 20 years campaigning for it?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We are trying to get the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, but meanwhile I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak against Amendment 82. I appreciate that the noble Baronesses who have tabled this amendment mean well, although their language is quite interesting because they have used the most extreme language. They talked about violence, battering and physical attacks. I do not see any need for a criminal ban on—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, did not want to use this word but I will say—smacking, or an end to the reasonable chastisement law.
It is important we remember that all the law currently allows for is a parent to, if they wish, use a very mild smack on the bottom or a tap on the back of the hand or leg. There is no evidence that this very moderate and limited defence has been misused to allow parents to get away with abusing their children. The idea that it leads to escalation—a parent using a very mild smack today will beat their child black and blue tomorrow—is such an insult to millions of normal, decent parents who would never dream of doing any such thing. You might as well say that shouting at your child should be banned, because that too can sometimes escalate.
It is a ridiculous and offensive notion and frankly, for me, some of the alternatives that this “good parenting” brings in which families could use to chastise seem much worse. If I was a child, my choice would be to have the quick smack and be outside playing again rather than being locked up in my room for three or four hours on my own with nothing or nobody to speak to. We have no idea what the psychological effects of that are on young children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about public support. We do not have that public support. We know there are no popular calls for a ban. It may be an issue which obsesses certain activists and people, but the idea that the public are clamouring for us to criminalise parents who smack is far from the truth. Polling in Scotland and Wales ahead of the smacking bans there demonstrates how unwanted and unwelcome these new regimes are: 76% of Welsh adults said no to changing the law in 2017 and 74% of Scottish adults opposed a smacking ban. I have not seen much discussion of it in Northern Ireland. Let us not pretend the Great British public have given a mandate to change the law. In my view and in most parents’ views, smacking is a reasonable option that responsible parents must be free to use if they see fit.
Journalists, campaigners and some of the noble Lords who have spoken are prone to claiming that “this study says this” or “that research says that” or “that psychologist says this” and it deserves to be criminalised. But if you actually look at the data, you usually find either that the researchers are active campaigners dressing their views up as science or that the research did not make the claims attributed to it. I am not aware of any reliable studies showing causation between gentle physical chastisement of the kind we are talking about and negative child outcomes. By removing the reasonable chastisement protection, tapping your child on the hand or the bottom would become a crime—an assault, as some of the noble Baronesses call it.
If this happens, the police and others would have a duty to report and investigate every case that came to their attention. Every instance of a loving mum or dad using a little smack in a reasonable and normal manner, perhaps when the child was in imminent danger, would suddenly be liable for prosecution. That cannot be anything but detrimental to that family’s trust in the authorities. Removing the safeguard would likely result in significant overreporting to social services. The twitching curtain brigade would love it.
There are probably thousands of parents using reasonable chastisement every day, and the idea that they would all stop overnight because we tell them to is, I am afraid, pretty naive. Even if only a fraction of those parents came to the attention of the authorities, it would place considerable pressure on the already overburdened social services and police, and this would dilute the resources available to help truly vulnerable children and their families. Some of them would eventually slip through the cracks and be overlooked. I believe that this would be the legacy of passing this amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for introducing this important amendment to the Bill, just as I did 16 years ago when the Children Act was making its way through this House. The aim has not changed: to allow children the same legal protection from violence that adults enjoy today—no more, no less.
While the aim has not changed, the times and society certainly have. In the 1990s, parents interviewed in confidence as part of a research study commissioned by the Department of Health admitted to very high levels of corporal punishment, with the admission of violence doubling when both parents were interviewed. Three-quarters of mothers said that they had already smacked their baby before its first birthday, which is before language has developed. Over 91% of children had been hit, with the youngest and most vulnerable hit most often. Almost half the children were hit weekly or more often. One-fifth had been hit with an implement, and 35% had been punished severely, which is defined as with the intention or potential to actually cause harm to the child. That included actions that were repeated, prolonged or involved the use of implements. Today, those children are parents.
In 2021, we find ourselves a year after national lockdowns began. The pressure on parents has been enormous, and we know that if a parent hits a child, it is usually in response to pent-up feelings. When parents have been forced to be indoors 24 hours a day, trying to work and look after their children at the same time, many parents have struggled to hide their frustration at one time or another.
The circumstances of the pandemic have only emphasised the need for many of the amendments that have been accepted by the Government already. The Government have done a great deal to ensure the safeguarding of children, but the state of the law on this undermines it.
A recent paper in the Archives of Disease in Childhood showed that in one hospital in 2020 in just one month, the number of cases of serious child injury rose by almost 1,500% compared with the same period in the previous three years, pointing to a silent pandemic of abuse in 2020. Ten children aged 17 days to 13 months had head trauma. This is just one of several such reports, confirmed by the 80% increase in NSPCC referrals.
Research clearly shows that corporal punishment has all kind of negative effects on mental health, parent-child relationships, increased anti-social behaviour and child aggression. Almost all abuse takes place in the context of so-called punishment or discipline. Sweden’s experience of banning smacking has shown that it benefits children and society as a whole, and 60 countries have now followed suit.
I will address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Loving, caring parents need to use physical actions at times, especially with young children: to protect them, to grab them and lift them, to restrain them and so on. The amendment would not interfere with this part of day-to-day parenting, or with the ability to punish in non-violent ways. But smacking can escalate to beating the living daylights out of a child. That is what the amendment seeks to address.
Most parents report that they regret having hit, but it escalates so easily into more serious violence. Children who are pinched, slapped, shaken and spanked are seven times more likely to experience severe violence such as punching, kicking or hitting with an object. They are being taught that the way to cope with feelings of frustration in oneself is to hit someone who is vulnerable. Aggression breeds aggression. Children must learn de-escalation and parents must set the example.
In 2022, a law banning the smacking of children in Wales will come into force, thanks to Julie Morgan’s leadership on the issue. Scotland passed such legislation in October 2019, and several people have seen at first hand how counting to 10 rather than a frequent quick slap has resulted in better child behaviour. Now England should follow. The amendment will not stem the tide of domestic abuse, but it will give the next generation the same protection in law from serious abuse that we aim to afford to adults. That is why I support it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this amendment attempts to repeal the defence of reasonable punishment as part of the Children Act. In my mind, that would effectively criminalise parents for reasonably chastising their own children.
In doing so, the amendment raises a number of ethical pitfalls that the state faces whenever it legislates to police private family life in a free society. Historically, we have recognised that state interventions into family life should be rare, proportionate and handled with due respect for parental autonomy. In recent years, we have sadly seen an unfortunate trend towards top-down overreach, and this amendment is a good illustration. In the whole of the Domestic Abuse Bill, with its focus on helping those abused in domestic settings or contexts, we still need to remember that this is not a green light to tear up all the norms of privacy and liberty when it comes to family life.
Essentially, the amendment would remove the legal defence of reasonable chastisement from parents who might occasionally smack their own children. Effectively, this declares that the Government know better than loving parents, who could find themselves vulnerable to charges of common assault just for being parents
Of course, there will be people here who might not approve of slapping. We have already heard from some. But that is their business. That is no justification for overruling other parents’ decisions, or their values. Should we assume that the state always knows best when it comes to child rearing? I am sure that those raised in care homes might have a different view.
The amendment is also entirely unnecessary, because it is already illegal to aim a smack at a child’s head or to hit a child with an object, as is any smack that leads to more than the temporary reddening of skin. In other words, unreasonable punishment is already against the law, and rightly so. The vast majority of society view violence aimed at children as abhorrent. They think that beating children should be not just illegal but morally condemned, as we all do. So what would this amendment outlawing even a reasonable use of smacking achieve?
The amendment states that
“battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.”
Of course battery cannot be justified on the basis of reasonable punishment—but think about the use of that word, “battery”. It conjures up horrors, does it not? Why was that word used in this amendment? I noticed that, in campaigns to ban smacking in Wales and Scotland, one of the most egregious tactics of anti-smacking lobbyists was this irresponsible conflation of smacking with gross acts of violence. This rhetorical trick is shameless and shamefully distorts intention and context.
It is important to state for the record that violence is physical force intended to injure. In contrast, if a mum or dad smacks a five year-old child for being naughty, they have no intention of causing injury. Rather, they, like all of us, want to teach their child right from wrong, for example by chastising them for running in front of a car. This is driven by parental love, not a desire to injure. Conflating slapping with violence paints ordinary mums and dads as potential violent thugs or child abusers. It is just so insulting. It also shows a certain distrust of ordinary parents; tonight, we heard people describing smacking and beating the living daylights out of children in the same sentence.
For the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who argued that we should treat the smacking of a child as we would treat a bodily attack on a grown adult, again, let us think about context. Do we really believe that children should not be treated differently from adults? In the real world, parents do many things to their children that they would not dream of doing to another adult. When you order a child to bed, you do not order adults to bed, do you? You check whether your child’s bottom is clean; you would not do that to an adult. We treat children—especially our own—differently from adults. If you confiscate your teen’s Xbox or phone, we do not consider that theft because of the context. It is common-sense disciplinary action, as smacking can be. Smacking is not assault; it is not even comparable. So I hope that noble Lords agree that parents are better placed to judge when and how to discipline their offspring than any number of NGOs—even if they come waving state-approved parenting manuals full of best practice checklists and “Count to 10”.
Finally, the danger with overreach is that it expands who and what is criminalised. As I have warned several times during the passage of this Bill, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, this could open the floodgates to complaints of minor incidents and overwhelm the police and social services, which are already overstretched. When I argued this in Wales in relation to the debate there, I was assured that the legislation was not about criminalising parents, but about sending a message. However, politicians cannot change the criminal law and expect the police and courts not to enforce it. It is not a communications strategy. Also, the Scottish Government encouraged the public to phone 999 if they witnessed a parent smacking their child; they also distributed leaflets aimed at children, urging them to report on their parents. Can you imagine how divisive, demoralising and damaging that is for family life? How does it protect children if the law undermines parental authority, or if families are ripped apart by damaging police investigations because a child was smacked? It would discredit the whole concept of domestic abuse, as well as child abuse, if we treated smacking as assault under this Bill. We ourselves would launch an assault on family coherence.
Finally, for many weeks now, we, in following this Domestic Abuse Bill, have focused on the dark side of family life. Earlier this evening, we heard harrowing tales of stalking, abuse, women at risk and so on. However, we must make sure that this does not poison our world view. We should avoid starting to see abuse everywhere. Behind closed doors is not a dystopian hellhole. The majority of families are joyous places of solidarity and socialising children. Sometimes they are messy. Sometimes they are argumentative. Sometimes there is a bit of shouting. Sometimes there is the odd smack. However, they are largely full of love. This amendment suggests otherwise and should be rejected.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling the amendment, which I support on three grounds.
First, and perhaps most important, I support it on the grounds of children’s rights. Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says that Governments must do all they can to ensure that children are protected from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and bad treatment by their parents and anyone else who looks after them. Yet successive Governments have failed to implement the recommendation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, that they should prohibit, as a matter of priority, all corporal punishment in the family, including the repeal of all legal defences. In the past, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the defence of reasonable punishment was incompatible with children’s rights under various human rights treaties and recommended that it be replaced with a provision drafted to remove that defence and give children the same protection from battery as adults.
Secondly, as we have already heard, despite the assertions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates that smacking—or whatever you want to call it—can have an adverse, long-term impact on children’s mental health and behaviour, as well as a negative impact on parent-child relationships, rather souring the happy, halcyon image of the family that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just painted. Back in 2015, four UK Children’s Commissioners called for the immediate prohibition of corporal punishment in the family. That was over five years ago.
Thirdly, is the example set not just by most other European and OECD countries but, as we have heard, by our own devolved nations of Scotland and Wales. It is no coincidence that, unlike the Westminster Government, these devolved nations treat the UN convention as a guiding light in their policy-making on children. If children in Scotland and Wales are no longer to be at risk of smacking on the grounds it constitutes reasonable punishment, what possible justification is there for children in England to continue to be at risk? I am afraid I do not take the arguments put by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as providing any such convincing justification.
No doubt the Minister will argue that this Bill is not the place for such an amendment, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hoey. That may be so, though the fact that we are debating it today means it is in the scope. But I welcome the opportunity it has given us to debate the issues it raises, and I hope the Minister will take back to the Department for Education the messages raised by the majority of those contributing to the debate and seek the meeting called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
There is a wider message gaining growing support in civil society: we need a Cabinet-level Minister with special responsibility for children and their needs, concerns and rights or, at the very least, the restoration of such a post at Minister of State level. I hope that child-friendly developments in England and Wales will lead to change in England too, including the repeal of the defence of reasonable punishment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 82. I very strongly support the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Fox. The defence of reasonable chastisement was created to stop parents being prosecuted for assault when they did not deserve to be prosecuted. If a parent hits a child in a way that causes any kind of mark—the CPS would say anything more than a transient reddening of the skin—then they have used unreasonable chastisement and can quite properly be prosecuted. The reasonable chastisement defence helps to ensure that good parents do not find themselves accused of being a child abuser for doing something perfectly gentle and humane. This defence therefore exists, first, to keep children safe and, secondly, to protect loving, decent parents. The current law does not need amending; it achieves the right balance. Who, after all, wants to criminalise reasonable behaviour?
Friends of ours had a child taken from their family by overenthusiastic social workers, quite wrongly, which caused enormous distress. It was because of an unexplainable bruise. I expect that most of us experienced reasonable chastisement when we were children. In 2017, a ComRes poll found that this was the experience of 85% of adults. If reasonable chastisement was so harmful that it deserved to be criminalised, you would expect eight out of 10 adults to manifest the same symptoms as children who have been abused. But of course they do not. How many of us whose parents loved us, cared for us and taught us right from wrong think our childhoods would have been better if our parents had been prosecuted merely for giving us a well-deserved smack on the bottom? That is what this amendment would mean for families today.
Parents know their own children. They are best placed to judge whether a tap on the hand of a toddler who has resisted all other blandishments is the right call. I would strongly challenge the assumption that every parent who smacks their child should be described as hitting and violent. None of us approves of such actions. Parents have a huge range of tactics and strategies at their disposal to help their children grow up into kind, diligent adults: gentle instruction, words of praise, the naughty step and withdrawing privileges. But for many parents, reasonable chastisement sometimes fits the bill. Who are we to make criminals of those whose parenting philosophy differs from our own on this point?
For every person who claims that such common-sense parenting is damaging, we have thousands of sensible parents living in the real world who are convinced otherwise. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that three-quarters of the public do not want to expose parents who use reasonable chastisement to the full force of the criminal law. This amendment is neither necessary nor wanted by the public. We should not use the criminal law to enforce political fashions and condemn the mums and dads of today for making the same decisions that many of us have made. We must let parents decide for themselves. Common sense should not result in a criminal record, and that is not an alarmist statement.
Last year, as we have been told already, Scotland passed a law banning smacking, while telling critics again and again that removing the reasonable chastisement defence would not result in parents being criminalised. Yet less than a month before the ban came into effect, the Scottish Government published advice telling members of the public to dial 999 to report a crime in progress if they saw a parent smacking their child. We are only months into the implementation of that law in Scotland, so we must wait and see what happens once the authorities begin to enforce it in earnest. So far, there is a lack of evidence that criminalising parents has reduced domestic abuse in countries that have introduced so-called smacking bans.
Instead of attacking good parents we should be reassuring them of our support, especially after the challenging year that families have experienced. There would be a real danger in including this amendment in the Domestic Abuse Bill. Loving parents are not domestic abusers and it is insulting to suggest otherwise. A gentle tap on the hand to discourage a persistent two year-old from putting their finger in every plug socket they encounter is not child abuse but responsible parenting. Abusive parents are already caught by the law, but this amendment would task police and social services with targeting not abusive but loving parents. It would be a serious mistake.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we shall now hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to this amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is high time that the rights of children in respect of assault were given proper recognition. Of course, such assaults—otherwise termed corporal punishment—were not always regarded as wrong, and I can see that some people still do not regard them as wrong, but norms change, thankfully. Some newly accepted norms we think important enough to put into law, so that we can affirm them as a society. This particularly applies to instances of violence, which we have heard a lot about in this debate. Duelling was acceptable until it was made illegal, and indeed corporal punishment in schools was common until it was legally banned, as it was eventually—though shamefully late—in institutions for children with learning disabilities. Smacking within the family was accepted until the last Labour Government took the small step of banning it, but only if it left a mark—an odd concept in these days of valuing diversity of colour, as my noble friend Lady Howells, now retired, pointed out.
Of course, conduct does not always follow the law, which is why enforcement is a necessary corollary, but in this case the law lags behind popular opinion. When I last looked at the subject, the majority were in favour of making smacking illegal. Libertarians might argue that if the norm is changing, why have a law? Indeed, we have heard some even more extreme arguments this evening. I think the contemporary answer is that in a diverse society, if generally agreed changes in conduct are not given a push, traditional forms of behaviour, rather than the fast becoming socially accepted standard, will still prevail and harm children. Now, more than ever, we need laws that unite us and affirm the important values of dignity and respect for others, especially if they are weaker, smaller or more vulnerable. It is time for assault on children to be banned everywhere.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, what a very interesting debate this has been; I did not expect this. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling the amendment. I also commend the work of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who first raised this issue 20 years ago. The statistics I have show that 20 years ago some 80% of the public thought hitting a child should be illegal. What has happened in the intervening years to warrant parents’ outrage—as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—at the prospect of not being able to smack their children, I am not entirely sure. As I have been involved in this subject before, I was surprised to learn that the corporal punishment of children is not illegal already. It contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, reminded us.
Turning to the reasoning for amending this Bill now, we know that violence begets violence, as described so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As she said, there is a pandemic of violence in this country and the vast brunt of domestic abuse falls on women, having been perpetrated by men. It has been a distressing experience for me to have to go through all the ways and circumstances in which this happens, but those who perpetrate violence always pick a victim weaker than they are. Some men do it to women, but some men and women do it to children.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, that this has been a very interesting debate, but I do not intend to detain the House long.
Amendment 82, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would repeal Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and provide in this Bill that:
“In relation to any offence, battery of a child cannot be justified on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.”
The 2004 Act set out safeguards on the physical punishment of children. It provides that battery of a child, which covers the smacking of a child, could not constitute reasonable punishment if it was related to certain offences, I think such as grievous or actual bodily harm, cruelty or wounding. This amendment would widen that to all situations and circumstances.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has said that she will not push for a vote on her amendment, which seeks a significant change to existing law under the Children Act 2004. I can understand why she has made that decision. When the Children Act 2004 was going through Parliament, the debates on its terms were lengthy and included the issue of whether smacking should be permitted as a reasonable punishment in any circumstances under that Act.
The kind of significant change to existing law being sought in this amendment on children should be the subject of consultation and consideration, providing a proper opportunity for the case and supporting evidence, both for and against such a proposition, to be fully debated, tested and aired prior to a decision being made on whether to agree to change the existing law. That level of scrutiny cannot be achieved through this amendment on Report stage of this Bill and, for that reason, we believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, while certainly raising an important issue on what is or is not acceptable in the treatment of children, is right in her decision not to push this to a vote.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is also justified in drawing attention to developments on this issue in Scotland and Wales that are in line with her amendment, and seeking an undertaking from the Government to listen to and examine the evidence for change, and consider whether the current legal position as set out in the 2004 Act should be amended. I wait to see if the Government, in their response, will indicate a willingness to do this in light of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, made in moving her amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has explained, her Amendment 82 seeks to repeal Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and to replace it with a provision that removes the defence of reasonable punishment from parents, or persons acting legally as parents, to charges of battery against a child in relation to any offence.
I make it clear at the outset that the Government absolutely condemn abuse and violence towards children. Accordingly, Clause 3 was added to the Bill in another place to recognise that a child is considered to be a victim of domestic abuse, including physical abuse, in his or her own right, if they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related to either the targeted victim of the abuser or the perpetrator. The Government are aware of recent legislation in Scotland and Wales that removes the defence of reasonable punishment. While parents are responsible for disciplining their children, they must do so within the boundaries of clear laws against violence towards children in England.
Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 changed the law significantly to give children greater protection. The defence of reasonable punishment can no longer be used when parents or those acting in place of parents are charged with assault causing actual or grievous bodily harm or child cruelty. The law in England provides that parents and other adults who are acting legally in place of the parents may plead a defence of reasonable punishment to a charge of common assault against a child. Common assault amounts to where an injury is “transient and trifling”.
Following the 2004 Act, the Crown Prosecution Service amended its guidance so that it acknowledges the particular vulnerability of children. An injury that would lead to a charge of common assault where the victim was an adult would normally be charged as actual bodily harm or a more serious offence if the victim were a child. Parents who cause injuries to children such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, bruising, swelling and superficial cuts are already at risk of being charged with actual bodily harm and would have no defence of reasonable punishment. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously; they will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed.
Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, sets out what professionals and organisations need to do to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people. Further statutory guidance entitled Keeping Children Safe in Education also sets out what staff in schools and colleges should do to safeguard children and young people.
Relationships, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum. The focus on healthy relationships in primary and secondary schools will help children and young people who are experiencing or witnessing unhealthy relationships to know where to seek help and report abuse, as well as addressing inappropriate behaviour, harassment, abuse or exploitation. In short, there are already strong safeguards in existing legislation and statutory guidance that protect children from physical harm as a form of punishment. The current legal position is clear, appropriate and protects children from abuse and harm. The Government do not accept that the law, as it stands, is in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; we believe that it complies with Articles 19 and 37 on abuse and violence towards children.
We accept that there are differing views on Section 58 of the Children Act, and we have heard them expressed again on both sides in what has been a lively and informative debate, including some very powerful speeches against the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Fox of Buckley, and my fellow Northumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, noted, this has been a long-running issue. I am glad that she has listened to the counsel of her supporters and agreed not to press this issue to a vote this evening. She and I are equally new to your Lordships’ House as we were introduced around the same time, but I agree with those who have said that this is too an important an issue to be slipped into the Bill at this late stage. However, she rightly used the opportunity to ask some questions and seek a meeting. That is properly a matter for the Department for Education, but I shall pass a request for a meeting on and ensure that it replies to her directly about it. With that, and having sparked this lively and interesting debate, I hope that she will now be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and everyone who has participated in this debate. I share the feeling of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, about the need to draw a very deep breath before I begin. I think many people in British society would be surprised at the tone of some of the arguments presented this evening by those opposing this amendment. I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would feel that some parts of our political landscape have not changed very much in 20 years. However, that is perhaps because there is a feeling that that part of the political landscape is very much swimming against the tide of public opinion—I might even say the tide of history.
I thank the Minister for his offer to pass on a request to the department. I will be pursuing that very vigorously, and I very much hope that we will have a ministerial meeting. These are issues that need to be raised at the highest level, particularly given what is happening in the nations around us. I welcome the Minister’s comments about how much progress is being made in sex and relationship education, something I have long been campaigning on. It is something that needs to be monitored very closely to make sure that it is meeting the needs of our current society.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, rightly identified the reasons why I was persuaded not to push this further at this moment. This was not on the list of amendments in Committee and it is not normal practice to go further at this stage, but it is obvious that the level of debate is going to be stepped up significantly.
I am aware of the hour, so I shall be brief, but it is worth drawing together the noble Baronesses, all of whom are veterans of this campaign. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made very important points about the context in which this debate is happening, which is the Covid pandemic, and about how we now understand so much more about adverse childhood experiences and their impact on children. That is a reflection of how far the science has moved on in the past two decades. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who has an expert’s perspective, acknowledged how the current law undermines the Government’s efforts in child welfare and other areas and gave an expert account of what is being seen in our hospitals and by our doctors.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 83. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 83
Baroness Greengross
“Duty to report suspected abuse
A local authority must ensure that, where any of its employees suspects in the course of carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care that a person is the victim of domestic abuse, the employee reports the suspected abuse to a relevant social worker or the police.”
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 83, I will speak to Amendment 84. I am introducing these two amendments again on Report as I believe the issue they seek to highlight regarding older adults needs considerably more attention than it has received to date. After a helpful meeting with the Minister last week, I will not now be putting these amendments to a Division. However, I would like to raise a few important points.
At earlier stages of the Bill, I cited polling data from Hourglass—formerly called Action on Elder Abuse—conducted in 2020 which found that one in six adults over the age of 65 has experienced some form of abuse. That is 2.7 million older people in this country who have experienced abuse. Yet despite this, the abuse of older people is not taken seriously by many. Older people are victims of physical, financial, sexual and psychological abuse, and many others suffer abuse due simply to straightforward neglect.
These two amendments, debated in Committee and debated again today, are by no means the only measures that could or should be put in place to safeguard against the abuse of older adults. But both Amendment 83, which places a duty on local authorities to report suspected abuse, and Amendment 84, which gives registered social workers the powers to enter a private residence to investigate suspected abuse, are concrete steps to improve the reporting and investigation of this often horrendous crime.
Amendment 83 would reinforce existing safeguards practised by local authorities and duties of care detailed in the Care Act 2014. The draft statutory guidance that the Government intend to issue once the Bill gains Royal Assent places a greater duty on local authorities to support victims of abuse.
The intention of this amendment is to ensure greater consistency throughout the country with regard to the reporting of suspected abuse. At present, some authorities have robust processes in place to address this, while, sadly, others do not. Critical to this working will be a stronger emphasis on training and learning to identify potential signs of domestic abuse. Also, it is important that joined-up working between local authorities and other relevant agencies occurs throughout the country to ensure a co-ordinated and swift response where there is suspected abuse.
Amendment 84, concerning powers of entry for registered social workers, addresses the fact that at present, powers of entry are given to the police only where life and limb are at risk. This life and limb threshold is far too high. The proposal would bring England in line with legislation in both Scotland and Wales, where social workers have powers of entry. While obstruction of social workers is rare, stronger processes need to be in place where suspected abuse cannot be investigated.
There needs to be a balance when considering these issues and many would be wary of expanding powers of entry too far. But again, when 2.7 million older people have experienced abuse and in most cases the abuse is not even reported, it is not acceptable to say that the status quo is working. Obviously, it is not.
I had the opportunity to meet with the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, last week regarding these two amendments. The discussions we had were constructive, and she indicated that the Government are willing to do more work in this area to strengthen safeguarding against abuse of older people. I eagerly await her response or the response of the other Minister at the conclusion of the debate, which I hope will address the points I have made today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has scratched, so the next speaker will be the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, say “bearing in mind the time of day” three times. I will say it only once: bearing in mind the time of day, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I spoke briefly on this in Committee. She is quite right not to press this to a vote. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour or where it is in the Bill, more work needs to be done. I was not present, but I would be very pleased to learn the outcome of the meeting with the Minister. As I said in Committee, while I support the general thrust of both amendments, I could nitpick my way through some of the detail.
My central point, particularly in relation to Amendment 84, is that, like some of the other amendments we have debated today, it sends an incredibly powerful message to perpetrators. At the moment this problem is behind closed doors and not taken seriously among older people, notwithstanding the results of the polling that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, gave—which is pretty bad, of course. I can remember constituency cases in which similar kinds of things happened but it was always difficult to nail down, given the age of the people involved. The fact of the matter is that abuse takes place. Social workers having the power to force entry—they would do it not on their own but only with the police present anyway; and, as the amendment says, it would mean they had already been refused entry—would be a message to the perpetrators.
It would be incredibly powerful if the Government were able to take forward the issue of older people and the abuse they suffer, simply because it is not highlighted. It is not politically sexy; it is a dark and closed area for many people. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is absolutely right to bring the issue back on Report. It will not be the last time we hear of this. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister to be able to give some comfort to those involved and a bit of strategy to send a message so that those perpetrating know that more action can be taken. Of course, the idea is to stop them perpetrating the abuse.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for bringing forward Amendments 83 and 84 on Report. I congratulate her on the progress that appears to have been made, particularly in light of her meeting with the Minister, which is very welcome news indeed.
I say that because, in connection with Amendment 83, I know there was a certain reluctance on the Government’s part to accept that this form of abuse against older people constituted domestic abuse. To a certain extent, I can understand that level of reluctance. I do not know what we would call abuse of an older person. If it is a younger person, the local authority acts in loco parentis in its responsibility for adult social care. This is, if you like, the reverse of “in loco parentis”; it is responsible for the adult social care for an older person. I believe progress has been made by these amendments being brought forward at this stage. It is absolutely essential that the local authority steps in in this way because, where no family members are available, the older person has no one else to turn to but the local authority acting in that capacity.
I also lend my support in principle to Amendment 84 for the reasons I gave in Committee. It is very important that we equalise the law as relating to powers of entry across the four nations of the UK. Subject to what my noble friend says in summing up this small group, I see absolutely no reason why we should be out of line with Scotland and Wales.
Finally, I ask my noble friend to give us a little more meat on the bones, since the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is not pressing these amendments to a vote at this stage. Could we have a few more details of what government action is proposed, the direction of travel and, ideally, a timetable?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am also very glad to support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in her Amendments 83 and 84. She has been such an extraordinary campaigner for older people and, years ago, she brought the abuse suffered by them to national and international attention.
We have made considerable progress. The acceptance of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lister means that the offence of “controlling or coercive behaviour” under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which originally covered only behaviour by a family member when they are living with their victim, will be amended so that it applies to “controlling or coercive behaviour” by a former intimate partner that takes place post separation, or by a family member who does not reside with the victim. This is real progress for old people suffering from abuse.
However, there is an argument for going further. I will reflect back on the words of wisdom of Gary FitzGerald, formerly CEO of Action on Elder Abuse, who stated that:
“Older women can have a higher level of physical, emotional and particularly financial dependence on perpetrators, and will often have experienced the abuse for a much greater period of time. It is those psychological and emotional relationships that are crucial in considering coercive control ... The people who primarily abuse older people are their own families—sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, and grandchildren. They exploit family relationships, and this can often continue after the intervention of statutory services.”
The argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is that you need her amendment to deal with these types of situations.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said:
“Local authorities are well equipped to identify, investigate and address suspicions or cases of domestic abuse where the individual has existing care and support needs or is known through other means. There are mechanisms and clear professional responsibilities in place to ensure the safety of suspected or known victims.”—[Official Report, 10/2/21; col. 404.]
She was not convinced that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would add value to “existing rules and processes”. In a sense, this repeats an argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has used throughout the Bill: that practice is at fault, not the legislative structures. The problem is that, in relation to the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, it is far too patchy, which is why we are using the Bill to raise issues and seek to get some statutory provision. I know that she hopes for a positive response from Ministers, which is to be welcomed. However, it would be great to be able to finish the job, in a sense, and do everything we can to protect older people from the abuse that I am afraid they suffer all too often.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. The hour is late, and I do not wish to add much to what has already been said. In Committee, I highlighted that:
“How we treat our vulnerable is a reflection of our society … We need a zero-tolerance attitude to abuse, whatever the age of those involved.”—[Official Report, 10/2/21; col. 400.]
When we last debated this issue, the Minister said that local authorities are already equipped with the powers in Amendment 83 and that “the police and others” already have the right of entry in Amendment 84.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that, in spite of this, there are still problems. The elderly are among the most vulnerable in our society, and it is important that they are adequately protected. As such, I hope the Minister will be able to highlight today how protection for the elderly will be strengthened.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, this is one of the few amendments to the Bill that are intended to address elder abuse, and I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her years of campaigning for older people. Clearly, it is a big problem, with stark findings from the charity Hourglass that one in six adults over 65 has suffered some form of abuse, and 40% of this is financial abuse.
At previous stages the noble Baroness the Minister did not seem particularly sympathetic to these amendments, citing systems and procedures already in place for spotting and reporting signs of financial abuse in local authorities. But in her subsequent letter to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, counterchallenges that duties under the Care Act 2014 are not implemented consistently by local authorities. I wonder if the noble Lord the Minister recognises this picture. Would he be willing to commission some investigation to check this out? I was mollified by the words of the noble Baroness the Minister in Committee, but now I wonder.
Regarding powers of entry, the Minister expressed concern in Committee that social workers are not trained for effecting entry and may be putting themselves in harm’s way. In her follow-up letter, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, counters that it is naive to imagine that social workers are never in harm’s way and are unused to facing confrontational situations in the course of their job anyway. In the letter, she says that
“powers of entry are only given to the police in cases where ‘life and limb’ are at stake.”
So there appears to be a gap between police powers to act and refusal to allow entry to the social worker by a suspected controlling abuser.
The noble Baroness compares safeguarding powers in Scotland and Wales to those in England and finds them wanting. Would it not be possible to look at this again? I would be very interested to know how often powers to enter are needed and sought. I hope the Minister can enlighten the House so that we might understand the scale of the problem. On the one hand, we have the evidence of Scotland, where the knowledge that the social worker has the power to enter creates an expectation that they may enter, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; but on the other, there is the risk to the social worker to consider, as outlined by the noble Baroness the Minister. I am a bit more ambivalent this time around, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister has to say.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 83, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would require a local authority to ensure that, where any of its employees suspects in the course of carrying out a financial assessment for adult social care that a person is the victim of domestic abuse, the employee reports the suspected abuse to a social worker or the police. Amendment 84 would give a magistrates’ court the power to permit a registered social worker to enter a premises by force if the social worker has reason to believe an occupant may be a victim of abuse, and they have been refused entry by other occupants.
We are of course very much of the view that everything must be done to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse, not least domestic abuse against older people, who can be particularly vulnerable and against whom such abuse can be even more of a hidden crime than abuse experienced by younger people. I pay tribute to all the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has done over many years on behalf of older people to ensure that their interests and concerns are not overlooked and forgotten.
A statutory duty under the Care Act 2014 already exists on local authorities to make inquiries where they suspect abuse, although apparently performance on this varies considerably. Ensuring that employees can recognise the signs of domestic abuse, and then report it, is a training issue, and we have already had debates on the importance of training, led by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, when certain assurances were given by the Government. Reporting abuse, what happens to investigate and deal with it once it has been reported, and the priority it is given, are crucial. A key factor is multiagency working and ensuring that an awareness of abuse runs through every agency. It is crucial that this is monitored effectively to ensure that it is working properly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said that she does not intend to press her amendments to a vote, following discussions with the Government, presumably in the light of what was said by the Government during those discussions. I presume that in their response the Government will refer to any undertakings that they have given, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will not be the only one monitoring the impact of any such undertakings.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for further highlighting the plight of older victims of domestic abuse, and for tabling amendments which seek to tackle these important issues. I am replying on behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who I know found their discussion on the matter last week extremely helpful.
The Government are committed to preventing and reducing the risk of harm to people in known or suspected vulnerable situations. An effective adult safeguarding system which works across agencies to identify incidents or risk of harm, as well as acting on and ultimately preventing them, is central to this. We take the issues that the noble Baroness has raised very seriously and know that a well-trained and empowered adult social care workforce will be vital in tackling them. Social work is the lead profession for adult safeguarding duties under the Care Act 2014 and the Government are committed to ensuring that those working in it are well informed and trained to carry out their roles effectively. For this reason, the Chief Social Worker for Adults is developing a practice guide to support adult safeguarding teams within local authorities, to ensure a consistent and person-centred statutory response and quality safeguarding of adults with care and support needs. This guide will be consulted on and published this year.
We have considered Amendments 83 and 84 further and do not believe that they will add value to existing roles and processes, or that they are needed to improve outcomes for older people experiencing domestic abuse. In relation to Amendment 83, all local authority employees are expected to undertake safeguarding training, ensuring that they can identify any concerns of elder abuse and report these through existing escalation routes where necessary. In some instances, this may require making a report to the police, or making a referral under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014, which places a duty on a local authority to make inquiries, or to ask others to make inquiries, where it reasonably suspects that an adult in its area is at risk of neglect or abuse, including financial abuse.
On Amendment 84, the police have existing powers of entry ensuring the protection of victims of domestic abuse and other instances of exploitation and harm. These existing powers are sufficient and appropriately given to the police, who are well equipped to respond to threats from perpetrators of domestic abuse and to gain entry to a home where necessary. Extending powers of entry to social workers risks placing them in potentially unsafe and harmful situations which they are not equipped to deal with. It would also not be appropriate for a social worker to have powers that extend beyond their remit of supporting people with care and support needs, and they would not be trained to respond in these circumstances. Local arrangements will be in place to enable effective joint working to investigate instances where an adult must be safeguarded, which would include the police, health and social care professionals, and providers.
I also point to Clause 73, which enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance relating to the definition of domestic abuse. The draft guidance recognises that older people can be victims of domestic abuse and that they may experience this abuse differently. This guidance is intended to support all responding agencies to understand domestic abuse. Indeed, under Clause 73, any person exercising public functions to whom guidance is issued must have regard to the guidance in carrying out those functions.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I believe that the Government have taken onboard many of the points that I and others have raised in today’s debate. I welcome the opportunity to have input into statutory guidance that will be issued once the Bill receives Royal Assent. It is particularly important that Hourglass, as the leading charity in this area, can also have input into the guidance to local authorities on identifying and reporting suspected abuse and how they can best support older victims of this often horrific crime.
On the issue of power of entry, I remain of the view that the legislation in Scotland and Wales allowing social workers to enter a property to investigate suspected abuse where access has been blocked is the right approach. We might need to look at this again at a later date.
Further, I believe that the current “life and limb” threshold for the police to enter a property is too high; it makes it harder to investigate suspected abuse. But I do agree with the Minister that having joined-up work across agencies when responding to domestic abuse is essential. There needs to be a joined-up approach in responding to incidents where attempts to investigate abuse are blocked or frustrated. If the joined-up working approach proposed by the Government can address this issue satisfactorily, that would be a positive outcome. If social workers’ entry to people’s homes in cases of suspected abuse continues to be frustrated and the law proves inadequate to address that, I am sure that, at some future date, the issue of powers of entry will once again be debated in your Lordships’ House and appropriate measures taken to deal with it.
Regarding today’s debate, I thought the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was absolutely right not to press a Division. More work needs to be done to look in detail at certain issues. We need a powerful measure to deal with perpetrators. Knowing that a social worker was coming might change behaviour. It will not be the last time we hear about this, because we may have to bring it back, so I thank the noble Lord for his contribution.
The reluctance of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to accept that this is a form of abuse worries me somewhat. It is essential that local authorities step in, but I know she agrees with a power of entry similar to that in Scotland and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, brought this issue to national attention many years ago. I have done the same and we have joined forces quite often to argue for the same points. The argument to go further for older women who have higher dependence on the perpetrator is very important. Family members are the prime perpetrators, and we know that the practice is far too patchy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, highlighted that how we treat vulnerable people reflects something in our society which we must look at in more detail again. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has tabled very important amendments that support elderly people and demonstrated the gap between the police and social workers. We need also to look at that again and at what goes on in Scotland and Wales, because I am sure we can learn from what they are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, highlighted the fact that older people are particularly vulnerable to abuse, and the importance of training anyone coming in touch with them, whether they are trained social workers, family members or whoever is doing the caring role.
I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for taking on this rather difficult issue and for highlighting many of the points that I raised previously with him and today. So with my thanks I say that today I will not be pressing either of my amendments to a Division and therefore I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 83.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to Amendment 87. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wish to move the amendment?
Amendment 87
Baroness Hamwee
“Effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse
(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, receive—(a) equally effective protection against domestic abuse, and(b) equally effective support.(2) In this section—“status” includes a status for the purpose of Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence and any combined forms of such status;“victims of domestic abuse” includes persons who are reasonably believed to be at risk of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause ensures all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status, in line with Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention).
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Right. The Question is that Amendment 87 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”, to the contrary “Not-Content”.
I have collected the voices, but the Division will have to be deferred, so voting will take place at a later stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I now call Amendment 87A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
Amendment 87A
Baroness Benjamin
“Impact of online pornography on domestic abuse
(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a person appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate the impact of access to online pornography by children on domestic abuse.(2) Within three months of their appointment, the appointed person must publish a report on the investigation which may include recommendations for the Secretary of State.(3) As part of the investigation, the appointed person must consider the extent to which the implementation of Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (online pornography) would prevent domestic abuse, and may make recommendations to the Secretary of State accordingly.(4) Within three months of receiving the report, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the recommendations of the appointed person.(5) If the appointed person recommends that Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 should be commenced, the Secretary of State must appoint a day for the coming into force of that Part under section 118(6) of the Act within the timeframe recommended by the appointed person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an investigation into any link between online pornography and domestic abuse with a view to implementing recommendations to bring into effect the age verification regime in the Digital Economy Act 2017 as a means of preventing domestic abuse.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 87A in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I thank the Minister for the meeting that she kindly arranged for the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, and I to discuss my amendment.
This amendment is an interim measure directed at the provision for the protection of women and children in relation to online pornography before the introduction of the online harms Bill. I am overwhelmed by the support I have received for the amendment from many charities and organisations, especially over the weekend. It is certainly engaging with a very real point of public concern that has been thrown into sharper focus by recent events. Sarah Everard’s legacy must be that she died in order for change to happen. Women’s actions across the country have shown that they want change.
Before we remind ourselves what Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act would be doing today had it been implemented, it is important to be clear in the first instance about the relationship between the consumption of pornography and violence against women. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord McColl, and I drew attention in Committee to the Government Equalities Office’s research, which was published on 15 January and demonstrated the clear association between pornography consumption and male aggression.
The Government’s handling of this research causes me huge concern because, although it is clear from the front cover that it was ready for publication in February 2020, it was not published until a year later. In July, when asked about that during the consideration of this Bill in another place, the Minister implied that the research was ongoing when, in reality, it had been completed for months. Further, even though noble Lords asked about the research at Second Reading, they were not informed of its publication in the Government’s letter to Peers, dated 26 January.
My concern increased greatly when I received a letter from the Government last week. It stated:
“The reports make it clear that there is not one single factor that leads someone to engage in harmful sexual behaviour, rather it is a combination of factors which interact with one another to differing effects on each individual. The literature review highlights that a direct causal link cannot be established between pornography and harmful sexual behaviour as this would require impractical and unethical study conditions (forced exposure to pornography).”
I find this response quite extraordinary. First, no one has ever sought to argue that pornography is the only issue. It is obviously one factor among others, but the fact that it is not the only factor does not justify questioning attempts to address it. Secondly, as the letter itself concedes, proving causation is obviously impossible. Rather than deflecting the significance of the research’s findings by talking about its failure to do something it could never do, surely the Government’s responsibility is to look squarely at what the research does show—namely, that there is a clear association between pornography consumption and sexual aggression and violence. Surely this merits immediate action.
I am delighted that We Can’t Consent To This, the campaign group that has become such an inspirational and important voice for women on this issue, wrote to noble Lords calling on this House to vote for my Amendment 87A. In its briefing, it states:
“Our findings suggest a strong association between extreme pornography consumption and the incidence of sexual violence. Of the 3.6 million UK women who have been sexually assaulted, most of the men who do it say they were influenced to do so by porn.”
To this end, they call on noble Lords to support my amendment.
Another significant organisation campaigning for this amendment is CEASE, the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation. It highlights the urgent need for greater awareness of widespread violent content on porn sites and its real-world consequences. It too calls on Peers to vote for Amendment 87A, stating that in the light of the horrendous and tragic case of Sarah Everard and the outpouring of experiences of harassment, abuse and violence shared by women since Sarah’s case because public, we have a duty to address factors associated with violence against women. Porn consumption is undoubtedly one of these.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind noble Lords that we would like to finish this group of amendments by midnight tonight. If noble Lords can be as brief as possible, that would be helpful.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall take that advice seriously, and fortunately I can be brief because this whole area has been clearly and cogently explained by the noble Baroness who has proposed this amendment. I am pleased to speak in support of it and I shall do so in a summary way to cover the main points. I remind noble Lords that it is the first responsibility of the Government to do all they can to keep our people safe. In that connection, there is no group more important than our children and young people.
The Government have recognised that harm can be done to our people online and are preparing legislation to deal with that—not an easy task. I have seen some of the efforts put forward so far, but on the statute book since 2017 there is legislation to protect children. It also creates a regulator with power to take robust action against any website showing illegal extreme pornography, which will help create a less hostile environment for women.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I admire the continued work of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, in putting forward this amendment. I have been inundated with requests from members of the public that I speak on this amendment, and express their strong support for it. One grandparent got in touch to tell me about the experience of their young grandchild and how they had been exposed to listening to another child talk about incredibly graphic violent pornography. Out of all the letters, this struck a chord with me.
I also thank We Can’t Consent to This, the Click Off campaign and the Reward Foundation for spending time with me in the last year to talk me through some of the many issues related to pornography. Much of it was harrowing, especially around redefining the boundaries of consensual relationships.
Now is the time for the Government to take a positive step forward after not implementing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2019. It is clear from the extensive research that there is a link between domestic abuse, general violence against women and pornography. The British Board of Film Classification has said that half of children aged 11 to 13, and 66% of 14 to 15 year-olds, have come across pornography. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised social media. It is shocking how easy it is to find pornography after just one or two clicks away from someone an individual may innocently follow.
The evidence of how compulsive use of internet pornography can affect the brain and decision-making faculties of a compulsive user over time is something that we have to take seriously, but relatively little has appeared in the media about it and there are three reasons. The first is that substantial pornography use is relatively new and coincided with increased internet speeds around 2008. The second is that it can be hard to isolate one factor as a root cause. The third, and of most concern, is that the multibillion-pound pornography industry has financial reasons for keeping the public and politicians in the dark about the links between its product and health risks. The playbook that we now know was used by, among others, the tobacco industry to counter the message of a negative link between smoking and ill health was highly effective for a long time, and this is similar to the pushback that we are seeing now from a multibillion-pound industry that does not want to change.
Pornography is such a politically sensitive subject and a largely private activity that it stops many people discussing it publicly. The Government need to address this issue and I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 87A. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said and do not propose to repeat it. I devote my speech to responding to the assertions made by the Minister in her letter of 8 March, in response to the debate in Committee. This seeks to justify not implementing Part 3 on the basis that
“recent technological changes could render Part 3 of the 2017 Act ineffective in protecting children if it were introduced as an interim measure. One of the Act’s enforcement powers was the power to require Internet Service Providers to block access to material on non-compliant services. Changes to the architecture of the internet may make this power obsolete.”
This has the feel of officials looking round for excuses not to implement Part 3 on at least three levels. First, one could be forgiven for concluding, on the basis of the letter, that IP blocking was the only enforcement mechanism for Part 3. It is actually one of three enforcement mechanisms so, even if it did not work, this would not make Part 3 ineffective. Secondly, the letter says only that IP blocking may not work at some point in the future—not that it does not work now or that there definitely will be a problem in future.
The reason the Government are concerned that blocking access to non-compliant websites may become problematic in future is because of a new way of navigating the internet, known as DNS over HTTPS, or DoH for short. It is not widely used at present but is likely to become more common in time. DNS stands for domain naming system; it is simply the phone book for the internet, allowing for translating the name of a website such as parliament.uk into its numerical address—in our case, 104.17.150.48. Presently, internet service providers are able to block access to particular websites simply by intercepting the query from a user wishing to access this telephone book. DoH encrypts those queries, making the current interception technology deployed by ISPs somewhat less capable of blocking access to non-compliant websites this way.
However, at some point in the process something has to connect the name of the site to its number, making blocking possible. In the case of DoH, this is an entity known as a DNS resolver, which is just another phone book but accessed securely. So the simplest solution, and the one the Government intend to use to block sites under the online safety Bill, is to instead turn to these resolver services and ask them to apply blocks, rather than the ISPs. The fact that this is how they intend to deal with the DoH enforcement challenge under the online harms Bill means that they should be able to deal with it that way under Part 3. But to fully appreciate why it is not remotely credible to argue that DoH constitutes a reason for not proceeding with Part 3, one must understand two further points.
First, even under DoH, ISPs still have the ability to determine which websites the user is visiting because not all aspects of the traffic are encrypted. As the well-respected online tech publication ZDNet states in an article on site blocking:
“ISPs know everything about everyone’s traffic anyway. By design, they can see to what IP address the user is connecting when accessing a website. This IP address can’t be hidden. Knowing the final IP destination reveals to what website a user is connecting, even if everything about his traffic is encrypted.”
Research has shown that a third-party can identify with 95% accuracy to which websites users were connecting, just by looking at the IP addresses. Secondly, if DoH constituted a major long-term challenge, which I do not believe it does, for the reasons I have set out, it is not relevant to our discussion today because we are talking about using Part 3 only as an interim measure between now and when the online harms Bill is ready.
Another government concern with the Digital Economy Act is that it is specific in naming internet service providers in the section relating to site blocking, so Ministers were told they will lack the power to ask a resolver service to block pornography websites which fail to implement age verification. The Minister argued this in her letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, when writing that a reference to internet service providers or similar is usually applied in the traditional sense, requiring the major internet service providers to block access to certain websites. But looking in detail at this legislation, the definition of an ISP is not left to tradition but based explicitly on the European Union definition of an internet access service, which means
“a publicly available electronic communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby connectivity to virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used.”
Indeed, the Minister went on to accept as much, conceding that the department’s guidance to the regulator, coupled with the broader terminology of an internet access service used in EU legislation, may offer sufficient flexibility to extend the duty on internet service providers to cover other means of accessing the internet.
There is no credible technological reason why the Government could not implement Part 3 now as an interim measure. We would then have a regulator in place more quickly to take robust action against pornographic websites showing illegal extreme pornography that normalises rough sex practices and sexual aggression generally than if we just wait for the online harms Bill. In the context of current levels of concern about attacks on women, the failure to deliver this protection as quickly as possible would be to fundamentally misread the moment and would let women down. I hope that when the Minister responds she will announce that the Government now recognise that they must implement Part 3 as quickly as possible as an interim measure.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and me to discuss our amendment. However, while we were pleased to learn more about the long-awaited online harms Bill, we remained just as baffled after the meeting as we had been before as to why Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act should not be implemented now, as has been mentioned by other speakers. I will cut short what I was going to say because it has been said before.
In Committee I spoke about the evidence from the Government’s own belatedly released reviews that clearly demonstrates a link between pornography use and the beliefs and attitudes of perpetrators of sexual abuse. In truth, there is extensive additional research that should be taken account of. That includes advances in neuroscience that have allowed us to understand that the brain is plastic and changes in response to the environment. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Government’s research looked only at legal pornography use. One would expect the findings of research on illegal pornography use to be even more concerning.
Our environment has changed dramatically since the advent of broadband, which has allowed easy access to limitless amounts of free internet pornography, which is easily accessible to children and young people during a time when their brain is fast developing. When we consider this in the light of the evidence regarding the impact of pornography on adult brains, it is sobering. For instance, researchers at the University of Cambridge have found changes to brain structure and function in compulsive pornography users. Their brains respond to images of pornography in the same way that brains of cocaine addicts respond to cocaine. Moreover, there is evidence—of huge significance to the subject of domestic abuse—that the part of the brain that inhibits violent and impulsive outbursts is impaired when a person has an addiction. However, there is some good news, because that part of the brain can function again after a period of time after they quit the addiction.
It is extremely concerning that a study of adolescents shows that
“intentional exposure to violent x-rated material over time predicted an almost 6-fold increase in the odds of self-reported sexually aggressive behaviour”.
Other research suggests that, for adolescent perpetrators of sexual violence,
“Links between perpetration and violent sexual media are apparent”.
Moreover, we should not forget that the British Board of Film Classification’s 2019 report on young people’s use of pornography found:
“Beyond creating unrealistic expectations of sex, some young people felt pornography had actually affected their expectations of, and behaviour during, sex, particularly in the copying of “rough” or “forceful” sex seen in pornography.”
In this context, the No. 1 priority must be to implement Part 3, as has been mentioned by several speakers. I know Part 3 does not deal with all online harms or address pornography on social media, but when the online harms Bill is eventually law, it will rise to those challenges. Part 3 addresses pornography websites; that is progress that the women and children of our country could benefit from more rapidly than they could from an unpublished online harms Bill. The Government have sought to argue that, notwithstanding the fact that Part 3 is already on the statute book, waiting for the online harms Bill makes sense. However—I say this very gently—that argument is beginning to look rather ridiculous and risks in the current environment making them look rather out of touch.
In the context of the current outpouring of concern about women’s safety, it would be one thing to say, “We will address the challenge through unpublished legislation”, if there was no other legislation to help do the job. Apart from a few new regulations, as has been mentioned, we have already passed primary legislation, which is “oven ready”, to use a term favoured by the Prime Minister, to tackle websites showing extreme pornography. In the interim, the Government should use the oven-ready primary legislation rather than base their entire strategy on legislation that has not even been published, let alone gone through Parliament, and which is consequently far from oven ready. Given the urgency of this, they should redesignate the BBFC as the interim regulator, which would mean these protections could begin within months.