Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is the first time, but I sincerely hope not the last time, that I have proposed legislation in this House that has not only enjoyed strong cross-party support throughout all stages of its passage, but strong support outside this place. There has not been a single objection to the Bill from the police, local authorities, the public or, which is to be expected, the hospitality industry. In fact, the industry has been asking for this small legislative change for some time now, and It has asked for it because it makes sense.

I want to apologise in advance that this speech is a little dull and technical, but it is important that the details of what I am proposing are made clear to the House, a point I discussed at length with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who I am sorry is not with us in his usual Friday slot today.

Love for our pubs is strong across all our constituencies. If there is one thing guaranteed to unite us, it is sporting and royal events. We tend to gather for these events in our local pubs, because they are the beating heart of our communities. As hon. Members will know, such events do not always take place when our pubs and hospitality venues are open, which is why the Licensing Act 2003 makes two provisions for licence extension. First, individual licensed premises can apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice. Each application costs £21 and takes a minimum of five working days to be approved, although it often takes longer. The provision is not designed for scenarios in which many venues across the country wish to extend their licensing hours at short notice and at the same time, so a second provision, under section 172 of the 2003 Act, enables licensing extensions for

“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.

That allows the Government to make a relaxation order applicable to all premises in England and Wales, specifying the dates and times of the relaxation, which cannot exceed four days.

Such orders, which are made under section 197 of the 2003 Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure and need approval from both Houses of Parliament. Best practice is for the Home Secretary to complete a public consultation, and then for both Houses to debate the order, which can take up to six months to implement. As mentioned on Second Reading, the process has been used for the coronation of His Majesty the King, the 90th birthday and platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty, the 2011 and 2018 royal weddings, the 2014 FIFA World cup, and the Euro 2020 final in 2021.

Last summer, our whole country was immensely proud of our Lionesses reaching the women’s World cup final. As hon. Members will recall, we found out only four days before the match that our Lionesses had made the final. It was taking place on a Sunday in Sydney, and there was an 11-hour time difference. The match kicked off at 11 am, with many venues unable to serve alcohol until 11 am or 12 noon. There was no time left for them to apply to their local authority for a temporary event notice and, because Parliament was in recess, there was no mechanism for the Government to issue an extension. Our communities missed out on all the pre-match excitement and much-needed extra revenue.

Clause 1 will allow the Home Secretary or Ministers to make an extension order in similar situations without going through the costly, overly bureaucratic, time-consuming and restrictive process that exists now. Clause 2 simply states that the Bill will come into force on the day it gains Royal Assent, and will extend to England and Wales only. The Bill does not propose a change to the circumstances with which discretion may be exercised by the Home Secretary. The provisions in section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, which relate to the length, purpose and consultation requirements of any relaxation order, will remain intact.

This is a Bill to simplify the parliamentary process, not to change the substance of the Licensing Act’s provisions. Using the negative procedure instead of the affirmative procedure does not remove parliamentarians’ voices on applications. As Members will know, the majority of statutory instruments are laid before Parliament under the negative procedure, and there is a process for objecting to them or having them annulled, both in this place and in the other place.

Next week, the Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA European Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2021 is due for debate. Like all previous extension orders of this kind, it is very likely that it will pass through both Houses unopposed. Considering the many problems that our constituents and the country are facing right now, it is a waste of precious parliamentary time to debate an uncontentious order that has such cross-party and public support.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I recall spending many hours as a Home Office Minister taking through statutory instruments for exactly this kind of occasion, even though nobody opposed them and everybody could see that they were very good, particularly for the hospitality industry. I declare an interest: my brother is a pub landlord and my father was before him, so I know how much such orders matter. I fully support the hon. Lady’s Bill. Does she agree that these events are exactly the kinds of times when we need to get together in the great British pub?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention, and I hope that her family welcome the Bill as well. Like much of our hospitality industry through covid, pubs were absolutely battered. While this Bill is small and will not apply all the time, when it does apply, the revenue that our local hospitality venues and pubs will gain from it will make a huge difference to them.

Even with my Bill, the Government fully intend to continue to plan ahead so that, wherever possible, licensing hours extension orders can be brought forward with sufficient time for public consultation and notice, as they have been for the upcoming Euros licensing order next week. This Bill has received such support because it is straightforward and sensible. I am sure that we all look forward to joining our constituents down one of our brilliant locals in celebrating the next national, sporting or royal event. I commend the Bill to the House.

Criminal Justice Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I am going to respectfully differ from the hon. Lady. I am happy to have another conversation with her about it, but I am afraid that even those on the periphery often have their hands all over the crime.

I will return briefly to new clause 59 on bladed articles, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). The issue of ninja swords was raised by the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I want to provide reassurance that both straight-bladed ninja swords, which the new clause is directed at, and curved swords are covered. Curved swords were banned by the Government in 2008, and he will know that possessing a sword or any knife—even a kitchen knife—in a public place without good reason is already a criminal offence, punishable by up to four years in prison.

The reason why straight swords are more difficult to ban is that some of them are held by military historians and for commemorative purposes. However, I wanted to provide reassurance to those on the shadow Front Bench that the Policing Minister engaged recently with the NPCC lead on knife crime, who reassured him once again that the NPCC was not seeking a ban on the use of straight-bladed swords. In fact, of all the knife crime fatalities in the last year, around 1% were caused that way.

What the NPCC is asking for is a clampdown on the online sale of knives to under-18s, which we are doing under the Online Safety Act; the power to seize knives in a private place if the police think they will be used for a criminal purpose, which is already in the Bill; and a ban on machetes and zombie knives, which we are bringing in in September. I wanted to provide that reassurance.

New clauses 25 and 26 were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who I cannot see, but I am sure—

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

She has just popped out.

[Laura Farris]

She has just popped out. She made an outstanding speech, which illuminated and identified yet more of the nefarious ways that child abusers find to conduct some of the most serious offences against children. She knows, as was clear in her constructive speech, that artificial intelligence raises unique problems. I agree without hesitation with the force of what she said, and about the identification of an offence as she has presented it. I recognise that it is our duty as parliamentarians to future-proof our legislation, and I thank her for her detailed work on this issue. I commit to working with her and to trying as best we can to get something ready for Report in the other place.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for the sensitive and thoughtful way in which he approached the Law Commission’s report and the issue of hate crimes, and for his new clause 32 to introduce protected characteristics to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Of course, I have read the Law Commission’s excellent report on this matter, and I can confirm that a response to it was always forthcoming this year. I want to make two slight qualifications that might explain some of the delay.

Many Members will be aware that the Law Commission did not recommend making sex a protected characteristic for hate crimes, and may remember that there was a campaign to make misogyny a hate crime, which the commission rejected. That required careful thought, because not all the protected characteristics have been treated in the same way. Another issue is the implementation of the hate crime legislation in Scotland, which has been both highly contentious and, I am afraid, somewhat chaotic. Of course, we wish to avoid replicating those mistakes. However, I want to provide reassurance by saying that our intention is to deal with this matter—subject to all the normal approvals—in the House of Lords, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington will come and work with me on it.

The other excellent speech that I want to refer to was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). She alighted on two important issues—cyber-flashing and intimate image abuse—that are not on the priority offences list in schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023. That is not because we did not consider them important or sinister offences—she will need no persuading, given everything that we have done on intimate image abuse, that the opposite is true. The fact is that they were not on the statute book, or certainly had not been commenced, when we passed the 2023 Act. I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of that, particularly in relation to both those issues. I know that my right hon. Friend is conducting an urgent review as we speak, and I am sure that, in the weeks ahead, I will be able to update her on where we are on this. I do not want her to think for a moment that we are dragging our feet.

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Miss Dines]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that example. I personally think that it is just as stark, and that it is just as easy to knock down the defence, because the intent is so obviously there. Intent is not a fanciful legal device. It is something that is pretty obviously stated, and a jury, judge or magistrate—whoever it is—would very easily be able to knock the defence away, but I do value the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The Government have accepted that they will look at that again, and I very much enjoy hearing these interventions.

The Government’s view is that even though these amendments would have the desired effect, they would not be necessary to criminalise the type of behaviour that concerns most of us here, but I do take seriously the concerns that lie behind them and I will give them further consideration. In the meantime, I suggest that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, having probed with quite a lot of debate, and made her point very forcefully, should perhaps not press the amendments.

Moving on to substantive matters more generally—I know that I have taken up a great amount of time—I speak in support of clause 1, which creates the new offence at the heart of the Bill by inserting a new criminal offence within the Public Order Act 1986 as a new section 4B. The offence will be dependent on the behaviour that falls within section 4A of the Act—namely, that of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress—and will provide that if someone committed behaviour under section 4A, and did so because of the victim’s sex, they could receive a longer sentence of up to two years, rather than the six months mentioned in section 4A.

The approach of building on the section 4A offence reflects the Government’s view that public sexual harassment behaviour is already covered by existing criminal offences, most commonly that section 4A offence. Had we instead sought to create a wholly new offence, that would have entailed overlap with existing ones, which would be not only unnecessary but actively harmful, as it would create confusion about the law—exactly the reverse of what we are trying to achieve here.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The argument is frequently put forward—as a former Home Office Minister, I have used it myself—that there will be duplication, and that that will be too much, but we need to find legislation that can be easily understood by the judiciary and interpreted properly, with proper training for police officers and others so that they can find the evidence needed. Sometimes an additional offence is not that harmful, because it will assist in getting the prosecutions that we all so desperately need. May I urge the Minister to consider that point in her deliberation about all the other points that we have discussed?

[Miss Dines]

I understand that point.

Section 4A makes it an offence if someone

“uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting”

if both the intention and the effect of the behaviour, or the display, are to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress. It provides that the offence

“may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.”

There are two specified defences to this: first, that the defendant was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other building; and secondly—this has been the focus of some of the debate—that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable.

The section 4B offence introduced by clause 1 of the Bill will inherit and build on the provisions of section 4A. Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 4B provide that the new offence will be engaged when a person commits an offence under section 4A and does so because of the sex of the person towards whom they are directing their conduct or because of the sex that the defendant presumed the other person to be.

Subsection (3) of the new offence makes two clarifying provisions. The first is that it does not matter whether there are additional motivations behind the defendant’s behaviour as well as the victim’s sex, as long as the victim’s sex was one of the motivations. The second is that the defendant’s motivation need not have been one of achieving sexual gratification; of course it could have been, but there are many other reasons why a person might decide to harass someone on account of their sex.

Subsection (4) of the new offence provides that the maximum sentence for a person found guilty of the offence would be, if they were tried in the magistrates court, a term not exceeding the general limit that the court can impose or a fine or both, or if they were tried before the Crown court, a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both. That contrasts with the section 4A offence, for which the maximum sentence is six months. Since the maximum sentence for the new offence will be two years, which is above what the magistrates court can impose, the new offence will necessarily be capable of being tried in either the magistrates or the Crown court—triable either way, in the formal language—whereas the section 4A offence can be tried only in a magistrates court, or summary only, in the formal language.

Subsection (5) of the offence states that if a person is tried in the Crown court for the new offence under subsection (1) and is acquitted for that offence, the jury may still find them guilty of the section 4A offence. I commend the clause to the Committee. The new offence that it introduces will play a crucial role in ensuring that everyone—women in particular—can feel safe on our streets.

Clause 2 contains the standard provisions about the commencement, extent and short title of the Bill. Subsection (1) provides that the Act will extend to England and Wales. New subsection (1A) introduced by amendment 3 would place a caveat on that, to the effect that a provision introduced by the consequential amendments in new clause 2 would have the same geographical extent as the provision it amends. The practical meaning of this is that the amendment to the Police Act 1997, which relates to Scotland, would naturally extend to Scotland. The rest of the clause confirms that the provisions of the Act will come into force in line with the commencement regulations made by Ministers, as confirmed in the Act’s short title. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. These are long-standing issues, and I am sure we will debate them again. My Department will look very closely at whether this is the time for a sea change in the message in relation to intent and reasonableness.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate. It has been a relatively short debate, but it has successfully highlighted, first, the strong support there is for making this historic change to the law and, secondly, the desire and intention on both sides of the Committee to ensure that we take this opportunity to get it right. The contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North and the hon. Members for Walthamstow, for Edinburgh West and for Birmingham, Yardley all point in that direction.

I am grateful to the Minister for her clear statement that she and her officials and colleagues in Government will reflect on the points that have been made, with a view to responding to them on Report and Third Reading. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for indicating that this is a probing amendment, and it has afforded us the ability to do just that.

Let us step back and reflect on where we are. Everyone agrees that we need to make this change in the law, but the hon. Member for Walthamstow and others have rightly focused on the question of intent. It is clearly a matter of common consent that a man who harasses a woman in public on the grounds of her sex should not be able to escape conviction simply by asserting that he did not intend to cause alarm or distress. That is not acceptable, and it is not the intention of the Bill.

On Second Reading the hon. Lady introduced the interesting and quite powerful concept of foreseeable harassment. We are talking about whether such conduct at the time is foreseeable. The graphic examples that Members have given fall into the category of behaviour that is clearly foreseeable as liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress, so there could not be a risk that that could be cited as a defence on the basis that the perpetrator did not intend to cause that. There are various ways of addressing that.

The hon. Lady helpfully referred to other legislation that the House has passed and, in so doing, no doubt reflected on precisely these issues. It is always beneficial to be able to draw on debates that have concluded satisfactorily, with the further advantage of maintaining consistency in the law. On the suggestion that the hon. Lady made, I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that we will follow it up.

[Karen Bradley]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on getting the Bill to this stage. It will be a fantastic Act of Parliament once it has passed through its final stages.

My right hon. Friend talks about other offences. It must be worth looking at how juries have interpreted other offences and whether those offences have led to successful prosecutions. If this language would help to get prosecutions—because it has been shown that that has happened in the past and lay members of a jury could understand the offence in a way that they perhaps would not understand it without that wording—it must be worth considering adding the wording to the offences.

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend, a former Home Office Minister, makes a characteristically well-informed point about having the right intentions to make this an Act of Parliament that will not just sit on the statute book, but have a material effect on prosecuting perpetrators. As I said on Second Reading, we want to avoid the need for a large number of prosecutions by making it crystal clear to everyone that such behaviour is unacceptable and is a serious criminal offence. We should look at that and reflect on it.

It is fair to point out, as the Minister did, that the guidance in the explanatory notes to the Bill makes it clear that listing behaviours that are in scope establishes, in effect, that such behaviours would not be considered a justification that could overcome the question of intent and unintentionality. I will not go through the list that the Minister mentioned. One means would be to refer to other legislation. Another might be to consider the examples currently included in the explanatory notes and whether there might be a way to give them greater prominence so that prosecuting authorities, police forces and courts could take them into account. I hope that she will consider that as well.

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 9th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I have a hard act to follow in my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who made an excellent contribution. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on one of the many other excellent contributions as well as on securing the Bill and bringing it to this point. I know that he will take it further and get it on the statute book, because everybody in the Chamber wants to see the Bill become an Act of Parliament. He embodies what we need to do, because men are part of the solution.

Men are the problem—there is no doubt about it. We have talked about how the Bill can protect men and women, but women and girls are predominantly the victims of harassment in public, so we need men such as my right hon. Friend to stand up and say “No” and to say that they need to be part of the solution, because the many fantastic women who have campaigned on this for many years will get it finished only if men come on board, too. I congratulate him on his work so far. I know that he will succeed and that he and others in the Chamber and in this place believe that this the right approach and that men need to be part of the solution.

We should be thinking about the safety of women and girls all the time. The media get interested in it only when there are high-profile cases. Those cases are heartbreaking and, every time there is such a case, I, and I suspect every other woman in this place, think how it could have been them. They remember the time they took the short cut home and wondered why they had when they finally got behind their door because that short cut is dangerous. They remember walking home with their keys in their hand. I still do, because if my hands are in my pocket and my keys are in my hand, should someone approach me, I have got a weapon—something that allows me to counteract the strength of a physical attack from, inevitably, a much stronger man.

We have all got the bus to the next stop—one more stop than we would normally go—because that is the lighter walk home, so we feel safer. In these cold, dark nights, we will all think, “Is it the right way to go, or should I walk out of my way and take that different route home that means that I will not be home, enjoying the warmth of my home, until later than a man would?” A man will not think about that. A man will just take that short cut or take the short bus route home. A man will not have to think about it.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about how this is not right. We have to start being able to just live our lives. We should not be saying to women, “Oh, just man up.” Goodness me, that is not right. We should be able to take the bus route that gets us home quickly. We should be able to walk the shortcut. We should not have to have training on how to protect ourselves. This is not what our society should be. The hon. Lady was absolutely right and I pay tribute to her campaigning. When I was the Minister in the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), the hon. Lady was a thorn in my side, but quite rightly because she said many things that made a great deal of sense. It is great to see that this issue has now come to this House.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. She made a point that I want to gently pick her up on. She said we want to empower victims. We do not want to empower victims; we do not want victims in the first place. We do not want to be in a position where we are apologising and explaining our behaviour. It is about the perpetrators. We want people not to be perpetrators. We do not want the crime to happen in the first place, and we need to send that very clear message.

Let me compare the attitudes on this issue with attitudes on bullying in the playground. Nobody says that somebody being bullied in the playground should man up and learn how to fight back and protect themselves. No, we deal with the bullying. We take the bully and tell them that it is socially unacceptable to be a bully. I have seen the difference in my children’s education from what I received at school. They are told, “No, you can’t be a bully. If you’re a bully, we’ll take you out of the school. You will be excluded.” We deal with the perpetrators of bullying in the playground, yet in the field of violence against women and girls, we far too often look at potential victims and try to stop them from being victims. Everyone should take safety measures. We should lock our front doors when we leave and close our windows with security locks to stop us from being burgled. Of course we should take sensible measures, but we should not have to take additional measures as women just to go about our lives because we may be harassed in public, as if that is okay and acceptable.

I was the Minister with responsibility for this area way back when. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, I think I was the first woman in the coalition Government to manage that portfolio. I was followed by Sarah Newton, my hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) and now for Mid Derbyshire—sorry, Derbyshire Dales. I should know that, as she is my next-door neighbour.

It is a wonderful portfolio, but it can be the most difficult portfolio to deal with emotionally because the depravity that human beings can show to other human beings is sometimes extraordinary. The safeguarding brief is one that exposes any Minister to the depths of human behaviour, but it also shows the best sides of human behaviour. It can be the time when the champion and the hero is found—the person who will stand up and be counted. It can be the most rewarding.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), because when she was a Health Minister she took this issue seriously. It is not just a Home Office response; there has to be a response from across Government. While I am getting tributes out of the way, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was my boss at the Home Office, she was the Home Secretary who spotted that this victim-based crime needs to be taken seriously. Victims need to be believed, and we need to stop the perpetrators before they even become perpetrators. Too often with this sort crime, we remove the victim from the setting. We take the victim to another place and it is the victim who suffers, rather than the perpetrator. It must not be that way—it must be the perpetrator who suffers. I continue in the theme of congratulating women Ministers by mentioning Amber Rudd and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). All those women Ministers in the Home Office have taken this issue seriously.

To conclude on this point, the Bill demonstrates what Parliament and parliamentarians want. We are showing leadership: we are saying that this is not acceptable and society needs to listen and act differently. Taking steps like this—making what appear to be very small changes to the law—can make an enormous difference.

I want to pick up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells made about hate crime. He is absolutely right that the more effective way to deal with the issue at this stage, as the legal framework sets out, is to make this change to harassment in public. However, it might not necessarily be the right way or everything we need to do in future, in a different framework. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked about the campaign continuing, and it does. This is not the end; it is just another step in this long journey that we are taking. But this simple Bill makes a big statement, and I say to police forces, law enforcement bodies, prosecution services and others: Parliament wants you to act in this area; Parliament wants you to take action and make sure these crimes are taken seriously. The greatest success of this Bill after it becomes an Act is that there will not be any prosecutions, because there will not need to be prosecutions, because society will have recognised that this is not acceptable and will start to behave differently.

I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. He has my full support on this Bill, and I look forward to it returning to this place for Report and Third Reading, and then to the other place, and then to my right hon. Friend coming in with Royal Assent at some point in the future.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I am going to restate that the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is going through Parliament, will make life harder for the criminal gangs behind these crossings—all Members should be supporting that. It means that people smugglers could face a life behind bars, and the hon. Gentleman should be supporting that. We will strengthen Border Force’s powers to stop and redirect vessels and to search shipping containers to ensure that migrants are not being smuggled. Importantly, this will break the deadly business models of these smugglers. In addition, we want to make sure that the UK is less attractive to illegal migrants. He claims that all the people coming to the UK are genuine asylum seekers, but they are not, and the evidence shows that. Even the authorities in France say that 70% of people crossing the channel and entering France, and northern France in particular, are single men and they are economic migrants.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The people responsible for this situation are the people traffickers, who sell false hope to the vulnerable. The only way we can address this is by working with our partners, allies and friends. Will my right hon. Friend join the campaign to ensure that this item is No. 1 at the next United Nations General Assembly?

Investment Industry Exposure to Modern Slavery

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. If I can refer to my entry in the register of interests, the Human Trafficking Foundation appears as I am a trustee. I welcome the Minister; this is the first time that I have participated in a debate that she is responding to in her new role. I can assure her, as someone who fulfilled that role for over two years, that it is a fantastic place to be; the change you can make to people’s lives as a Minister in the Home Office with responsibility for this area is absolutely breath taking. It is a difficult job, it is a tough job, but it is also one of the most rewarding jobs in Government. I welcome her to the role and know she will do a fantastic job. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) on securing this debate and delivering what I know will not be the last contribution he makes to a Westminster Hall debate. It was an excellent contribution, and it set out so succinctly and well the point that he is campaigning hard on. I am also grateful for his willingness to accept contributions from other Members in this very short, half-hour debate.

My hon. Friend raised, very well, the risks and the opportunities there are for investment businesses in ensuring they are making the ethical investments their customers and consumers want. People want to know that their money is being invested in a way that is not funding crime—be that drug crime, gang-related crime or, in particular, the economic crime against people that is human trafficking and modern slavery. Let us be clear: this is an economic crime. It is so often confused with crimes of immigration, but it is not an immigration crime. It is an economic crime: one human being is prepared to make financial gain from another human being. We must all work to stamp that out.

The numbers are shocking. The latest estimate is that around 40 million people globally are victims of modern slavery, of which 25 million are victims of forced labour and 15 million are involved in forced marriage or other forms of exploitation. Some 25 million people globally are victims of forced labour. We must remember that number and work hard to do what we can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made the point as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has big shoes to fill in taking over from the wonderful Anthony Steen, who is an absolute hero; without him, we simply would not be where we are today with the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

When I took the Modern Slavery Bill through Parliament, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very involved on Report, and tabled amendments constantly, including on supply chains. Section 54 was not in the Bill when we started. The Bill had gone through prelegislative scrutiny by a Committee chaired by Frank Field, now of the other place. I am going to call him by name. I know that we would normally refer to him as the noble Lord Field, but everyone will have seen the news that he made public last week, and our thoughts go to him. He is another of the founding fathers of the Act. Without Frank, and without the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, Anthony Steen, the noble Lord Randall and many others, we simply would not have achieved it. That prelegislative scrutiny Committee wanted to see transparency measures for supply chains, but Government do not always listen to everything that prelegislative scrutiny Committees or others suggest. A lot of work was needed to persuade Government of what those of us in the Home Office could see was a very good idea, but about which others in Government had not been so convinced.

Section 54 was undoubtedly revolutionary, but that does not mean that it is not evolutionary. It does need to evolve. Now, six years along, there are undoubtedly things that can be improved, and I welcome what the Home Office has said about changes that must be made. It does need to be strengthened. It must be expanded to more businesses. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford made about what we could do on investments are really interesting, and I urge the Minister to take those points to her colleagues in Government at the earliest opportunity so that they can remove their reasons for opposing them as quickly as possible. This is something that customers want. Consumers want to know that their money is properly invested.

I will make two very quick points before I sit down. The first is that I have tabled a private Member’s Bill that replicates section 54 on climate change. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said that this was something that people wanted to see. I would like to see that transparency in supply chains on climate change as well, and I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill. Second, I join my hon. Friend in pleading that we ask the United Nations to make human trafficking and modern slavery a focus of the next General Assembly in September 2022. If we could work together to do that and to get global recognition of this issue, we would go a long way to tackling this heinous crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady will be well aware of the extensive work that is taking place around the Windrush compensation scheme and the support that we have offered her constituent. If she would like to meet me to discuss this further, she would be very welcome.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today we mark Anti-Slavery Day. One of the first people in Government to recognise the importance of that issue was our much missed colleague James Brokenshire. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that her priority will be to continue James’s work, making this issue a priority for her and making the UK a world leader in this area?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in the passionate way that she has put her question. We will continue that work and the legacy of the work that has taken place on modern-day slavery.

Safe Streets for All

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I have no doubt that this will be an exercise in rushing through things for four minutes. I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for her opening remarks and associate myself with what she said about the dreadful scenes of antisemitic abuse we saw on our streets. It is not acceptable, there is no place for it and I absolutely agree with what she said and support her in all she is doing to tackle it.

May I be indulged in congratulating the new police, fire and crime commissioner for Staffordshire, Ben Adams? I have known Ben for many years and know he will do an excellent job, but he steps into the very large shoes of Matthew Ellis, the previous police, fire and crime commissioner, who did extraordinary work in Staffordshire over the past nine years and to whom all of us in my county owe a debt of gratitude.

There was much in the Gracious Speech that I support, but I wish to note a few concerns. Let me start with the commitment in the Gracious Speech

“to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering.”

I support that but, particularly in the world of modern slavery, there are too many examples of programmes that are being cut as a result of the reduction in UK aid. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary look into that, and particularly at the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery? I have real concerns about the fantastic work that it does and the impact on it.

I will not repeat what has been said about planning reforms; I agree with much that has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

On online harms, I brought in the internet safety strategy many years ago when I was the Culture Secretary, so I am delighted that it is in this year’s Queen’s Speech. I look forward to seeing the Bill, but I urge the Government to take action on access to pornography for under-16s as a matter of urgency. That would address many of the harms that we see in society today.

For the reminder of the short amount of time I have, I wish to speak about the proposals to deal with Northern Ireland and the legacy of the troubles. It is imperative that the issue is addressed, but I cannot overstate how sensitive it is. I understand and share the absolute desire to protect our veterans, but I also have an absolute desire to make sure that the victims of terrorism and other atrocities find out the truth. Some 90% of all deaths in the troubles were at the hands of terrorists, while 10% were at the hands of the armed forces and the police. Although the majority of those deaths were not crimes, some were, as we have seen, and it is quite right that we should find out the truth. We have to remember that these atrocities happened on the streets of the United Kingdom—we were not at war. In fact, every time we say that we were at war, we legitimise what the terrorists did. Our armed forces went in and it was only because of their actions to support the police on our streets that we were able to get the accommodation and compromises of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, but we have to make sure that there is support from the people of Northern Ireland and that the truth is found.

I simply do not have time to cover all the points that I wish to make. The 2014 Stormont House agreement is now seven years old. There is much in that agreement on which we should focus, but we have to have cross-community support in Northern Ireland for any proposals that are put forward. I intend to speak on this matter again. It is important that we get it right for the sake of the victims of the troubles.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Karen Bradley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely, and it would be the perfect trial of the Home Office system; if it really works as the Home Office anticipates, there will not be a demand for it. If the Home Office has confidence in the system, it should have nothing to fear from this. It is about not just technology, but human nature. We know that discrimination is a feature of the hostile environment policy, as private citizens are forced by the Government to do checks. They face harsh penalties if they get those checks wrong, so they will, as a result, play it safe. The danger is that a property will be let to, and a job will be offered to, a person with a passport and a visa, instead of to a person with a piece of digital code, all other things being equal. The3million is simply asking to have the same reassurance that everybody else has access to, and we should provide that.

The amendments could have a transformative effect for many marginalised and vulnerable people. They would enhance family unity and provide additional reassurance for those most directly impacted by Brexit. They could be a small silver lining on what we regard as an awful Bill. We should stand by the House of Lords’ amendments.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I rise to speak to a number of amendments. I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, which I chair with the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss from the other place.

I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, because I agree wholeheartedly with every word, but, if I may, I will add to his comments. Just today, the organisation ECPAT published a freedom of information request which found that just 28 children who were confirmed victims of trafficking were granted discretionary leave to remain in the UK between 2016 and 2019. I therefore say to the Minister that the statistics do not stack up with the words we are hearing from the Dispatch Box. I know he is a good man and he wants to do the right thing, but we need to deliver as a Government so that the statistics back up what is being said.

The key point here is that we want to see prosecutions. We will not break the cycle of this horrendous crime if we do not bring the perpetrators to justice. That means having victims here in the United Kingdom who are able to testify, able to give evidence and able to bring the perpetrators to justice. It is incredibly important that the Government bear that in mind, because, as with all hidden crimes, without support given to the victims, who are the most vulnerable people imaginable and who have been through the most hideous experiences, we will never break the cycle and bring the perpetrators to justice.

I urge the Minister not just to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about support for victims, but to implement all measures from the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That was an excellent, groundbreaking and world-leading Act—we are using lots of clichés—but so much of it has not yet been implemented. If it was implemented fully, we would see so much more success with prosecutions, which is what we all want.

I will speak very briefly on Lords amendment 3. I urge the Government to deliver on this matter. Communication is absolutely key. We need to ensure that people who are entitled to claim settled status know about it. The international reputation of the United Kingdom is at risk here. Getting this wrong will not enhance the view of us by others in the world. We need to make sure that we get it right.

I want to focus the majority of my time on Lords amendment 4. I thank all Ministers for their engagement over the weekend. I spoke to Minister on the Front Bench—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—and to other Ministers in the Home Office. I know there is concern to make sure we get this right, but again it goes back to the point that we must help the victims, because we can never break the cycle of crime that is getting people to the point where they are in Calais, Dunkirk and Zeebrugge unless we can help the victims.

I gently say to the Minister—he is not guilty of this, but I gently say it to all Ministers—that we must not think of victims as good victims or bad victims. When a constituent who has been the victim of a fraud or other crime comes to our surgery, we might well think to ourselves, “Well, buyer beware, and you should have realised when this too-good-to-be-true offer was put in front of you. Maybe you should not have accepted it or given your bank details,” or whatever else it might be. However, we do not judge. We do not say, “We are not going to take your case, because you’re a bad victim who brought it on yourself.” Instead, we say to our constituents, “Of course we will take your case to Parliament. Of course we will raise it with Ministers. Of course we will take it to the highest authorities.” The same applies to the victims of traffickers. If somebody has been trafficked to Calais, Zeebrugge or Dunkirk, it is because they believe there is a chance of a better life. Whether they are educated and should have known better or whether they are very vulnerable victims, they are still entitled to be listened to and heard. It is clear from so many hidden crimes that until victims are believed and listened to, we cannot break the cycle.

--- Later in debate ---

We need a scheme that is as good as Dublin III. The Minister says that we will use the UK scheme available for reuniting families from the rest of the world, but the UK scheme is restricted to unaccompanied children joining parents. If a child has fled Syria because their parents have been killed, they have no parents, so they would not qualify. A brother, sister or uncle who happens to be in the UK may be the only surviving relative of some of these kids. The UK scheme as it stands, without a replacement for Dublin III, would ignore all those children.

[Karen Bradley]

It is often said that these are older children aged 14, 15 or 16. I have a 14-year-old, and if my 14-year-old did not have me, I would want to know that they could go to one of my family, be that my brothers or my in-laws. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend is right. I have met many of these children in camps in Calais, in Zaatari in Jordan and in some of the less well-run camps in Greece. These are real children, bereft of parents in many cases, with just a link in the UK. Without this amendment—without a replacement for Dublin III—those children have no obvious safe and legal route to get to the UK.

The Minister rightly says that we have been very generous in this country through various other schemes, and I agree. Some 7,400 family reunion visas were issued in the year to March, and there is also the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the hugely successful Dubs scheme, under which 480 children have come here. Like everybody, I pay tribute to Saint Alf Dubs for the fantastic work he does for this cause. It was a privilege to go to the United Nations and the Zaatari camp in Jordan with him. Of course, the Dubs scheme is full, and none of those other schemes is currently operating. From 1 January, there will be no effective mandatory family reunion scheme either, and there will be no safe and legal route for these children to come to the UK.

I am tough on the illegal migrant channel crossings. I think many of those people who can afford to pay people smugglers are effectively jumping the queue ahead of those who are in refugee camps, who are going through due process and who are abiding by the rules. If we are going to be tough—and, gosh, we need to be tougher on those routes, which line the pockets of people smugglers—we need to make sure we have alternative safe and legal routes for those genuine vulnerable refugees, particularly children, to whom we have a duty of care and can offer a safe haven in this country.

Of course, this has come at the worst time, as we heard from the Labour Front Bencher, after the fires in Lesbos at the beginning of September, in camps that were already five times over capacity, with over 13,000 people residing in a centre built for 2,757. There are now more than 1,600 unaccompanied children on the Greek islands, many whose basic needs are not being met, and many of these children have chronic illnesses. As of last week, there were more than 300 covid cases on Lesbos alone, with a hospital that has capacity for just 50 people. These are deeply vulnerable children, dangerously exposed to people traffickers and other exploitation.

Some 7% of these children are under the age of 14, yet we have no scheme to deal with them, despite having taken many reunification cases earlier in the year for such children. France has taken 350, Portugal 500, and Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia are taking these children. What are we doing about it, Minister? The Government have said we do not have places for them, but more than 30 local authorities have identified 1,400 places if the Government will make the scheme work and will pay the cost of it.

We need a Dubs 2, and we need a family reunion scheme, regardless of Brexit. We need it. We have a great tradition of saving these children; if we do not have it in this Bill, come 1 January, we will have no safe and legal route for very, very vulnerable children.