Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will not pretend to be an expert on individual technologies or on the legal framework that is needed to safeguard them. That is exactly why we need an expert review. The honest truth is that most of us here in Parliament are considerably less expert on these technologies than our children, and we therefore need technological expertise as well as legal expertise as part of the review. That is the kind of review that David Anderson needs to lead.

We have tabled an amendment to put the review on a statutory footing and to outline some of the issues that it must cover, so that the House can be reassured that a sufficiently wide-ranging review will take place. It will need to look at the practice as well as at the legislation. We will also need to have a serious public debate about David Anderson’s conclusions, through the Joint Committee of both Houses and through taking public evidence. A public consultation must form part of that process. This is about getting the balance right, but it is also about ensuring that we have public consent. We cannot have any more sticking-plaster legislation; we need a serious and sustainable framework that will command consent for years to come.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Forgive me, but I am slightly confused. It is perhaps because I am a bit thick, but will the right hon. Lady clarify the current situation for me? Do we have these rules and regulations now? If we do not pass this Bill into law, how long can the police and the security services continue to have access to these data?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary responded to a similar question earlier. The advice that I have received is that the UK regulations are still in place, but that they are likely to be challenged and likely to fall as a result of the European directive having already been struck down. The consequence of that would be that we might risk losing some of those powers over the summer, before Parliament returns in the autumn, and we should not put the police and intelligence agencies in that position. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me argue for the wider reforms and wider debate that is needed, but in the short term we should not pull the rug from underneath the police and intelligence agencies this summer as a result of a European Court judgment.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that the sunset clause should simply be moved to five months’ time. I understand the intention of the hon. Members who have signed the amendment, and I recognise their concern and their desire to increase the short-term scrutiny of the legislation, but I fear that if we do that, we will simply be stuck with another unsatisfactory sticking-plaster legislation process. We will not have the time to obtain the conclusions of the expert review, to consult on them, to debate, to take evidence or to draw up proper primary legislation with the more substantial reforms that I believe are needed. If we continue with repeated sticking-plaster legislation, we will undermine public consent in this process even further. That is why we must not rush things; we must do it properly. We are doing quite enough rushing this week, as it is, without trying to rush through the more substantial debate that we need within five months. That is why the longer period is needed.

Hon. Members are right that we need stronger safeguards in the short term, right now. We need more reassurance that the Bill is doing what the Home Secretary has made clear. That is why we have tabled a second amendment, and why I welcome the Home Secretary’s indication that she will accept it. It is about requiring the intercept commissioner in the mean time to report on the operation of the Bill every six months. During that period, we need to know whether the Bill is simply being used to continue the work that was being done before or whether it is being used to extend the Government’s powers against the will of Parliament. The six-monthly review will reassure the House that the Bill is being implemented in the way that Parliament intended.

We also want to see longer-term reforms, including strengthening the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has the same powers as other Select Committees and an Opposition Chair, and we believe that an overhaul of the commissioners is needed. We currently have lots of different commissioners, and even when they do excellent reports no one notices them because the reports are not public-facing. Too often, they are limited to assessing compliance with existing legislation rather than looking at whether the legislation is still appropriate or effective.

This is a difficult debate for Parliament today. We have legislation that is urgently needed, but it is against the backdrop of us all knowing that a much wider debate is called for. So we have to make sure that that debate happens and that sustainable reforms are brought forward. Too often, this debate becomes polarised. The hawks say that we need stronger powers to protect national security, but they will not say what and why. The civil libertarians say that it is all a conspiracy; that they do not believe the scare stories; and that privacy is paramount. But most of us, and most of the British public want both—security and liberty, safety and privacy. We want to be kept safe from fraudsters stealing our identity or our money online. We want our children’s innocence kept safe from abusers, and paedophiles to be caught. We want the police and intelligence agencies to be able to track down murderers, fraudsters and terror suspects.

However, we also want to know that, unless we are suspected of a crime or terrorism, we have a right to protection of our information and privacy. We want to know that people will not be listening to our calls, reading our e-mails or checking out where we have been surfing on the web; to know that there are fair, up-to-date laws governing what Government agencies, the police and private companies can do; and to know that there are safeguards, checks and balances in place to make sure that those laws are upheld.

Yes, we need to pass this Bill today, because the powers that it retains are too important to the protection of public safety to lose carelessly one summer. But we also need a proper debate about the balance of privacy and safety, and how we maintain both liberty and security in an internet age, because both are essential to our democracy. Today must be the start, and not the end, of that debate.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps has more in common with other parties than his own on that issue. Some of the changes that have taken place—in technology, free movement, cybercrime, new forms of crime, child prostitution, trafficking and drugs—demand a Europe-wide solution, and I think the Home Secretary has accepted that. They are international crimes that know no borders and they need international solutions. Each crime is creating new victims. I believe it is the duty of this House to ensure that we work with our European partners to reduce that crime, bringing criminals to justice and, yes, co-operating to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, what exactly the organisation called Interpol does, which is supposed to be worldwide?

[Mr Hanson]

As the former Minister for policing and counter-terrorism in the last Government, I could spend the next 25 minutes giving the hon. Gentleman a whole lecture about what Interpol does. The key issue is that there is a range of measures. I believe that if he went back to south London this evening and asked his constituents whether they wanted effective co-operation to tackle drug abuse, child trafficking, prostitution and international terrorism, the answer would be a resounding yes. It is something the Home Secretary believes is right; it is something we believe is right.

Communications Data and Interception

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, the hon. and gallant Gentleman Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe we have a duty to pass this fast-track legislation quickly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we do so, the police and the security services will not have the powers that may stop innocent citizens of this country dying?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been clear in my responses that I fear that, if we do not ensure that we maintain these capabilities, not only will we see criminals going about their business without the police being able to deal with them appropriately and bring them to justice, but we could see innocent lives being lost.

Modern Slavery Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and indeed all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so well in this important debate. It is truly shocking that more than 200 years after William Wilberforce abolished both the slave trade and slavery throughout the British empire, we are back in the House of Commons having to enact a Modern Slavery Bill, because not only has the job not been done, but slavery around the world is worse today than it has ever been. The issue is at one and the same time completely global and very local. We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talk about a shocking case in his constituency, and I will describe an example of modern slavery in my constituency later in my remarks.

When we consider how modern slavery is allowed to happen, we need to keep two words at the front of our minds: violence and fear. Wherever there is modern slavery, forced labour, domestic servitude or people caught in the sex trade, we find violence and fear. That is how the slave traders maintain their hold over their victims, often for many years and sometimes for many decades.

If we look at the global nature of this issue, we will see that, in the 400 years or so that the slave trade was in operation, some 11 million slaves were taken from Africa to be traded across the north Atlantic and elsewhere. Today there are a number of different estimates, but, given the nature of the issue, it is impossible to get accurate figures. In his book “The Locust Effect”, which was published this year, Gary Haugen, who heads up the International Justice Mission, estimates that some 27 million people are in slavery today around the world. That is well over twice the number of slaves taken out of Africa over a 400-year period. On the money made from this evil business, looking at forced labour alone, Mr Haugen estimates a profit of some £7 billion accruing to the slave traders.

We need to think about where slavery is most prevalent in our world, in order to get an idea of its scale not only in the United Kingdom, which is the focus of this Bill, but in a global context. “The Global Slavery Index 2013”, published by the Walk Free Foundation, which is well thought of by President Clinton and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, estimates that there are 14 million slaves in India—by far the biggest figure—and 7 million in Pakistan, with 1 million in the brick factories of Pakistan alone. It names China and Nigeria in third and fourth positions respectively. Other countries are mentioned, including Mauritania, which is the country with the highest proportion of its population—about 4%—in slavery. That gives a bit of context.

Around the world—in India and elsewhere—very few investigations and prosecutions are taking place, which is what happens when a country does not have a properly functioning criminal justice and law enforcement system. We must never take such matters for granted in our country, and I do not think our own international development work will be successful unless we put more effort into helping those countries to which we are sending UK aid to develop their own criminal justice and law enforcement systems.

To return to the United Kingdom—as I know you want me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker—I welcome the Bill and commend the Home Secretary and the Minister for introducing it. The new prevention orders, the establishment of the anti-slavery commissioner and the protective measure of a statutory defence for victims of slavery or trafficking are all welcome, and the child trafficking advocates are also an important addition to our armoury.

I know that the Government will reflect in a mature and sensible way on what is said in Committee. In their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government said on the issue of supply chains:

“We intend to build on the existing legislative framework, and work with business to establish what more can be done…and develop an evidence base on best practice.”

That is an open and excellent attitude to take.

In my own constituency early one September morning in 2011, 200 police officers from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire turned up at a Traveller site just south of Leighton Buzzard and liberated 24 people who had been kept in slavery. Some of them had been there for 15 years or more. The youngest—one of my constituents—was only 17; I think that the oldest was 57. Of those 24, 18 were British citizens.

The victims had been picked up in the most appalling and callous ways imaginable. Many of them had been in homeless shelters or soup kitchens, and one had been about to commit suicide. They were promised friendship, work, accommodation and food, but of course none of those things materialised. The regime was very brutal. When they arrived, their heads were shaved, just as happened in the concentration camps. They were made to get up at 5 am every morning, and they worked all day on block paving and other manual and construction work. Indeed, some of them were trafficked from the United Kingdom to work in Scandinavia.

I commend Bedfordshire police for the effort they put in—they assembled 200 officers on a Sunday morning, which no police force does lightly—but the effort was more than justified, and what it managed to achieve was excellent.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

After Bedfordshire police acted to take those people into safety, did they ensure that they had someone they could trust to look after them carefully, with their best interests in mind, because that is the real spirit of the Bill? Once we identify people in slavery, we have a real duty to look after them properly, care about them and put them back into society balanced and happy.

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that the victims were placed in the very capable hands of the Salvation Army in Bedford, and they were very well looked after. I have since met several of the victims. Indeed, some of them came to this House and saw the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall organised by Anthony Steen and others. There are some good news stories, in that some of the victims are very well integrated back into society, and are free from the terrible experiences that they went through.

On the issue of reparation, which has been talked about today, I am pleased that the Government said in their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny report that they are committed to quicker and easier reparation. I want such reparations to go to the victims of crime, but I ask the Government to think about how we can get some of the money to the police forces that have undertaken major operations. It is not cheap to send in 200 police officers early on a Sunday morning, given the overtime costs involved. If we made sure that the police gained from slave traders’ illicit profits, that would encourage more chief constables and perhaps more police and crime commissioners to be more willing to commit significant numbers of officers to stamp out the appalling crime that we are all trying to get rid of.

Within Bedfordshire, we have Bedfordshire Against Modern Slavery, which was set up by an excellent councillor, Kristy Adams. I suggest that hon. Members try to encourage some form of grass-roots movement in their areas to combat modern slavery, working alongside the police, the courts, the local authority and central Government. We all have to be involved in this issue together, and the public need to be the eyes and ears of the police. For 15 years or so in my constituency, people worked openly in the community, block paving people’s drives. Did none of the customers of the block paving firm using these slaves think that something was wrong? I think that if people had been slightly more aware and had reported their suspicions to the police, we could have broken this evil slave ring much earlier. The public therefore have a role.

Businesses also have a role, and all decent businesses will of course want to make sure that their supply chains are free of any slave-traded products. The courts and the local authorities have a role to play. We have not heard much about police and crime commissioners, but they are key people up and down our country who have an important influence on how the police spend their time and what they prioritise. Perhaps the sad truth is that police and crime commissioners perceive that there may not be many votes in targeting resources at the issue. Perhaps organisations such as Bedfordshire Against Modern Slavery have a role in ensuring that police and crime commissioners know that the public, as well as Members of Parliament, care about the issue. We want the police to be fully involved.

I pay tribute to the many organisations outside the House that do amazing work to keep the subject on the agenda. The International Justice Mission does that amazing work around the world in mounting prosecutions in many countries where law enforcement is frankly not up to the mark. It has been responsible for liberating many people. Its UK chairman, Raj Parker, and Terry Tennens, its chief executive, deserve credit. Members of Hope for Justice were in the Palace of Westminster only last night, briefing MPs. They estimate that we have 10,000 victims of modern slavery here in the UK. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to get accurate figures—we simply do not know—but that is a shockingly large number, even though it is much smaller than in other countries. Finally, there is the Human Trafficking Foundation and Anthony Steen, who has been mentioned. To me, he is a modern, mini Wilberforce. Many of us are grateful to him for his continued efforts in this campaign, in which we are all united.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is the done thing when one rises to speak to say that the previous speakers have been excellent. However, that is true of today’s debate. It is always difficult to single people out, but I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) in the previous Session. She had worked for the Children’s Society and is obviously knowledgeable and passionate. During an event at the Labour party conference she introduced me to some children who were in a vulnerable position, and I know just how much she cares about the issue. The Home Office should listen to what she has to say from that front-line perspective of working with children who have been affected by such issues.

As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, it is shocking that we are discussing this measure so many years after the House debated the abolition of the slave trade and then the abolition of slavery. I represent one of the seats in Bristol, which of course has a historical connection with the slave trade. I was recently at a memorial for Tony Benn in the John Wesley chapel, the oldest Methodist building in the world, in the city centre. We were told that when John Wesley preached in the pulpit against slavery, riots were instigated by congregations of the other churches, which had been built by the slave traders, and very much supported the slave trade. As I said in my maiden speech, the church of St Mary Redcliffe rang the bells when the first attempts in Parliament to abolish the slave trade failed because the congregation thought that it was a good thing for the city.

Although we are very aware of the legacy, many people in Bristol would be unaware of the extent to which slavery still exists in this country. There was a horrifying case in the Bristol papers last month, when we found that people had been victims of modern slavery on our doorstep. Avon and Somerset police secured the conviction of a woman, who was sentenced for only three years, which is probably on the lenient side, for human trafficking and forced labour. She had lured 11 known victims from Lithuania to work for a pittance in Bristol. We were not sure whether they were told that they would have to pay for their travel, but the cost was deducted from their wages, which were much lower than the minimum wage, and their rent was deducted. They were not quite kept captive, but they were locked in the building without keys and could come and go only through windows. Their job was to collect those charity bags that are often delivered through doors and people are asked to leave them out filled with clothes. They were definitely exploited. They were not paid at all. If they asked for the wages they had been promised, they were threatened with eviction. As I said, the woman responsible has just been given a soft sentence of just three years. Only last week, we heard that four men were arrested in Cardiff and Bristol as part of another long-running police investigation into forced labour.

The Lithuanian case came to light after social services contacted the police. I congratulate the local agencies on bringing that case and securing the conviction. Some of the victims are being helped by the Salvation Army, as the victims were in the case highlighted by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire. The local police and crime commissioner has told me that Avon and Somerset police are focusing on increasing their intelligence picture and training staff to improve the response to human trafficking. They are working with Unseen UK. Many Members who have taken an interest in the debate will be aware of that charity—it is a national charity but is Bristol-based. The founder visited an orphanage in Ukraine. When he asked what would happen to the children when they left the orphanage, he was shocked to hear that many would be trafficked into the sex trade—some would be trafficked into forced labour, but most were trafficked into the sex trade. Unseen has done an incredibly good job, particularly in working with the victims of sex trafficking in Bristol and elsewhere.

The local police now form part of a multi-agency response through the greater Bristol anti-trafficking partnership, and are improving their early response for victims by training 100 first-response officers. As my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Wigan and others have mentioned, one obstacle is the time limit on funding for intensive support under the national referral mechanism. Many victims require much longer support than the 45-day recovery and reflection period. The Salvation Army does a wonderful job, but we cannot continue to rely on such organisations stepping in on a voluntary level. We need to ensure that those mechanisms exist. It should not depend on whether the places where the victims are freed from slavery happen to have an effective Salvation Army operation.

[Bob Stewart]

Some charities suggest that everyone who is rescued should have a guardian to ensure that they are properly looked after. Does the hon. Lady agree that it should not just be the Salvation Army, but a state-run system?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is a valid point. The problem with leaving things to the voluntary sector is that provision can be piecemeal and ad hoc. In some cases, voluntary organisations will provide a brilliant service, which is exactly what is needed, but unless we put things on another footing, we can never be sure that people are not slipping through the net, particularly children—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan made strongly in her speech.

We must also look overseas to see the other end of the chain. In my capacity as a shadow Foreign Office Minister, I recently met the Pacific Links Foundation, a charity that works to combat trafficking in Vietnam and helps victims with reintegration services if they return there. The foundation gave harrowing accounts of boys trafficked to the UK to work in cannabis farms. Girls were trafficked for forced marriages or to work in brothels or illegal nail bars—sometimes, the illegal nail bars were also brothels. Protecting such vulnerable children requires international co-operation. We must also consider the poverty, and lack of education and opportunity, that leaves people vulnerable to trafficking in the first place. They can also leave people vulnerable to having their children trafficked—people can end up working with traffickers and allowing their children to be taken abroad. Pacific Links highlighted to me why it is so important accurately to identify trafficking victims as vulnerable people in need of support. Children returned to Vietnam without any support systems risk being trafficked again. They or their families could be liable for a perceived debt to the traffickers, or they could be rejected by their communities if they are known to have worked in the sex trade.

In the light of the information that Pacific Links gave me, I encourage the Home Secretary to respond constructively to the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough on specific protections for children, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan, for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Slough, and others, have mentioned. It is not a matter of having a specific provision relating to trafficked children in the Bill. We should also guarantee independent legal guardians, and ensure that children are not liable for prosecution so that they do not have to invoke a statutory defence.

While I welcome the general thrust of the Bill, the omission of any provisions to legislate against slavery in supply chains is noticeable. There has been a groundswell of support for robust action and increasing recognition that voluntary agreements are insufficient. I was contacted by many constituents, both in the run-up to this debate and before the Queen’s Speech, supporting the campaign to legislate against slavery in the supply chain. They point out that many businesses back the Joint Committee’s recommendation for such legislation.

Since then, The Guardian has published its six-month investigation into the Thai fishing industry, which has been mentioned, with evidence that slaves have been forced to work for no pay and under threat of extreme violence, to produce goods sold in UK, US and European supermarkets. In 2012, the EU imported more than $1 billion-worth of seafood from Thailand. The paper reports that the workers were bought and sold like animals and held against their will on fishing boats. They included migrant workers from Burma and Cambodia. Other reports, such as the Environmental Justice Foundation’s “Sold to the Sea” report, provide similar accounts. A report by Finnwatch into Thai factories made allegations of forced and child labour, illegally low wages, excessive working hours, abuse by managers and unsafe working hours. A British man, Andy Hall, is currently facing prosecution in Thailand for his efforts to expose those matters.

I raised with the Home Secretary earlier the fact that the Prime Minister’s spokesman, when asked about the need to legislate against slavery in the supply chain, said that it is up to consumers to make a decision. The Home Secretary responded to me by drawing an analogy with Fairtrade. I would say that that is completely wrong. I am a great believer in consumer power, whether supporting products that are not tested on animals or supporting Fairtrade products. The difference is that we do not say that products not produced by Fairtrade means are completely unethical and immoral. I would argue that Fairtrade is the better alternative, but there is nothing horrific or criminal about the way the other products are produced. With slavery in the supply chain, it is patently obvious that there is.

Consumers simply do not know whether something is produced by slave labour. Yes, we can have public campaigns where we say, “Don’t buy Thai seafood because it might be linked to slavery in the supply chain and we think north American seafood is more trustworthy”, but most consumers will not know unless we have logos saying that something is produced by slaves or not produced by slaves. That sends out a message that something being produced by slaves is somehow all right, like going for dolphin-friendly tuna, but that is an invidious message to send. Consumer power is important in lobbying MPs, but we should first legislate against slavery in the supply chain.

Reports of labels being stitched into Primark clothes alleging sweatshop conditions have already been mentioned. The Rana Plaza tragedy has been spoken about in this House before. Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based national campaigning organisation, works to support garment workers around the globe. Consumer pressure is really important in highlighting these issues, but I do not think that we should leave to consumers the choice between something produced by slave labour and something not produced by slave labour. One way for the Government to step up to the mark would be by reinstating their support for the International Labour Organisation, which they withdrew when the coalition was elected.

After the report on the Thai fishing industry, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), then a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, announced that the British Retail Consortium would make recommendations to eradicate human rights abuses from the supply chain. This requires strong leadership from Ministers and for the UK to send a strong message to our trading partners around the globe. The Government response to the Joint Committee said that they would

“work collaboratively with businesses to support them to eliminate forced labour in supply chains, in a way which does not place additional burdens on them”.

I am worried that the Home Office will say that it does not want to place an additional burden on business with more red tape as a way of wriggling around this. Businesses ought to care about whether there is slavery in their supply chain. If that creates an additional burden or onus on them to investigate their supply chain, well that is something they have a moral obligation to do.

As consumers, we need transparency and accountability from companies. Amnesty International has said that legislating for supply chain due diligence along the lines of the Californian Transparency in Supply Chains Act will help create a corporate culture in the UK that will be intolerant of modern forms of slavery and enable it to be rooted out of the labour market. I agree.

Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the decision not to protect migrant domestic workers. Each year around 15,000 migrant domestic workers visit the UK with their employers to look after their families and homes. They will come here legally with those families, and many will be completely happy in their work. But the Human Rights Watch report “Hidden Away” shows that some are exposed to abuse and exploitation with no protection from the British authorities. Some have been subjected to physical, sexual and verbal abuse, confined to their homes, isolated from any contact with their families back home and given no access to a phone. Their passports have been confiscated. They are paid far below the minimum wage and, in some cases, not paid at all.

Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that two developments since April 2012 have left domestic workers even more vulnerable and isolated, and risk the Government neglecting their obligations to them under national and international law. The first is cuts to legal aid, which have cut off their opportunities to seek help and redress and mean that there is no longer even the threat of taking their employers to employment tribunals because they cannot afford to do so. The second is that migrant workers are now less likely to seek help due to the coalition’s tied visa rules, which prevent them from changing employers; something we have heard mentioned in the debate. The fact that they risk losing their immigration status if they leave gives the employer tremendous power over them, particularly as many migrant workers have heavy financial responsibilities at home and have no choice but to endure staying with the employer that is treating them incredibly badly.

The then UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants concluded after a visit to the UK in 2009 that the right to change employer had been instrumental in facilitating the escape of migrant domestic workers from exploitative and abusive situations. Reversing the bar, and going back to the situation that applied in 2009, on changing employer is a practical step that the coalition could take to protect workers. The Human Rights Watch report suggests that the Government are not prepared to look at the issue of tied visas and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that.

The UK in 2011 was one of only nine states not to vote for the ILO domestic workers convention, which was supported by 173 Governments. The coalition then rejected recommendations during the UK’s universal periodic review to ratify the convention. Again I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she feels there is any prospect of the UK signing up to it and joining the 173 Governments who have done so.

I do not want to end on a negative note. I am incredibly pleased and proud that the House is debating the issue and will bring it forward. I do not agree with the Home Secretary that we do not have enough time to make the Bill as good as possible. I think she was implying that we need to accept the Bill because it is at least a pretty big step in the right direction. I think we have plenty of time between now and the end of this parliamentary Session to make sure that we make the Bill as tough and strong as possible for those people who have been subjected to absolutely hideous treatment and to make sure that as few people as possible are subjected to it in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). Like other Members, she referred to horrific and harrowing cases, which are all the more persuasive because they arise from incidents that are occurring in this country today.

Benjamin Franklin said that slavery was

“an atrocious debasement of human nature”.

He said that a long time ago, and, as we know, it was a long time ago that William Wilberforce campaigned for the abolition of slavery. I think that it would surprise many of my constituents to know that it is still here, in all its grisly and awful reality. The Bill bears clear testimony to the fact that slavery, and the effects of slavery, are still to be found.

We in Plaid Cymru welcome the Bill, and strongly support it. It extends only to England and Wales, which explains the absence of my Scottish colleagues. People in my constituency probably wonder whether modern slavery exists in our area of far-flung rural north-west Wales. In fact, one of the largest cannabis factories in the United Kingdom was discovered in my constituency about 18 months ago.

We are glad that the Government have heeded some of the Joint Committee’s recommendations—although, as has already been said, only some. The Committee’s report argued in particular that the Bill could be improved by the addition of stronger provisions for the protection of victims of slavery, and specifically that the Crown Prosecution Service should be provided with guidance on the non-prosecution of victims. That point has been made again today, and I strongly agree with it.

The report also called for the Bill to provide for a system of guardianship for child victims of slavery, for a review of the visa status of overseas domestic workers and for an anti-slavery commissioner to be appointed independent from Government. I made that point earlier to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who made a persuasive speech. The report also called for the Government to look at legislation in California dedicated to tackling modern slavery in supply chains by requiring businesses to report on what steps they had taken to eradicate the practice. That matter has also been referred to by many Members.

The Committee report, published on 8 April, said that witnesses saw the draft Bill as a bit of a “cut and paste” exercise. Other Members have referred to existing offences being pasted into the Bill. The Committee argued that it would be a missed opportunity if better provisions to protect children and to eradicate modern slavery in supply chains were not included in the Bill.

The report in particular called for provisions on victim care to be given a statutory footing; for changes to be made so that victims could access compensation more expediently; for the creation of a separate offence of exploiting and trafficking a child; for the anti-slavery commissioner to be independent from Government; and for the establishment of a statutory system of advocates.

[Bob Stewart]

We have heard that the Salvation Army is a fantastic organisation. I understand that it does not actually look after victims; it sub-lets that to other organisations. I understand from Anthony Steen that it would be a very good thing if our Government, rather than spending £25,000 a year looking after a victim in this country, gave £3,000 to the victim and the Government of the country from where they came to retrain those people and look after them properly. That would be a good use of taxpayers’ money.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have heard several times about the need to care for people who have been subjected to modern slavery. The Bill should also deal with that aspect. People are trafficked and people come to this country for non-existent jobs. They are driven by poverty and other factors, including low wages, in their own country. Equalisation of economies throughout western and eastern Europe would tackle that issue in the long term.

I am glad that the Government have agreed to introduce child trafficking advocates, whose role needs to be strengthened, and that they have conceded that courts should have the ability to have regard to certain characteristics that victims possess— such as their age, disabilities and family relationships—in assessing whether they were more vulnerable than others would be when a crime was committed.

The Bill does fall short, unfortunately, most notably in failing to compel businesses to take steps to ensure that no slavery is involved in their supply chains, as well as in failing to amend the existing rules concerning domestic work visas. The Bill has been criticised by UNICEF for failing to include adequate measures to protect trafficked children.

Stop the Traffik has written to me this week, and I think to all other MPs, on the issue. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has pointed out, according to the International Labour Organisation, forced labour generates about $150 billion every year, exploiting 21 million people. Of that huge sum, $43 billion can be attributed to non-domestic non-sexual forced labour in agriculture, construction, mining and manufacturing. We are talking about a huge amount of money.

We have heard about the case exposed in The Guardian, which uncovered the use of forced labour by the Thailand-based company Charoen Pokphand Foods, which exploited men who were made to work against their will on fishing boats. Not amending the Bill to include a responsibility on businesses to ensure that no modern slavery occurs in their supply chains would be to perpetuate a fatal flaw. In the present situation, we cannot depend on consumers or, unfortunately, on companies to ensure there is not modern slavery in their supply chains.

The Joint Committee recommended that the Government should amend section 414 of the Companies Act 2006, which at present places a duty on companies to report on “social, community and human rights issues” at the end of each financial year. It recommended that “slavery” be added to the list of issues to be reported upon. Businesses’ reports should detail what steps they have taken to verify their supply chains as well as whether they have audited their suppliers and certified goods supplied by those suppliers. The Committee was supported in this recommendation by both Primark and Tesco, but unfortunately the Government have refused to amend the 2006 Act, arguing it is too early to say whether the provisions already in place are adequate.

On domestic worker visas, changes to the immigration rules in April 2012 mean that domestic workers in private households have leave to stay in the UK for only six months, and we heard further details on this matter from other hon. Members. Kalayaan, the charity that provides advocacy for migrant domestic workers, reports an increase in the exploitation of this group since the new rules came into force, and points to a number of alarming facts. Migrant domestic workers who are tied to their employers have been twice as likely to report having been physically abused by their employers, and 71% of those subject to the new rules are reported as being effectively imprisoned in the homes where they are working. Some 53% of those on the new visa have reported working more than 16 hours a day, as opposed to 32% of those who still have the right to change employer and remain in the UK. According to internal assessments conducted by Kalayaan staff, 69% of those on the new visa were trafficked, compared with 26% of those who are not tied. The Modern Slavery Bill evidence review panel is calling on the Government to “consider reinstating the rights” of overseas domestic worker visa-holders “to change employer”, but that has been rejected, as far as I can see, with the Government steadfastly refusing to change their mind.

Groups including UNICEF have highlighted the need to improve aspects of this Bill which seek to protect children. At least 10 children are trafficked every single week in the UK. UNICEF argues that the definition of human trafficking in clause 2 of the Bill should reflect the international definition of trafficking enshrined in the UN Palermo Protocol as well as the EU trafficking directive. UNICEF also believes that the Bill should be explicit in defining a child as a person under the age of 18, so as to ensure that cases involving children are always considered in a fundamentally distinct way.

Although the new statutory defence for victims of trafficking who have been compelled by their slavery to commit an offence is welcome, it does not go as far as the non-prosecution principle recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2014.

Lastly, the enabling power to put child trafficking advocates on a statutory footing should be strengthened. UNICEF has argued that independent guardians with legal powers should be introduced for all separated migrant and trafficked children, and that the principles of guardianship should be included in this Bill, including that advocates must be independent from public authorities, and that they should have adequate legal powers and be able to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf.

The Bill before us today is certainly a step in the right direction, but the issues that I have highlighted, and those which have been highlighted in other speeches, must not be ignored. We owe it to victims of modern slavery to get this right.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, I hope to respond briefly to a number of points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon. I welcome the broad support that the order before the House has received on all sides, reflecting the cross-party focus on the security of this country and the desire to see that our citizens are protected appropriately. I recognise that and I recognise a number of the comments that have been made.

I wish to underline my commitment to observe the courtesies of the House in respect of the release of information to the Speaker and the Opposition, and to assure the House that it is my clear focus and intent that information is supplied appropriately to Members, and that details are provided to the Opposition at the same time as orders are laid. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recognised that I responded promptly when I was made aware of her point of order on the Floor of the House earlier this week. I give that assurance to Mr Speaker and to right hon. and hon. Members because I take the processes and proceedings of the House extremely seriously, and it is important that we adhere to them. I assure the hon. Lady that no prior authorisation was given by Ministers or special advisers in relation to any of the matters to which she referred. We are still examining the facts and circumstances of the case that she drew to the attention of the House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he did not mean to say that a special adviser would give authority to anyone?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the point that the hon. Lady made earlier. I was responding specifically to her point, which I have sought to address in correspondence as well.

On the substance of the orders, I welcome the support and the recognition that they fit into the broader approach and our strategy in confronting and combating those who seek to become involved in terrorism by virtue of their travel to Syria, the ongoing conflict in that arena, and the risk posed by foreign fighters. I have already spoken about the numbers that we believe have been involved, and there are foreign fighters across the EU as well who have travelled. A number of foreign fighters are involved in Syria and, as the crisis in Iraq extends further, they may transfer there.

On the point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) highlighted in respect of the situation in Iraq, he will have heard the comments of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days on this extremely serious situation. The UK supports the Iraqi Government in their fight against terrorism. We are taking action in three areas—promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state and stability in the region, offering assistance where appropriate and possible, and alleviating humanitarian suffering. The Prime Minister made clear yesterday the additional funding that was being made available in respect of that last point.

We have made it clear that this action does not involve planning a military intervention by the UK. We are urging the Iraqi Government to take effective measures to organise their security forces and push ISIL back from the areas that it has occupied, while protecting civilian life, infrastructure and vital services. Any action by the Iraqi Government must include an inclusive approach to bring Iraqi leaders together.

Both the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee referred to Prevent, and to steps that we can take to prevent people from travelling and becoming involved in potential terrorist activity. I will make a number of brief points about that. The Government are giving key messages on not travelling to Syria. People who want to travel for humanitarian reasons risk coming into contact with terrorist organisations, given the parts of Syria that are controlled by extremist organisations. Although today’s debate has focused on the listed organisations, with much of the focus, understandably, on the operations of ISIL, it is important to underline that there are groups such as the al-Nusra Front and other extremist organisations that share the al-Qaeda narrative and the desire to create a global caliphate. People may come into contact with such groups, which have aspirations to attack the west. It is important to understand and recognise the diverse and dynamic threat from Syria, and to acknowledge the humanitarian support provided by this Government—£600 million—in the aid effort. It is important to reiterate, for those who wish to help for genuine humanitarian reasons, that the best way to do that is through the UK’s humanitarian aid agencies that are supporting that effort, recognising the importance that the UK Government place on providing significant financial aid to those in severe need as a consequence of displacement and the ongoing conflict in Syria.

It is important to stress, too, that we are providing targeted messages through Prevent officers and the Prevent programme, highlighting the reasons why travel to Syria is not appropriate and the risks that it poses. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt have noted the comments from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball of the Metropolitan police about the role of mothers and family members in extolling the right messages. There are a number of different strands to ensuring that we prevent travel, in addition to measures such as the use of port stops under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, the use of the royal prerogative to take passports away when the intent to become involved in terrorist activities is clear, and indeed the use of deprivation of citizenship—a topic recently debated in the House.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, after a characteristically entertaining contribution by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I agreed with a lot, though not quite everything, of what he said. It is also interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made a fantastically strong case for the benefits of staying inside larger organisations. It was an excellent case for why Scotland should remain with the United Kingdom. I congratulate him on making such a strong case here, and I look forward to hearing it elsewhere.

It is good that there is general agreement among the three Front-Bench spokesmen of the three main parties, and indeed the Scottish nationalists and others, that the UK needs to remain opted in to many of these measures—the most significant ones. That is very important and I am pleased to have seen it. I pay tribute to both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor for resisting some of the siren calls from their Back Benchers. They understand the importance of these measures and it is important that they stick with that.

I have a number of fears about where we might head. One, which I hope can be addressed, is the fear of a gap—that there may be a pause between us pulling out and going back in—and the consequences that that would have. This was mentioned earlier. There are some provisions for temporary measures and so on, but what would happen to the head of Europol, who is a Brit? Can he continue as head of Europol if we are outside, whether for a minute or a month? Would that cause problems? Would anybody agree to temporary transitional arrangements if that meant that the person in charge came from a country that was not part of Europol? That is a big worry.

The bigger worry, however, is that we might accidentally fall out of all these measures without that being the intention of the vast majority of the House. That could be because negotiations fail and we simply cannot reach an agreement—there was much in what the hon. Member for Rhondda said about the concern that many of our European partners have about our attitude to European co-operation. What happens if someone tries to cause trouble and we cannot close the negotiations? That also applies to other suggestions. If we have a formal, fixed vote before negotiations, that will make it incredibly hard to have a proper negotiation. There are a number of core measures. There are also a number of peripheral measures. If this House says, “These are the absolute lines,” it makes it very hard to create a proper negotiation—actually to have a discussion with the European Union. That could lead us to falling out unintentionally.

I am aware of what happened in the House on the issue of military intervention in Syria. There was a proposal from the Prime Minister to have military intervention without UN approval, and there was a proposal from the Leader of the Opposition to have military intervention without UN approval. There was a small group across various parties—about 50 of us—who did not want intervention without approval, but because neither side would agree with the other’s version of the wording, our small band won. I am delighted about that, but I would not want the small band of people who want us to be out of all these measures to win because of a disagreement between the two sides.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, I thought that the Syria vote was on the option to keep a military option on the table, not an option to go to war.

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend is right on the technicality that there would have been a second vote, but the principle ensconced in both was to have military intervention without the UN approval that some of us wanted. However, that is not the subject at the heart of this debate.

I share the concerns expressed about whether the whole effort has been worth while. The shadow Home Secretary is not in her place. I do not always agree with her, but I did agree when she said that the things we will not remain opted in to are, generally speaking, the less important ones. They are the ones that do not matter; they are more trivial. That is by design, but it also means that the entire balance will not have been changed as a result of this. The Home Affairs Committee agreed unanimously that if the Government proceed with the option as proposed, it will not result in any repatriation of powers. Some of us think that is a good thing—that collaboration and co-operation are worth having—but others have concerns. Has it been worth the huge amount of parliamentary, ministerial and official time and effort in negotiating with partners to achieve what will probably—hopefully—be a very small effect?

It is important to highlight why this matters. We have had a great deal of discussion about process, but we should remember why it is important. Our work with our partners in this area of policing and criminal justice is one of the great benefits of European Union membership. There are other benefits—on trade, free movement and a stronger voice on the international stage—but that ability to share information to catch UK criminals on the run and to bring them back to face justice at home, and to fight international terrorism and crimes such as child abuse, come from our participation in the European Union’s justice and home affairs measures. Europol is an incredibly important element in the fight against organised crime. We would suffer badly if we lost that. Cases such as Operation Rescue involved huge co-operation with 12 other countries, with Europol playing a critical role in intelligence and analytical support which resulted in the safeguarding of at least 230 children worldwide, 60 of whom were in the United Kingdom, and the arrest of more than 180 offenders, 121 of whom were arrested in the UK. That is the sort of thing that would be put at risk by those who are simply allergic to anything that mentions the word “Europe”, and there are a number on the Conservative Back Benches, though fortunately not on the Front Bench. We do take that lead. It is not a coincidence that the head of Europol is a Briton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Is my hon. Friend suggesting, or in agreement, that we might give some power to Europe provided that that power enhances our sovereign law?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

If we opt into any of these measures and they are justiciable by the European Court of Justice, we are, through that act itself, ceding sovereignty to the European Union, because it is part of building up a single state.

What does a state have that makes it a state? What is the essence of a state? At least one important part is the ability to control law and order. We are opting back into the things that are most clearly creating the powers of a federal state of the united states of Europe—a single state that is the European Union. That will mean that we are no longer a member of an international organisation like any other, such as the United Nations or NATO, from which it would be easy to withdraw, should we wish, although I am not suggesting for a moment that we do so.

Of the 35 areas that we are asking to opt back into, three illustrate the fundamental importance of the sovereignty issue. The first of those is the European arrest warrant. The decision over who can arrest a nation state’s citizens must be an essential right of that nation state in determining this exceptional power that it gives to its police officers. In our case, the power that constables who hold the Queen’s warrant have to restrict somebody’s freedom comes directly from the Crown as part of the expression of the power of the state. To decide that an arrest can be determined abroad without any of the necessary British legal procedures involved is a move very firmly towards a federal state. Crucially, the question of who is or is not arrested will no longer be determined by a British court but by the European Court of Justice, over which we have no absolute control. We may have one justice there, but it is not a court to which we send ambassadors; it is a court that is independent in its exercise of European law as opposed to British law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I seek clarification from my hon. Friend. Interpol has a red arrest warrant. Is that in any way connected, because I have been arrested on a red warrant in the Crimea?

[Mr Raab]

I want to be very careful in not passing judgment about any arrest warrant on my hon. Friend that may be pending, not least with the Select Committee on Defence hustings looming, but my understanding is that the Interpol red notice is more of an alert than a binding warrant for surrender.

We need to look not only at what is going on within the EU. It is suggested that EU law provides best practice, and yet one might get a different view if one asks a senior Swiss diplomat, as I did recently at the Fresh Start project, which was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I asked the senior Swiss diplomat: “When you look at the whole area of EU justice and home affairs and at crime and policing, is there anything that you miss or want?” He said, “Absolutely nothing. The reality is that good law enforcement is done by the phone—by good operational contacts. It is a question of how you make things work in practice. It is not done by hyperactive legislation.” I then asked a senior US diplomat whether the US would ever consider sacrificing so much democratic control over law enforcement in its relations with any neighbour in north or south America, and whether the US would ever go down that route if it is such a great idea for the EU and Britain. They said: “Absolutely no chance.” No other region of the world is remotely thinking about enhancing the integration of law and ceding democratic control in justice and home affairs.

I understand that the crude political tendency is to dress up Euroscepticism, or any substantive critique or analysis, as the product of an insular, little-Englander mentality, but when we look globally, we see that no one else is going down that route. Why is Britain not taking into account the best practice from around the world, including in our Commonwealth partners such as Australia and New Zealand, and in the US and Canada? Why are we not looking at our excellent law enforcement relations with those countries? Why is the EU always presented as having the best law enforcement relations in the world when that does not seem to be based on any empirical evidence?

We should take advantage of the power we have in the Lisbon treaty to reform our relationship with the EU in the vital area of justice and home affairs. This is an important strategic crossroads for Britain. If we do not reform justice and home affairs now, using that important treaty lever, when will we do so? We always have promises of jam tomorrow. Such a reform would be an important precursor and complement to the wider EU negotiation that the Prime Minister has very wisely said Britain needs.

It is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to stand up for the liberty of British citizens, and for the democratic prerogatives of the House and the people who send us here. If we cannot have operational co-operation without ceding democratic control, we should have the courage of our convictions and say no. I want strong law enforcement and operational co-operation with our EU partners, but not at any price.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is right and proper that the ongoing police inquiry is pursued, and that the police should follow the evidence where it takes them. That is the right process. Clearly, we will support them in their ongoing investigations to ensure that they reach appropriate conclusions and, once they have finished their criminal investigations, that subsequent investigations are also concluded. I am certainly very clear that that needs to be pursued robustly and clearly to get to the facts of what has happened.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

All Members of the House are greatly saddened to hear about the death of a woman in Yarl’s Wood. Many of the people in Yarl’s Wood are likely to be victims of the criminal gangs who got them into this country illegally. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to try to identify and deal with those criminal gangs?

Female Genital Mutilation

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is not just a distinguished former barrister, but a distinguished author. He is right—things have changed. We should not stand by and allow crimes to be committed, especially given that how evidence can be given has been transformed since he started as a lowly paid legal aid barrister in the north of England. Things have changed, and the hon. Gentleman is right. New technology provides us with the ability to look carefully at these offences.

So far, the Select Committee’s inquiry has received 53 pieces of written evidence. That is higher than average— by the time we complete our hearings, I expect we will have even more. We are to report in July. We want to give the Government plenty of time to consider our conclusions, so that we can see whether they are serious about adopting the recommendations that we have made.

Of course, we will want to look at the legislation. Does the current legislation need to be toughened up? There are two relevant Acts: the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. We need to look at them together and see what further changes we need to make. I do not believe that there is a reason to toughen up the legislation; the issue is not about changing the law, but about how we implement the law. If I am wrong, I am sure that witnesses will tell us so as the inquiry progresses.

Hundreds of prosecutions have been successfully secured in France. Protection Maternelle et Infantile, a state-funded medical body, conducts check-ups on pregnant women and on children in the first six years of their lives. I am not sure that any equivalent body is doing that in our country. The process results in the highest rates of FGM detection and it is one of the most significant factors behind the high number of successful prosecutions.

However, we need to be clear that what is being done in France is controversial; it has not been met with universal support from individuals and community groups. We need to look at and build on the success of what has happened in countries such as France. I do not know whether the Minister has gone to France to meet his opposite number, but the Committee will want to do that as part of its inquiry.

I have just returned from Nairobi, where we have been looking at counter-terrorism as part of the Committee’s brief. We met a number of Kenyan officials who were pleased at the change in law in Kenya and other countries and wanted to share their experience with us. I was told on my way to this Chamber, by a number of people coming to watch these deliberations, that we should also concentrate on countries such as Sierra Leone, because there is a real problem there. As well as looking at our own country, we need to look abroad to see what is happening—in Africa and other parts of the world and in those European countries where there have been prosecutions.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It seems to me that evidence could come from doctors and hospitals; such medical evidence should be sufficient to start a serious investigation to deal with the problem. That could happen now, although I am not sure whether it does. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten me.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is right. Common sense dictates that the first thing one would do is go to the doctors, because they would know better than anyone else. We can make suppositions, but at the end of the day, when people are being treated in hospital or undergoing other forms of assessment, the doctors are in the relevant position.

I would not want to say that the hon. Gentleman has identified one of the Committee’s recommendations, bearing in mind that we are only starting the inquiry tomorrow, but common sense dictates that the medical profession has a huge role to play in trying to help us solve the problem. However, we will not know how until we have the chance to hear from them.

[Keith Vaz]

That is extremely helpful. If my hon. Friend would like to put the group that she contacted in her constituency in touch with the Select Committee, we would very much like to hear from them. One feature of this inquiry is not just to hear from the men in suits, who always want to give evidence to Select Committee inquiries—although I hope that the Minister will come suitably suited and booted when he appears. We also want to hear from others, including all the stakeholders. Local groups know more about this subject than those of us who sit in Westminster. Please put us in touch with the groups, so that we can hear from a wide range of individuals and organisations about this subject.

[Bob Stewart]

I apologise for intervening again, but I recall, colleagues, that when primary schools take children in, there is a medical for boys and girls. If that was to be somehow tightened up, we might get better evidence about what is happening. Again, I may be wrong, but that is what I think. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who is a friend, will enlighten us again.

[Keith Vaz]

I do not know. It is about 52 years since I was in primary school.

[Bob Stewart]

Me too!

[Keith Vaz]

I was going to say that the hon. Gentleman looks younger than me. I cannot remember what happened at primary school, even though I am sure some newspaper will find out what I did there 52 years ago.

We will find out; this is precisely why we are having this debate. We will study every contribution from every Member, because these are the kinds of things that we need to find out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the organisers of the petition and the many thousands of people who were good enough to sign it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the lady who had some difficulties when going up to people and asking for signatures in the street, but I do that regularly, so I know that people often do not sign if they do not immediately realise what is being called for. It is not lack of understanding or of compassion; it is just because someone is approaching them on the street. I am sure that those 19 people, as well as the many others who did not respond, would have done so had they begun to appreciate the enormity of the problem.

I will concentrate my contribution on the honour culture, which is from where these practices emanate. I commend to colleagues in the House and anyone listening to the debate the film, “Honor Diaries”, which was premiered in this House last Wednesday. Paula Kweskin, the writer and producer, addressed hon. Members and community and business leaders and spoke about the making of the film. The whole point of the film is that while we respect culture in this country—of course we do—it is no excuse for abuse. I have sent a link to the film to every Member of Parliament and every Member in the other place.

Having watched the film, which is harrowing in places, the basic premise is that in some cultures, a woman is not a person in her own regard. She is part of her family, led by its male members—her husband or her father—and male honour depends on the behaviour of the woman. That is why, in some cultures and some areas, she is so very constrained. In the film, we hear harrowing stories about a girl who dared to look at some boys as she walked past. Any young girl would glance at a boy, but that poor girl had acid thrown over her, just because she did that. The film spoke to a number of men, who were completely open about the fact that their honour is the most important thing; more important than the life and happiness of their child. The film goes through issues including arranged marriage and honour killings, mutilations and whipping as punishments for any perceived infringement of the family honour.

[Bob Stewart]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will go on to explain this, but what is the role of the mother in this arrangement? The mother must have a powerful position within the family and, regardless of what we think, she is pivotal to sorting this issue out.

[Lorely Burt]

One would think so, but that is often not the case. Indeed, I was going to explain that FGM in particular is usually perpetrated by the female extended family. Shocking though that is, the film shows a woman who, because it is part of the culture, does these barbaric acts on children. She says, “The children will not grow up strong. No one will want to marry this girl if she does not have this done.” It is doubly shocking that the mother could be the willing participant in something as awful as that.

This issue is about very basic rights. We have done work in Afghanistan, and we can see the number of girls there who can now go to school. Malala Yousafzai has so strongly raised the right of young girls to go to school, and that has gone all over the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I want first to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on securing the debate and to welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State for International Development over the weekend. Both sides of the House will unite on female genital mutilation to ensure that we prosecute those responsible for inflicting such a brutal practice on girls and women, and that we eliminate it once and for all.

Shockingly, an NSPCC survey of teachers reported that one in six are unaware that female genital mutilation is a crime, and that 68% of teachers are unaware of any Government guidance on what to do if they believe that a girl whom they teach is at risk. It is clear from what we have heard over the past weeks and months that we need to increase awareness of the practice among all professionals, such as GPs, midwives, teachers and health care and social workers. To do so, however, we must be more open as a society about discussing women’s bodies and be more comfortable with the language. Open and honest dialogue with boys, girls, men and women about women’s bodies will help to raise awareness and to break down the barriers that cause ignorance and embarrassment. We need to use words such as vagina and clitoris, because the more that we say them, the more comfortable we will become with initiating and engaging in such discussions.

Some hon. Members present will recall that I spoke in the Chamber during the Adjournment debate before Christmas about a procedure called a hysteroscopy, which looks inside a woman’s uterus and is often used to investigate symptoms such as pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding and infertility. I must admit that I found it difficult to use words such vagina, uterus and cervix in the Chamber.

[Bob Stewart]

You did it very well.

[Lorely Burt]

Well done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her speech. I was there when she spoke in the Chamber and thought that she did tremendously well. Is the unit to which the hon. Lady refers able to visit schools in her constituency to educate both teachers and children to try to stop this abhorrent crime?

[Lyn Brown]

The unit is in its infancy and is currently developing how it will work within the community. I will go on to discuss what the unit expects to do in the next bit of my speech.

When a maternity professional becomes aware of a mother who has been the victim of genital mutilation, they are required to make a referral to safeguarding officials for child protection reasons and to invite the woman to access the genital mutilation prevention service. The service is geared up to support the victims of female genital mutilation to empower them to understand the negative consequences of mutilation and to enable them to become an advocate against the female genital mutilation of their own daughters. The service will provide advocacy for victims, involving extended family and spouses where appropriate, and thereby support women in their own environment to take a stand against the practice.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, Newham council is training community-based female genital mutilation champions and is supporting victims to report domestic sexual violence to the police. So it is working with women in the community to work with women in the community in order to raise awareness of the act’s illegality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point and I can only quote the words of Isabelle Gillette-Faye about Great Britain:

“You have a tradition of multiculturalism, but you cannot accept everything in the name of tolerance, and certainly not the abuse of girls through mutilation and forced marriage…You have to tell parents cutting is not acceptable and if they don’t listen you threaten them with prosecution and jail.”

She finishes with two simple words:

“It works.”

We must be blunt. There is no point beating about the bush. The problem comes from certain countries, and it will be necessary to engage with those communities. There is no question that in such countries as Burkina Faso and Mali the cultural tradition in question goes on—and, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, in some respects it is a normal cultural tradition in those places. That needs to be addressed, and the focus of the international aid money should be on the countries where it is prevalent.

We all welcome and support the campaigner Fahma Mohamed. We also welcome and support what The Guardian has done, and the changes brought about through the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to write to all the schools in the country, because of the campaign. It can only be a good thing for local prevention that several different Departments are engaged in the issue, as evidenced by the recent announcement from the Department for Education, the money allocated by the Home Office, and the actions of the Department of Health. It is right and proper to record the campaigning work done by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). She was raising the issue for some time before her promotion, and making it a priority was part of her brief at the Department of Health.

Clearly there is a need for extreme sensitivity about the religion and culture of the communities affected. However, there is also a need for a robust approach. It is unacceptable that after successive Governments have abhorred the practice, it is almost impossible to get a witness to give evidence against their parents or relatives. That is the harsh reality. My first question to the right hon. Member for Leicester East was about the comparison with the situation in the late 1980s and the 1990s, when there were child abuse and sex abuse allegations, and prosecutors encouraged children to give evidence against their relatives of that abhorrent crime. The issue we are debating is child abuse and sexual abuse just as much as that was. There is no difference.

[Bob Stewart]

I have been thinking about this carefully. If a successful prosecution were to go ahead, a mother and a father may well be indicted in court. Therefore, what would happen to the children if the two people who normally look after them were jailed?

[Guy Opperman]

I can assist my hon. Friend. Procedures are in place for prosecutions and, within the confines of the criminal justice and social services systems, whether the child is taken into care or fostered or supported, there are definitely support mechanisms in place. It is not easy. No one should pretend that someone giving evidence against their family members is easy in any way whatsoever. I will come to the degree of support that I want to see, but the individual campaigners must also look hard at their individual communities and ask themselves: where is the flag-bearer? Where is the woman who is prepared to stand up and say, “This has happened to me,” and to suffer what is—let us be blunt—a very embarrassing process? I have prosecuted well over 100 trials and giving evidence of sexual allegations against a lady or a man is exceptionally embarrassing at all times.

Ellison Review

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right that certain communities are subject to stop and search disproportionately. The Government, the Prime Minister and I are clear that we need changes to stop and search to ensure that people have confidence in it. It is an important tool, but people must have confidence in its use.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was an undercover military officer in 1978. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely right and proper that undercover operations are continued by the police, and that the men and women who are involved in those operations, who act with integrity and sometimes with great courage, should be applauded?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Undercover policing is an important tool. It is important that the police can use it. Many undercover police officers act very bravely and put themselves at great risk in the work that they do. Such work is important in catching criminals and in protecting the public. We need to ensure that all undercover officers operate with full honesty and integrity, and that there is a clear and appropriate legal and supervisory framework so that the boundaries of that activity are known. Sadly, it is clear from the Ellison review that, in relation to the SDS, there were rather fewer boundaries in that activity than there should have been.

UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr António Guterres, has said:

“Syria has become the great tragedy of this century—a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history.”

I want to focus on attitudes towards refugees, and to ask whether we are doing everything that we can and should be doing.

This week we marked Holocaust memorial day, and the theme this year was “journeys”. We remembered those who had sought refuge, safety and a better chance of survival. At the United Kingdom commemoration here in central London, we heard personal testimonies from holocaust survivors of the Nazi death camps, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia Herzegovina. The Leader of the Opposition spoke very movingly about how members of his family had survived the holocaust, and about those who had not. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke with conviction about the contribution of holocaust survivors who were able to start new lives in Britain; we heard something about that from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).

I was sitting next to a lady from Leipzig, who asked me “Will we ever learn the lessons of history?” She got out of Nazi Germany just in time, on the Kindertransport, finding refuge in the UK, but many did not. We rightly laud the efforts that were made and saved 10,000 children. It was the Jewish community, the Quakers and others who organised the evacuation, and many Jewish and non-Jewish families hosted the children. But why was it that only children were allowed into the UK? The parents were not given refuge. We should remember that many past, and sadly some present, attitudes to the treatment of refugees, including in the UK, are difficult to justify. We should never forget that, after the Anschluss in March 1938, rather than relaxing entry requirements for Austrian Jews, the British Government tightened them, introducing strictly controlled visas precisely to restrict their numbers. With the benefit of hindsight, we understand that more than 65,000 Austrian Jews were murdered in the holocaust.

Today we are debating a cross-party motion tabled by the official Opposition which acknowledges the positive UK Government role in supporting people from Syria in their region, but are we doing enough to help refugees and are we learning the lessons from history? More than 2.1 million refugees have been registered by the UNHCR in Syria’s four neighbouring states. Hundreds of thousands more are known to be living outside Syria’s borders without access to aid. The UNHCR has expressly asked that the international community accommodate 30,000 refugees. Belatedly deciding to take a number of hundreds of refugees, the UK Government have acknowledged that we all have a responsibility to give refuge and assistance in the UK. I welcome that. However, according to the latest UNHCR figures, the following number of refugees are being accepted by other countries: Germany, 11,000; Canada, 1,300; Sweden, 1,200; Norway, 1,000; France, 500; Australia, 500; Austria, 500; and Finland, 500. The list goes on. Are we doing everything we can to help as many people as possible?

Amnesty International is right to describe the Syrian refugee crisis as an international failure. Positive political leadership from the UK and others in the international community is about financial support to assist refugees in Syria and the displaced refugees in neighbouring countries. But, after assessing needs and calculating what can be done in the region and what needs to be supported internationally, the UN is saying that the international community must accommodate 30,000 refugees.

We have also been challenged in wider areas—that we should share responsibility for refugees from Syria more equally, in particular through significantly increasing the number of resettlement and humanitarian admission places, over and above annual resettlement quotas.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In April 1993, I took an orphan girl into my house when I was the British commander in Bosnia. My soldiers looked after her. Her parents and her brother had been shot dead in front of her. We thought that we should take her out of the country and that that was the right thing to do. In the end, we found a distant uncle and she stayed in Bosnia. The Home Secretary has said that that is the best option. We should bring people out of the region only if no other option is available to save their lives or look after them properly.

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I underline my comments that, if the UN has assessed that there is a need to accommodate 30,000 people internationally, no doubt it has looked closely at all the factors to which the honourable and gallant Gentleman has referred.

EU member states and the EU have been challenged to strengthen search and rescue capacity in the Mediterranean to identify boats in distress and assist those on board; ensure that those rescued are treated with dignity and that their human rights, including the right to seek asylum, are fully respected; and ensure the end of unlawful push-back operations that deny refugees and migrants their rights, particularly on the Greek-Turkish border. All countries receiving refugees from Syria have also been challenged to automatically provide all people fleeing Syria, including Palestinian refugees—this has been mentioned several times—who were resident in Syria, with a status giving them international protection. Countries receiving refugees from Syria should also facilitate family reunification for refugees from Syria, including by applying flexible criteria to take into account the nature and needs of different families.

In these awful times for the poor people of Syria, it is right to provide aid and support in the region directly. It is also, however, a duty and humanitarian obligation to do whatever we can to help refugees closer to home. The lessons of history are plain to see. There will always be siren voices pandering to the lowest common denominator, who give a million reasons why we should not give refuge and accept people in need. The UK Government have belatedly accepted the case to accept a limited number of refugees. In times like these, we need political leadership to explain why helping refugees is the right thing to do and get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am proud to be a signatory of today’s motion. A few months ago, Plaid Cymru voted against military action in the wake of the suspicions over the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. If an attack had gone ahead then, we would not have seen the relinquishing of the chemical weapons. I should also add that since that decisive debate and vote, Iran has been persuaded to enter talks on its nuclear programme. For the first time in years, there appears to be a better prospect of some agreement. I am not naive about this, but there are signs of progress. Only time will tell whether I am right, but President Rouhani shows strong signs of being willing to engage with the rest of the world. The avoidance of military intervention last year undoubtedly helped to create the space for that to happen. However, I must express disappointment that Iran is not at the table at Geneva II. None the less, there is a growing consensus that those talks are now Syria’s only hope, and we must not lose sight of their importance. Journeys to peace are seldom without their roadblocks, and there are certainly no shortcuts. To be utterly fair to the Government, they have led the way in appealing for and sending aid to Syria, as today’s motion notes.

Diplomacy is the only way to end the bloodshed in Syria. Of course we understand that there are no quick-fix solutions and that many different factions are now involved in the fighting. We wish to see a ceasefire agreed at the current talks in Geneva, and I urge the UK Government to do their utmost to convince the regime and the opposition’s main backers to bring their influence to bear.

The UK has been one of the largest financial donors of humanitarian aid, and that is most welcome. The Government should also commit to being generous in the numbers of refugees. The Prime Minister has rightly described the situation in Syria as the greatest refugee crisis of our time. We all know that a resettlement programme is the only means of offering a durable solution for the most vulnerable who struggle to survive in the harsh conditions of the region.

The UNHCR programme focuses on the most vulnerable. About 30,000 people are being helped, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 4 million refugees who have fled Syria into neighbouring countries. Vincent Cochtel, director of the UNHCR’s Europe bureau, said:

“From the perspective of the refugee it would make a hell of a difference.”

By that he means signing up to the scheme. He went on to say:

“The big picture is that there are 2.4 million Syrian refugees. When you zoom down and take a country like Turkey, it has taken 700,000 refugees, while the 47 countries that make up the rest of Europe have only taken 70,000 refugees. That gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.”

[Bob Stewart]

Talking of countries that could help, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be nice to see other countries in the middle east open their borders and take in refugees and give more money to support those poor people who have to exist on the borders of Syria?

[Mr Llwyd]

Of course in any refugee crisis, if somebody’s suffering can be alleviated nearer home, it is always better to do that than displacing them to a country further away. I fully agree with that. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to consider the UNHCR scheme. I have heard what the Secretary of State has had to say on the matter, and there is some force in her argument, but I cannot understand why we are not part of the scheme. The all-pervading hysteria about migration of any sort seems to have clouded the issue. Surely humanity should dictate what we all do. When I questioned the Home Secretary earlier on, I made the point that the refugee status under international law is entirely different and should in no way be affected by the toxic debate about migration, to which we are all being subjected by the media. As one who does not have any nightmares about the UK Independence party or about Farage and that bunch, I add that Wales has a long and proud tradition of welcoming people from around the world. I urge the Government to involve the Welsh Government in this most important of policies. Plaid Cymru has in the past called for Wales to be taken into account by the Migration Advisory Committee, which develops policy. The committee works with Scotland and Northern Ireland but, for some reason, not Wales. I hope that there will be a change in that policy shortly.

I urge the Government to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution and I hope that they will bring further pressure to bear on Russia in the talks. I know that such things are going on and it is fairly obvious and trite for us to state that they need to, but it is right that we should detail them. We all realise, I am sure, that Russia is key to persuading Assad and his supporters to reach some form of reasonable compromise. It is possible that the current round of talks will produce consensus between Russia and the United States on what the next steps towards peace should be.

Today’s statement is very welcome as far as it goes, but despite all the speeches so far I am still unclear about why the Government cannot commit fully to the UNHCR’s resettlement programme. The Government have been sending humanitarian aid, but it is now urgent to ensure that there are safe corridors in that troubled country so that aid can be sent to where it can be effective. That question was touched on by the Home Secretary earlier, and I think it is crucial that that should happen.

In the spirit of the consensus that seems to be developing on all but one or two issues, I hope that we will not divide on the motion today but will move forward with a consensual approach. I hope that the Government will keep everybody fully informed of progress over the coming weeks and months.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The House has heard many eloquent contributions, and many horror stories of the crisis inside Syria and the impact it has on the broader region. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) set that out. There are men and women inside Syria who are denied access to any form of humanitarian support, including access to food—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke of those who are dying from starvation through a lack of humanitarian support. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke of the outbreak of polio 14 years after Syria was certified polio-free. She will be pleased to learn that the UK was part of helping the World Health Organisation to immunise about 200,000 children in Syria at the end of last year in response to that outbreak.

Since the crisis began, 14 UN staff and 32 Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers have been killed doing their jobs, going about providing humanitarian support to those who need it. As hon. Members have said, the crisis is having an exceptionally heavy toll on Syrian children. I have made several visits to the region. I have met refugees who had been in the camps for some time and those who had just arrived. Some started off with a lot and some with not very much, but in most cases they have very little, if anything, left to their names. Most have left having seen their towns and villages bombed and in fear of their lives. Many have moved on several occasions before finally taking the decision to leave Syria.

In Lebanon, 40% of the refugees arriving are children aged 17 or under, which is a shocking statistic. I met children who are being educated in the Zaatari camp in Jordan. When a convoy plane flies overhead delivering humanitarian supplies to the camp, the children automatically dive under the tables because they are so used to having to do that in Syria when bombs are dropping.

I assure the House that the UK is standing by the Syrian people in their hour of desperate need. As we have heard, our total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million, which is three times the size of our response to any other humanitarian crisis. We have also heard that our aid contribution is second only to that of the United States. In fact, it is getting on for as much as all other EU member states put together. That figure represents the deep concern, which I think has been demonstrated across the whole House today, regarding the worsening plight of the Syrian people and the growing need inside Syria in particular and across the region.

[Bob Stewart]

May I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that, to the best of her knowledge, refugees who get to the Syrian border and into a camp will be fed and clothed, and have their basic medical needs taken care of? We cannot do anything inside Syria, but we sure as hell can do something on the borders.

[Justine Greening]

I can reassure my hon. Friend. UK aid is being supplied to more than 300,000 people a month, many of whom are in camps. We are supplying water to nearly 1 million people a month, which is vital. We have provided more than 300,000 medical consultations for people who would otherwise be without the sort of medical support they were often used to in their previous lives. Syria was a middle-income country and people had lifestyles that we would recognise. For them, the transition into camps has been harsh.