Economic Crime: Law Enforcement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you. On that basis, only if it can be proven that the directors had a guilty mind and were actually participating in the fraud can they go to jail. That is the wrong approach, and is not what the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 said. The Act said that those who fail to prevent accidents in their workplace could go to jail, and construction deaths dropped in the following year by 90%. We need to put in place an offence such that those who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent and clamp down on fraud can go to jail, without it also being necessary to prove that they deliberately facilitated the fraud. That would make a fundamental difference.

We must support whistleblowers, too. Most of the information on these offences will come not from our enforcement agencies or investigations by regulators, but from people within the organisations. Currently, those people are not protected—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the mover of the motion that the guidance says they have up to 10 minutes, and the hon. Member has now spoken for longer than that times two. Perhaps, with a bit of focus, he will now bring his remarks to a conclusion.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have so much to say on this; I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Finally, as well as beefing up the numbers, we should consider doing what we have done on unexplained wealth orders. Welcome Government legislation that was brought forward in the last Session capped costs for UWOs, and we should consider capping costs for all prosecutions of economic crimes to stop very wealthy individuals preventing our enforcement agencies from taking them to court merely because they have huge financial firepower that is much stronger than ours.

On that, I will conclude. I am very sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have taken so long, but, as I said, I could talk for much longer on this given the chance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I remind the hon. Member that, at the end of the debate, he will have two minutes to conclude, not four. [Laughter.]

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a bizarre day to be debating a really important issue. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it, and it is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), with whom I am working closely on many of these issues. I will say something a bit general before moving on. Have I got 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, or a little bit more?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You are not constrained. All I would say is to focus—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will keep it tight.

It is shocking but true that it was the tragedy of the war in Ukraine that got our Government to start thinking about the serious threat that the country faces, in both our economy and our society, from the spiralling menace of illicit finance and all that goes with it. I have said many times in the House, and I repeat today, that we will never enjoy sustained, good economic prosperity on the back of dirty money. We earned the reputation on which our superb, successful financial sector was built by being a trusted jurisdiction, and we must maintain that. Today, we are in danger of losing that trust.

The US sees us as a high-risk jurisdiction similar to Cyprus, and Londongrad is becoming a popular term among many. We have moved off our perch as the world’s leaders in fighting economic crime. Moody’s has downgraded us, and we are slipping down the ranks of Transparency International’s corruption perception index. Everything is moving in the wrong direction. That is no surprise because, as the hon. Member said, economic crime is now massive. It costs the country £290 billion annually—more than a quarter of the Government’s total public expenditure—and all of us who are concerned with this area know that that figure is conservative. The latest figures from UK Finance that came out last week suggest that in 2020 there was an 8% increase in fraud, which of course is the biggest component of economic crime.

Much illicit finance, but not all, comes from Russia, through Russian companies and Russian individuals. As various Select Committee reports on the subject show, for too long we have turned a blind eye to the threat that Putin’s kleptocratic regime poses to our economy. Why did we do nothing after the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, or after the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in 2018? Those were two brutal attacks on British soil.

We must add to that the findings of a recent report by Buzzfeed News investigations, which established that between 2003 and 2016, there were 14 more suspicious deaths in the UK of individuals who were hostile to the Russian state. I will mention just three of them. Stephen Curtis, the British lawyer who helped the laundering of money—potentially billions of pounds—in the UK for wealthy Russian oligarchs, died in a helicopter crash in 2004. Alexander Perepilichnyy blew the whistle on a multimillion-pound Government fraud in Russia. He flew to Britain, and died of a so-called heart attack when jogging near his home in Surrey in 2012. The coroner’s inquest said that he died of natural causes, but evidence given, I gather, behind closed doors for national security reasons said that there was no natural cause determined. Some suspect that he was poisoned. Boris Berezovsky, who made his wealth during the collapse of the Soviet Union, was famous because he was key in supporting Putin and getting him into power in Russia. In 2013, he was found hanged in his home.

Those are only three of 14 cases, but in all of them the police concluded that the deaths were not suspicious. There was no investigation, or indeed any suggestion that those were Russian state-sanctioned murders, although the US intelligence services told our police that they thought the deaths were likely sanctioned by the Kremlin. Were the police just incompetent? I doubt it. Was there pressure from somewhere else—from either our security services or our Government—to turn a blind eye to the possibility that those were state-sanctioned murders? American intelligence officials told Buzzfeed journalists that Russian killers had been able to kill in Britain with impunity. They said that one of the reasons for the reticence of enforcement agencies to act was

“a desire to preserve the billions of pounds of Russian money that pour into British banks and properties each year.”

As we debate the failures of our enforcement agencies in tackling illicit wealth, we should bear in mind that the problem goes well beyond the funding, the skills and the effectiveness of the enforcement agency. If we are really to eradicate dirty money, we require action on a wide number of fronts, as the all-party parliamentary group for fair business banking and the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax have said. We have put together a good manifesto that could form the start of concerted action to rid us of this terribly bad thing. We talk in the manifesto about action on four fronts. We need smart regulation, much greater transparency, proper accountability and enforcement. We are debating enforcement today.

All those measures are interdependent, and I worry a lot that the Government’s response through the economic crime Bill, which should be with us in the autumn, will be too little and too fragmented. Reform of Companies House, for which we have argued for a long time, is necessary but not sufficient. So are reform of anti-money laundering regulations, and an open register of property owned by foreign countries. We need co-ordinated action on many fronts if we are to clean up dirty Britain.

Today, we are focusing on enforcement. Our performance is abysmal, our record in successfully bringing bad players to account is miserable and our commitment to doing the job properly is questionable. The evidence—the hon. Member already talked about some of it—is overwhelming. The Bribery Act was introduced in 2010, and in the UK we have had 99 criminal convictions and six deferred prosecution agreements. The USA, with a similar legislative framework, has had 236 convictions in the same period. As I understand it—I could not find one, but if I am wrong, I stand to be corrected—we have never pursued a criminal prosecution against a bank for money laundering or sanctions busting. We use civil measures, but never criminal ones. In 2019, we had civil fines of £260 million. In the same year, the Americans pursued criminal action against and secured £2.5 billion from just six banks, and they secured £5 billion in civil fines.

As the hon. Member said—it is worth repeating, because it is so shocking—the Financial Conduct Authority fined HSBC £64 million in 2021 for AML failures, but nearly a decade before, it was fined £1.4 billion in America for AML offences. Standard Chartered is a British bank, so we ought to be the ones who are really responsible for ensuring that it behaves itself. What do we get from it? Fines for wrongdoing under anti-money laundering regulations of £102 million. What do the Americans get? Over 800% more: £842 million. Yet we know from the FinCEN—the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network—files that too many of our banks and too many individuals who work in our banks either passively collude with economic crime, or actively promote and facilitate money launderings. The banks that are implicated are so often the biggest British-based banks: HSBC, Barclays, Standard Chartered.

What we do in Britain is pursue the little businesses, the little men and women who are trying hard to establish new businesses here. That came home to me very much when I chaired the Public Accounts Committee and we had the leaks relating to HSBC—they were called the Falciani leaks. There were more documents relating to British accounts than, I think, for any other nation. There were 3,600 British accounts. At the time, the tax authorities said to us that there was cause for concern with about a third of those. Out of that third—about 1,200—they finally found 150 cases. How many did they pursue? One individual was charged. I could not find, in my search of Google, whether that individual was ever convicted. Look at how other countries dealt with it: every other country managed to charge more people, fine more people and get some compensation. The only thing that happened with us was that Rona Fairhead, now in the House of Lords, was on the board of HSBC at the time and was responsible for the audit committee. I cannot understand how anybody with that responsibility could not have seen a red flag when looking through the accounts from the Swiss branch of HSBC and seeing the profits being secured. The only thing she said was that she declared that the whistleblower was a criminal and that the only thing that HSBC should do was pursue the whistleblower and try to get him imprisoned.

Fraud is the crime that now affects one in 11 adults in the UK, yet convictions for fraud have collapsed by two-thirds in the past three years—cases up and convictions down. The number of criminal cases the Serious Fraud Office, in which we had great confidence, has under investigation has halved over the past three years. There have been some disastrous failures in the courts through the SFO with Serco and Unaoil, where it lost cases simply because it did not share information in a proper way—it failed to disclose relevant material to the defendants. There are lawyers in the Chamber. I am not one, but I cannot believe that it actually did that.

Business without Debate

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Policing Minister for checking the records and the emails, as I requested him to do at the end of the statement earlier, and for correcting the record. Clearly, it was not a last-minute addition, as he had said, to put so many additional deliberate political attacks into the statement. Obviously, it should not have taken my asking such forensic questions to elicit this and to elicit this apology in the first place. Given that this is such an incredibly sensitive and serious subject—the future of the Metropolitan police—and that we have had repeated examples of this, could you use your offices to urge other Departments not to add in these political statements that are not included in the statements that are given to the House? In addition, will you urge Ministers to see this as a lesson to stop playing political games with something so important?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank both right hon. Members for their points of order and their forward notice of them. Clearly, both stand on the record and I am grateful as well that the correction has been made at the earliest possible moment. As for what the right hon. Lady has said, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and will make sure they get noted and followed by all Departments.

National Security Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne]

Perhaps no one in this House has done more than the hon. Gentleman to expose the hybrid warfare and divide-and-rule tactics of Russia, but we are wide open to them, not least because a person can give unlimited amounts of money to political parties if they are laundered through the bank account of a UK citizen. Call it, if you will, the Sheleg manoeuvre.

Ehud Sheleg, no doubt an honourable man, has given £3.3 million to the Conservative party, yet The New York Times revealed that a suspicious activity report from Barclays flagged that £2.5 million moved to Mr Sheleg from his father-in-law in Russia wound up in a UK account that then shifted £450,000 to the Conservative party. The New York Times reported that Barclays flagged the SAR with this statement:

“We are able to trace a clear line back from this donation to its ultimate source… Kopytov”—

the father-in-law—

“can be stated with considerable certainty to have been the true source of the donation.”

Along with a number of other hon. and right hon. Members, I flagged this to the National Crime Agency. A day or two later—the NCA did not spend an awful lot of time looking at this—a letter came back from Steve Rodhouse, its director of operations, which stated:

“As you will be aware, provided a donation comes from a permissible source, and was the decision of the donor themselves, it is permitted under PPERA. This remains the case even if the donor’s funds derived from a gift from an overseas individual.”

That is utter nonsense. It is completely ridiculous. No doubt Mr Sheleg is an honourable man, but the Sheleg manoeuvre could be exploited by all kinds of bad actors.

Finally, we in this House have defended a number of extremely brave journalists and former colleagues, such as Catherine Belton, Tom Burgis, Arabella Pike and Charlotte Leslie, who have all risked everything to raise a red flag about bad actors and threats of foreign influence, yet their thanks have been to be hounded in court by oligarchs who seek to rack up hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal bills to deter such people from telling the truth. If we are to defend whistleblowers, and I am pleased to see that provision in the Bill, surely this is the moment for the House to unite in refining, if not legislating for, a defence for people who make arguments that need such a defence.

We are in new times, and the return of great power competition is upon us. We need new defences, and this Bill is a chance to make good some of those defences now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

On his birthday, last but not least, Steve Baker.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. Again, I feel privileged to be meeting her constituents tomorrow to discuss this and to hear from them precisely how they feel these matters have been handled. Of course, I would expect the investigations team to handle this with extreme care, real sympathy and due regard to the victims’ families, making sure that they are kept informed and that their needs are properly attended to. I hope that through what I am able to say in the remainder of my remarks, I will be able to provide her with reassurance about my thinking on this. I entirely take on board the point she raises about optionality, and the gravity of a death being registered and the desire for families to be involved in that process. I will continue with my remarks and I hope that they will help to provide some of the reassurance that I know she is seeking.

I have been truly sorry to learn, both in previous exchanges with hon. Members and directly from some of the families, that the requirements for registration in these circumstances have added to the pain and distress felt by some of the victims’ families. We have heard this evening about the commitment of the families of Chloe and Liam in fighting for the ability to complete this one final act for their children. I had the privilege of meeting Lisa Rutherford, Chloe’s mum, and Caroline Curry, Liam’s mum, earlier today, and I would like to put on record my thanks for their time and for setting out so clearly why this issue matters to help them with the grieving process. What they have been through is almost impossible to comprehend. Chloe and Liam were clearly exceptional young people who had great talents, and their lives were taken far too soon. That is a terrible tragedy for their families to have to bear and a huge loss not just to their families, but to their wider community, to which they were clearly contributing, in their different ways. In a moment, I will set out the reasons why that responsibility lies with the coroner, rather than the family, in cases involving an inquest, but first I want to restate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that bereaved families remain at the heart of the coroner service. With that in mind, I want to stress that I am committed to learning, both from the specific concerns we are debating tonight and from the families’ wider experience of the formal processes following the Manchester Arena attack.

But now let me explain the reasons behind the existing arrangements for registering a death following an inquest and, crucially, why they differ from the registration of deaths where no inquest has taken place. The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 requires all death registrations to be completed by a registrar. For the majority of deaths, a “qualified informant” provides the information recorded in the register, and this is supported by a cause of death certificate provided by either a medical practitioner or a coroner. The “qualified informant” is usually a family member, and I understand that it is this role that some families, such as those of Liam and Chloe, want to be able to fulfil. But where an inquest takes place, as it has for the Manchester Arena victims, it is, by law, the inquest process itself that must establish the deceased person’s identity and the details of how, when and where they died. To ensure that the inquest and registration details fully align, it is also a legal requirement that, following the inquest, this information is provided to the registrar by the coroner. Because of these requirements, there is no further information that the family can provide for the purposes of registration, over and above what has been established by the inquest and submitted by the coroner. I understand, of course, that the families whom the hon. Members for South Shields and for Garston and Halewood are representing, and others like them, want to have a role in the registration of their loved one’s death. So I also understand why they are pressing for a change in the law to support that. I can assure both hon. Members and the House more widely that I am actively following up on my commitment to consider, as quickly as possible, whether there might be an appropriate solution to this difficult and sensitive issue, with which I have real sympathy.

We must also remember that, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood alluded to, many bereaved families, having already experienced the inquest process, might find that the additional responsibility of registering the death adds to their distress rather than eases it. We know that to be the case in some circumstances and for some families, so choice is important. Some families may not want to have to attend the register office to be questioned again about the information they have already provided in the inquest. Some families might not be able to do so, or simply may not understand that they are expected to carry out the responsibility. We have some insight into this from the fact that a number of deaths—around 200 or so each year—remain unregistered because there has not been an inquest and the bereaved family, for whatever reason, do not follow up on the necessary process.

Given the need to balance different experiences and wishes, I have discussed with both hon. Members the possibility of providing families with the choice, rather than an obligation, to be involved in the registration arrangements. We have also discussed options relating to combining the family’s involvement with the coroner’s existing role. Those are possibilities but, as our discussion this evening has shown, this is a complex issue that involves more than one system. As such, we have to be mindful of a real concern about the potential for unintended consequences. This issue needs to be thought through carefully and sensitively. We must not make any changes that, although well-intentioned, might cause confusion or additional stress for bereaved families because of additional complexity in the system.

I absolutely reiterate my commitment to looking at this issue with the utmost priority and to keeping both hon. Members updated every step of the way. I hope that the families of Chloe and Liam will be able to take comfort from the fact that, by raising this very important issue for the sake of the loved ones they have lost, they have provided a voice not only for others bereaved by the dreadful events of five years ago but for the families who, sadly, will lose loved ones in difficult circumstances in times to come. I hope they will see this debate as part of the legacy they have been working to establish in their loved ones’ names and memories, to which I pay tribute. I also pay tribute to the charitable work that the hon. Member for South Shields set out.

In addition to looking at whether we can introduce choice for families, I will look at how information for the bereaved at inquests can be improved to ensure that the arrangements for the registration of their loved one’s death is clearly explained to them as early as possible in the investigation process—an issue we have touched on in previous conversations on this issue.

It remains for me only to thank hon. Members once again for the opportunity to discuss this issue tonight, and to say to the families of Liam and Chloe, to the constituents of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, and to all those affected by the terrible events of five years ago, that my thoughts are with you at this very difficult time, and for the future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for holding this debate and for the manner in which she presented her argument. All our thoughts are with the families and friends of the victims—those who died and those who live with injuries—of that appalling attack.

Question put and agreed to.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind everybody that those participating in the debate are expected to be here for the wind-ups. There will be wind-ups today and on subsequent days, unlike yesterday. I will not put a time limit on speeches at the moment, but I urge people to be at least aware of the length of their speeches.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 1)—Nationality, HC 764; Ninth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 3)—Immigration offences and enforcement, HC 885; Eleventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 5)—Modern Slavery, HC 964; Twelfth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4)—Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders, HC 1007; Tenth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill: Government Responses to the Committee’s Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and Twelfth Reports, HC 1208; Correspondence between the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Tom Pursglove MP, Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration, relating to Part 2 (Asylum) and Part 5 (Modern Slavery) of the Nationality and Borders Bill, HC 588, dated 17 November 2021; Correspondence between Tom Pursglove MP, Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration, and the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to Part 2 (Asylum) and Part 5 (Modern Slavery) of the Nationality and Borders Bill, HC 588, dated 25 November 2021.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 10B and 26B. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4G.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 5B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7C, and Government motion to disagree,

Lords amendment 8B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8C, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53C, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 53D, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 11B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 13B, and Government motion to disagree and to insist on disagreement with Lords amendment 15.

Lords amendment 20B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 24B.

Lords amendment 25B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 26B, and Government motion to disagree.

Before I call the Minister to speak to the Lords amendments, I must inform the House that there will be a three-minute speaking limit from the outset. That will not apply to Ministers, but they will want to be brief anyway, because they will want to be popular with Back Benchers on both sides of the House.

[Tom Pursglove]

I will be as brief as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.

These are amendments that we have already debated, voted on and sent back to the other place, expressing our dissatisfaction with them.

The world is facing a crisis of migration. An estimated 80 million people are displaced by conflicts and instability around the world. Others seek to move in search of improved economic opportunities. Managing migration and welcoming and effectively supporting those most in need, while protecting borders and closing down the dangerous business of people smuggling is one of the difficult public policy challenges faced by any Government. That is why we have developed the new plan for immigration and this Bill, which is its legislative framework.

Amendments 8B and 8C require one or more returns agreements to be in place with a safe third country before the inadmissibility provisions in clause 15 can be brought into force. As I have said many times before, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I will not say any more over and above that which I have already set out this afternoon. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary provided further detail on this yesterday, and I refer the House to the points that she made.

This bespoke international agreement is in full compliance with domestic and international law. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 refugee convention and the seven core UN human rights conventions, with a strong history of supporting refugees. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear yesterday that this partnership is the type of international co-operation that we need to make the global immigration system fairer, keep people safe, and give them opportunities to flourish. This is just one part of the system-wide reform that we promised to deliver in the new plan for immigration.

The objective of the Rwanda partnership announced last week is to create a mechanism for the relocation of individuals whose claims are not being considered by the UK—the inadmissible—to Rwanda, which will then process their claims. However, in future, we may wish to extend eligibility for overseas processing to those who have otherwise abused the UK’s asylum system, beyond undertaking dangerous or unnecessary journeys. That is the intention of this measure, which will make it easier for us to remove those who have pending asylum claims to another country for their claims to be processed.

Let me remind the House—I have set this out already, but it bears repeating—that the powers set out in clause 28 via schedule 3 are not new. For nearly 20 years, it has been possible under UK law to remove individuals from the UK while their asylum claim is pending if a certificate is issued under schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The measure in the Bill amends existing legal frameworks to make it easier to remove such individuals without going through a certification process, provided the country to which they are being removed meets the safety criteria that we have set out in the Bill. It is important to bear in mind that the asylum system is already very expensive. At an annual cost of around £1.5 billion, it is the highest in more than two decades. Every day, the cost of the broken system on hotels alone is nearly £5 million. We therefore cannot accept these amendments.

I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their attendance at this important debate today. I urge them to consider that this Bill is what the British people have given us a mandate to deliver and to vote with the Government to send a message to the other place that what has been proposed is not accepted by this House. The Bill secures our borders, ensures that those who need our help will receive it and, as each of us here sincerely want, will save countless lives being risked crossing the channel each and every day when people traffickers realise that this is not a viable occupation for them any more.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Multiple votes will begin no later than 5.48 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would like to use my three minutes, which have not come up on the clock yet, to focus on Lords amendment 6B. It is truly damning of the Government’s conduct that they oppose an amendment that merely seeks to guarantee refugees their rights under the 1951 UN refugee convention.

There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker under international law, yet under the Government’s plans, unlike refugees who have arrived on officially sanctioned routes, group 2 refugees—I will focus on them—who are deemed to have arrived in the UK in an illegitimate manner will only be offered temporary protection status and will have no recourse to public funds. As chair of the all-party group on no recourse to public funds, I am only too aware of its devastating human impacts. The Bill would further expand the number of people without access to public funds such as welfare benefits and housing assistance, and thereby ensure that thousands more refugees a year fleeing war and persecution are at increased risk of falling into destitution and homelessness once they have reached the UK.

If this Government were truly interested in the wellbeing of refugees, they would build a support network and safety net to enable those who have sought refuge in the UK to live comfortably and have fruitful lives, rather than chip away at existing support and create a tiered system. I urge all Members to support Lords amendment 6B to ensure that refugees living in the UK are not forced into poverty and destitution.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Sally-Ann Hart to speak until 5.47 pm.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be quick and focus on Lords amendment 7. The question whether asylum seekers are able to undertake work after six months was raised in March, when the Bill was last debated in this House. Replying to our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), spoke about getting casework right. Will he confirm that the measures in the Bill, together with the UK and Rwanda economic development partnership, will mean that there should be no asylum seekers still in a state of limbo, waiting for their asylum status to be determined, after six months, and that such an amendment is therefore not needed?

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank Members across the House for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate on issues that are of the utmost importance. I would argue that there is a moral imperative to act that underpins the Government’s approach in addressing the challenges. It simply is not good enough for people to say what they do not want and what they do not like: when criticising and arguing that something is wrong, they have to present a credible alternative plan, particularly if they have ambitions to govern. This Bill delivers our comprehensive plan—the only credible plan—to address these issues. Now is the time to get on and deliver it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have to give some information before putting the Question. I have been given an indication that there is likely to be in the order of 11 Divisions this evening. Ten minutes will be allowed for the first and eight minutes for every one following, so I advise people to stay near the Lobbies. Hopefully, we will get through this as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We understand that one pass reader is out in the No Lobby. They are going to try to reboot it before the next vote, but at the moment, like a parking meter, it has one of those hoods over it, so clearly do not use that one.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 58 but proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government motion that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 72B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Amendment (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 72B.

Government motion that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73, insists on its amendment 74A to Lords amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 74B to that amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87, insists on its amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73 and additional amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87.

Government motion that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 80, insists on its amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E and 80F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with that amendment, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 80G instead of the words left out by that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 80.

[Kit Malthouse]

Our position on Lords amendment 58 has always been that we accept the case in principle that the Food Standards Agency should have direct access to relevant police powers to enable it to tackle food crime, but that such powers should be accompanied by appropriate accountability mechanisms, including in relation to the investigation of complaints. Lords amendment 58 was inadequate to the task, but as the disagreement between the two Houses was not one of principle, we have now brought forward amendments 58C to 58E in lieu, which seek to put a comprehensive legislative framework in place.

The amendments do four things. First, they allow the regulations to be made, conferring relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers on the Food Standards Agency; we are principally concerned here with search and seizure powers. Secondly, they will enable regulations to apply provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 relating to drawing inferences from a suspect’s failure to account for their presence at a particular place. Thirdly, the amendments create an offence of obstructing a food crime officer in the execution of the functions conferred on them under new section 114C of PACE. Fourthly, they amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to bring the National Food Crime Unit within the remit of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I trust that the amendments will be welcomed by both sides of the House, notwithstanding the unfortunate way they were made in the other place.

I move on to Lords amendment 72B. I am pleased that the other place has seen reason in abandoning plans to make misogyny a hate crime, given that the Law Commission identified risks that the plans could generally prove counterproductive for women and girls. The Lords have, nevertheless, tabled an alternative. It would still mandate the police recording of crimes that effectively amount to hostility on grounds of sex or gender, although, perhaps recognising the Law Commission’s warnings, it does so without any attendant powers to recognise such crimes in court. The amendment would also introduce a new stand-alone offence related to harassment or intimidation that is aggravated by hostility towards sex or gender.

On matters of police recording, I assure Members that the issue requires no legislation. During the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government committed to asking the police to collect such data and they are still in discussions with forces to take that forward. I acknowledge that the other place thinks that the commitment is moving too slowly. My noble Friend, Baroness Williams of Trafford, was completely frank that we ought to accelerate our efforts; I share that sentiment.

However, judging from the debate in the other place, the purpose of the amendment appears to be based on the premise that any delay is explained by police foot dragging; as such, legislation would serve to turn up the heat on reticent forces. That is not a fair characterisation. We need to move more quickly, but the remaining teething issues are of an entirely technical nature, as we decide on the best approach and reconcile a number of different approaches by those forces already recording that kind of data. Wielding a bigger stick through legislation may confer a frisson of virtue, but unfortunately it misdiagnoses the problem. It is also particularly important that we take extra care over the design of our approach in light of the Law Commission’s finding on existing local police recording efforts. Quoting an independent review, it noted that the experience in Nottinghamshire has

“not been associated with increased reporting”.

We want to understand why and then improve on that outcome. What we simply need to do now is resolve a number of points of implementation with forces. We are committed to moving more rapidly in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

You all heckled me from a seated position, so why can I not do the same?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Sarah Jones]

Indeed the Minister can heckle me from a seated position, but it does not make him right. Under the provisions in this Bill, protesters could be criminalised if the police determine that they are too noisy. We have suggested amendments, and the Lords have done the same. Conservative Members have expressed significant disquiet at the timing of such a draconian intervention. Why on earth is the Home Secretary pushing ahead with plans to stop protests that make noise? The police have never asked for these provisions, and I doubt they would ever use them. The public did not ask for them, and Members from the Home Secretary’s own party did not call for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

It is about noise. Read your own amendment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The Minister is being very noisy at the moment.

[Sarah Jones]

Perhaps the Minister wants to stand up and make another speech, but I will carry on. The Home Secretary is pushing amendments that the police do not want and did not ask for, and that the public do not want and did not ask for. Why are the Government so constantly out of step with public opinion?

Part 3 of the Bill targets protests for being too noisy. It provides a trigger for imposing conditions on public assemblies, public processions and one-person protests if a protest is too noisy. It includes vague terms such as “serious annoyance” or the subjective notion of being too noisy, which create a very low threshold for police-imposed conditions and essentially rule out entirely peaceful protests. Lord Coaker in the other place has read the Government’s definitions of “too noisy”. Double glazing is a threshold. If someone is organising a demonstration and they are going to be noisy, they need to find areas where buildings have double glazing. You could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

One person’s “too noisy” is another person’s “not loud enough”. Keeping these provisions on noise will invite all sorts of problems of interpretation for the police in trying to agree on what “too noisy” might mean. The Opposition want these provisions removed from the Bill. Lords amendment 73 removes the trigger on noise related to public processions; Lords amendment 87 removes the trigger on noise related to one-person protests; and we support the leave-out amendment 80 to remove the clause from the Bill altogether, as well as Lords amendment 80G, which accepts a definition of “serious disruption” being added to the Bill, but removes from it any mention of noise.

The Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have made one small concession on noise by removing the term “serious unease” from a range of conditions under which police can restrict protest. I am glad that the Government have partially admitted that the term should never have made it on to the statute book. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has said, and as Liberty and others have pointed out, however, the drafting has unintended consequences. Now the police will be able to impose conditions on protests that they believe may cause persons to suffer “alarm or distress”. There no need for it even to be “serious” alarm or distress. We have a better solution, and a way for the Government to fix this legislative mess. All they have to do is support our amendments.

In the MPs’ offices in 1 Parliament Street that look over Whitehall and Parliament Square, MPs—including me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary—and their staff work with near-constant background noise coming from protests, be it loud music, singing or speeches. Of course it is annoying, and it can be very distracting, but that is the point of protests—to capture our attention, because they have something to say. I urge Members across this House to ask themselves tonight why they would vote for legislation that could criminalise singing in the street.

At this late stage of the Bill’s journey, we are debating specific amendments. Members all know that voting against the Government’s public order amendment tonight does not mean voting against other measures in the Bill or stopping it from passing. The time for that has come and gone. It would simply mean that Members do not want to vote through measures that restrict peaceful protest based on noise. When Members walk through the voting Lobby this evening, I hope they have the voices of those protesting for Ukraine ringing in their ears.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I ask those wishing to catch my eye to stand. There are about five. I am going to impose a five-minute limit—not everybody is going to get in—and I want to leave five minutes for the Minister to respond at the end. As Members know, Divisions will take place at five to eight.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will do my best within a five-minute limit. Normally, I have only just cleared my throat after minute four, but I will strive within the constraints you have placed on me.

I rise to speak to the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 72B, regarding a response to the Law Commission. I welcome it, and I think it is sensible to set out a timetable on which the Government will respond to those recommendations. To cut to the quick, I make no bones about the fact that I think we need to improve the law on street harassment. The current deficiency in the law on harassment and stalking is that it requires a course of conduct. That will not cover a whole range of crimes that are committed against women, in particular, on the streets of our country every day. I had hoped that we would be able to deal with the matter in the Bill, but I am realistic and I understand the constraints under which the Government work.

Of course, I respect the Law Commission, which is an excellent body. When I was Lord Chancellor, I helped to make sure that its funding was put on a more even keel. Its work is of a very high standard and we should be proud of it. I, for one, will not therefore seek to overturn the proposal, even if I do not quite agree with the answer. Having said that, and with respect to the Law Commission, I do not think its recommendation about a sexually motivated offence is the right answer; I think that would be to narrow it too much. I would be looking for an offence that was wider in definition and covered a variety of behaviours. It might include specific statutory reference to misogyny as a motivation or demonstration based on sex or gender, but that could equally be dealt with in sentencing guidelines.

I say that because when I looked again at the sentencing guidelines for intimidatory offences, I saw the word “sex” included as one of the factors determining culpability. That is a departure from previous guidelines that I have worked with. This guideline came in back in 2018, and I was not immediately familiar with it because I moved on from the role of Law Officer shortly thereafter. I was struck by the fact that we already have that important word in guidelines that the court has to take into account in sentencing. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that matter in the round. It seems to me that because of those guidelines, police and prosecutors should already be working to gather evidence where there is a crime of intimidation, and where that aggravating factor may well be present.

I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister that I regarded the undertaking that we made during proceedings on the Domestic Abuse Bill as a solemn one. I am, frankly, disappointed and impatient that we have not made the progress we should have done on reporting and collating this information. We need to get on with that, because we need that body and wealth of information well before the commencement or bringing into force of any new offence that particularly affects women and girls. I see no reason for excuses or shilly-shallying around this issue. I note in particular the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) about that. She has tailored it particularly carefully around that reporting right. I am prepared to give my right hon. Friend one last chance on this, but I will not be going any further, because I think that now is the time for us to get on with this, frankly.

I note that in the other place, my name was taken and referred to as if I was the architect of the amendments. It is no false modesty on my part to say I really was not, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for the discussions we have had. She has always sought to be constructive. We are trying to find our way through this thicket to offer more protection for women and girls. Let us not beat around the bush: that is why we are all here and it is what we should be pressing the case upon. That is why our lordships rightly have asked us to think again.

I do not share my right hon. Friend the Minister’s cynicism about the Lords. They have an important role to play on issues such as this, where we have detail. Where I do have an issue is with the increasing practice in the other place of challenging the underlying philosophy of Bills, which I do not think is their role. On issues such as this, they have an important part to play. We have men and women there who speak with authority—certainly on this issue—and I am grateful to them for their careful consideration.

We are nearly there. We are now in the right area on harassment. I will be happy to give my right hon. Friend the leeway that he needs, but on reporting, the watchword has to be, “We need to get on with this, and soon.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Scottish National party, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The SNP remains totally opposed to the dreadfully drafted and totally excessive restrictions on protest contained in part 3 of the Bill, and we do so for all the many reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) has set out in previous stages, so I can be relatively brief.

The truth is that the Government know they have comprehensively lost the arguments on this, so they are left reassuring us that the powers will not actually be used and that noisy protest will not be banned altogether, and providing a hotchpotch of examples, many of which would already be caught by existing public order provisions. The Minister even made reference to discos. While I would love there to be a fundamental right to disco, or whatever the modern terminology is, that is not remotely comparable to a protest and the fundamental right to protest.

We just cannot legislate in this way. We cannot hand over draconian powers on the basis that Home Office Ministers reassure us that they or the police will use these powers exceptionally, rather than ubiquitously. Any restriction on fundamental rights must be carefully justified, carefully set out and carefully circumscribed, but the protest provisions in the Bill are as far from careful as could be imagined. They remain vague, confusing, opaque and incredibly subjective, and they trigger police powers to intervene in protest at an unbelievably inappropriate and low level. They make it hard for people to understand what they might or might not be able to do.

For the reasons that the shadow Minister set out, the powers are verging on the absurd. We have seen Ministers being drawn into debates about whether the presence of double-glazing might impact on whether a protest could be subject to restrictions. Even this evening, we have been drawn into debate about next-door neighbours and whether a protest at the Russian embassy would be okay if the next-door neighbour was a bunch of officers, but might not be okay if it was an old folks’ home. That is the level of absurdity.

All of these powers are dreadful from the point of view of the rule of law, of human rights and of democracy itself. On the other hand, the powers might also prove to be a poisoned chalice for police forces, which will struggle to justify any of their decision making on objective grounds or to defend themselves against charges that they are being political in their decision making, and that will be true whether or not they actually use the powers.

As the shadow Minister said, it is welcome that the concept of serious unease is being removed, but the point I made to the Minister was not properly addressed. The expression in the Bill as it stands is

“serious unease, alarm or distress”.

The Government are not just taking out the word “unease”; they are taking out the word “serious” alongside it. That means that the threshold is not “serious” alarm or “serious” distress, but just “alarm or distress”. As I said in my intervention, the Home Secretary has made a concession on the one hand, but she is taking much more away with the other, and that point has not been answered in any way, shape or form.

Frankly, these provisions are beyond saving. They are a botched, rushed job, just so that the Home Secretary could say that she was doing something about certain protests that she did not like—no matter to her, it seems, that her legislation significantly impacts on the fundamental right to protest more generally. There is nothing left for it but to continue to insist that the whole lot comes out. The Government’s arguments have fallen to pieces, and I regard it as dreadful that they continue to try to bulldoze these provisions through Parliament. We will vote against the relevant Government motion to disagree, and I hope that the other place will continue to resist these utterly unjustifiable restrictions on the right to protest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I will touch briefly on all three areas under debate this evening. On food crime, I am delighted that we have got to what seems a sensible, workable compromise. It tells something about the attitude of the Home Office and this Government in general to Parliament and the other place that for something as prosaic as this it has taken two rounds of ping-pong before the Government have been prepared to accept what was surely to the rest of the world blindingly obvious. I welcome the fact that we have got there nevertheless.

On the issue of misogyny, there is little I could add to the excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I might have had some more sympathy 20 to 25 years ago for some of the arguments that the Minister advanced, but I have seen the way in which interaction with the criminal justice system has been transformed for so many different groups in our communities, in relation to racial aggravation, religious aggravation and the rest of it, and this measure is surely long overdue. A consultation, such as is being offered by the Minister, just does not cut it. If the Government were to have the courage of our convictions and to go ahead with an amendment such as the one tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, they would be doing something transformative in the way in which the police interact with women and girls, and are seen by them.

On noise protest, it will not be lost on the House that when I asked the Minister about the test to be applied he said that he would come to it later, but then did not do so, as he did not have any meaningful answer. As things stand, it is incredibly widely drawn and it takes us back to what used to be the situation in Scotland, where we described a breach of the peace as, “Anything that two cops did not quite like to the look of”. Things have advanced somewhat since then, but the broad definitions we are being asked to accept tonight are a retrograde step. Tellingly, the only answer the Minister had was, “Well, we’ve got courts who will look at these things and define them.” It is the job of this place, Parliament, when we are passing legislation, to give proper definition; we should not be subcontracting that to the courts, especially not on something as important as the right to protest. If that degree of uncertainty is left hanging, it is not difficult to see that there will quickly come to be a chilling effect. When we are dealing with legislation governing the right to protest, definition—the right of the individual to know exactly where they stand in relation to the police and the courts—is crucial. That is why it would be irresponsible of this House to allow the Government to have their way. If I were a frontline police officer or prosecutor, I would see this as an absolute poisoned chalice and I would not want to have anything to do with it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Geraint, you will have to sit down at 7.50.

[Geraint Davies]

I have just come back from Lithuania. Hundreds of women have escaped to there, having lost their democracy as a result of Putin’s bombing and his oppressing his people at home. At the same time, we have a situation in Hong Kong where democracy is being taken away. Yet here we are taking away the right to peaceful protest, which has given us the suffragettes, climate change activists, peace campaigners and trade unions. This horrific bit of legislation will completely undermine the right of trade unionists to picket, at a difficult time in our economic evolution; it is purely terrible and it should not be brought forward. It is completely unnecessary, it will be very damaging to trade union relationships and it will drive protests underground, which, taken alongside the right for covert intelligence agents to act above the law, may lead to unintended consequences and will put the public at risk. Democracy and our public are at risk from this dreadful Bill, and it should be reversed as quickly as possible.

[Kit Malthouse]

It is traditional to express gratitude to Members for contributing to a debate, but after that nonsense, I am afraid that I cannot unequivocally offer that.

I welcome the support across the House for the amendments in lieu on food crime. I am afraid that amendment (c)—which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—in lieu of Lords amendment 72B is unnecessary and misdirected, despite her attempts to patronise me. It is unnecessary because, as I said, the Government have already committed to collecting the data that is described and they have additionally committed to consulting on a new public sexual harassment offence before the summer recess. It is misdirected because the Government’s original amendment responds directly to a specific recommendation of the Law Commission. Furthermore, our commitment to consult on a public sexual harassment offence speaks to another Law Commission recommendation that we explore the merits of such an offence, as well as the significant attention to that issue in our previous debates. I take into account the entreaties from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) to go faster and harder on this matter.

By contrast, the idea of contemplating that any additional new offence addresses

“intimidatory offences aggravated by sex or gender”

is untethered to any particular rationale or proper discussion to date. In fact, I would go further in saying that we need to move away from the preoccupation with hate crime laws. I was struck by the words of Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws in the other place:

“Most men do not hate women, but somehow from boyhood they breathe in this sense of entitlement”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 797.]

However, Lords amendment 58B focuses not on addressing that entitlement, but on hostility—the legal test for hate crimes. The broader point by the Law Commission is that the concept is naturally unsuited to confronting the widespread and abhorrent behaviour most often directed against women and girls. Hate crime laws instead turn on those visceral occasions that befit the word “hatred”, such as a racial slur uttered during a crime.

The fact that hate crime legal models are poorly attuned to the sorts of behaviour that we want to tackle was put very well by Rape Crisis in the Law Commission’s report, which said of crimes against women and girls that

“these crimes are rooted in power and control, not hatred, making the gender/sex an ill-fitting protected characteristic in the hate crime framework.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) made the same point in the last debate on this matter.

The point is that we need to think carefully about the right model for the particular problem that we want to address. An entirely bespoke solution, which addresses the root drivers of this behaviour, is more likely to succeed. The alternative, as proposed in Lords amendment 58B, is an offence that is poorly targeted and consequently never used, so let us now do the proper groundwork—I give an undertaking that we will do that—in identifying the right legal solution to the particular nature of these crimes. I hope that all Opposition Members will contribute to the consultation that we have committed to introducing before the recess. We are already exploring whether a public sexual harassment offence is that solution, and that is what the Law Commission also spoke about.

On the Lords amendments relating to public order, we have heard yet again the ridiculously misconceived claims that are peddled about these amendments. The Public Order Act has always sought to balance the right to peaceful protest with the rights of others to go about their daily lives. All we are doing is a modest updating of a legal framework that is more than 35 years old—I thought that would have been supported by the party who banned any protest within a kilometre and a half of Parliament—and does not reflect the realities of policing protests in the third decade of the 21st century.

To suggest that any amount of noise and disruption is acceptable is saying to the British public, adversely affected by a protest, that their rights do not matter and that they should just put up with it. Their rights do matter. Of course, we must accept that protests can be disruptive and cause inconvenience, but a line must be drawn somewhere, and the provisions in the Bill simply enable the police to draw that line where it becomes necessary and proportionate to place restrictions on a protest to protect the rights of others.

It is more than a year since the Bill was introduced. It has been thoroughly debated and scrutinised by both Houses. The unelected and, as I said, partially hereditary House has exercised its right to ask us to consider certain matters again. We have done so once already. We should again send these amendments back to the Lords, and that House should now accept the will of this democratically elected House and let the Bill pass.

Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 58 and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

A Division was called.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There do not appear to be any Tellers, so I am calling the Division off.

Question agreed to.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin at 12 minutes past 4, as the Minister has kindly agreed to truncate his wind-up to get more time in. We are going to a three-minute limit. At roughly 18 minutes past 4, we are expecting multiple Divisions.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The events in Ukraine in the past month have shown how quickly millions of lives can be thrown into chaos by war and violence, and how individuals can find themselves dependent on asylum or sanctuary afforded by other countries. The British people, yet again, have shown themselves willing to offer financial support and to offer up their homes for refugees. I take issue with the comments of the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), about the Bill. The Bill is absolutely appalling and inhumane. The British people I know are caring, compassionate and welcoming of all refugees, and we should welcome refugees from wherever they are fleeing violence, war and famine.

Unfortunately, the Government are completely out of touch with that sentiment in their new plan for immigration. The Bill cuts across everything that we should stand for in this country. It breaches international laws, violates basic principles of justice and runs completely counter to what is needed. It will cause greater inequity and harm communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

Let us be very clear. Currently, illegal economic migrants are entering this country across the English channel from a safe mainland European country, France. That situation is totally unacceptable to the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, because they believe in fairness and they believe in doing things by the book.

People with a legitimate claim to come to our country to escape persecution and flee for their lives are being put at the bottom of the list because of people who are illegally entering our country via small boats—and what do the Opposition parties think? They support the Lords amendments, which would simply make it even easier for people to try to come across the channel, making a dangerous journey, risking their lives and putting money into the hands of criminal gangs. Let us not forget that 70% of the individuals who are currently making that channel crossing are men, predominantly single men in their 20s and 30s. Let us not forget that it is women and children who are most at risk: they are being left at home, where they are being persecuted.

The Labour party thinks that people in places like Stoke-on-Trent are racist because 73% voted for Brexit. It thinks that they are thick and uncompassionate, despite the fact that we are the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme in our United Kingdom. That is why Stoke-on-Trent kicked Labour out, and why the people there will not want it back any time soon. Labour does not understand that when people voted for this Government and elected, for the first time ever, a Conservative Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, North Kidsgrove and Talke, they did so because they wanted to take back control—which is what they did in 2016 when they voted for Brexit. The out-of-touch wokerati on the Opposition Benches are constantly obsessed with being popular with Twitter and Londoners, so this does not surprise me one bit.

As for the Scottish National party, only one Scottish local authority takes part in the asylum dispersal scheme. To be fair, it is Glasgow, the largest contributor to the scheme. Despite the pontificating, the grandstanding and the virtue-signalling, the fact is that the SNP does not stand up and help out as it should. It is about time that Scotland did its bit, went out and signed up. The Minister is on the Front Bench: let SNP Members go and sign the paperwork with him, and let us get refugees into local authority areas in Scotland. Stoke-on-Trent is doing its bit. It is about time that others, whether in the north Islington coffee bar elites or the Scottish National party-run local authorities, did their bit as well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Alison Thewliss, whom I must ask to sit down at 4.12 pm.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I must say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) that Glasgow is far more diverse and far more welcoming of refugees than he will ever be. We in Glasgow are proud to welcome refugees. We are proud of our diversity I have been inundated with emails from my constituents about this anti-refugee Bill, and not one of those emails has been in support of the Government’s position, or of this anti-refugee Bill which will punish people who are fleeing from war, persecution and female genital mutilation in countries around the world.

In the past seven years I have dealt with 1,853 immigration cases, and all of them have been riddled with Home Office incompetence and Home Office indifference to the plight of my constituents, whom I value and whom I want to be welcome in Glasgow. That indifference and that incompetence are deliberate. They are meant to make people feel unwelcome, and they run absolutely contrary to everything that my constituents stand for. I am very proud that those in Kenmure Street in Pollokshields came out of their houses when they saw the attempts to take people away in Home Office vans and said, “These are our neighbours—let them go.” Glasgow welcomes refugees, and we want nothing to do with this vicious Bill.

Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I can fully appreciate why asking for bank details and the things that we might normally ask for in the immigration system might be an entirely unreasonable request to somebody who has escaped their home in Ukraine with whatever they could carry. I am very happy to look at that case to see whether our decision makers are acting appropriately in terms of what they are asking for. I do not think that it is appropriate, for example, to be asking for bank details from Ukraine at this time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have to leave that there. We have done eight minutes more than was allocated for the urgent question. Clearly, with this crisis ongoing, there will be other opportunities for urgent questions and statements. More than 20 people were still rising to speak at the end of the urgent question. We will look to ensure that they get prioritised in future.

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

Having been his Whip, I know my hon. Friend is always brimming with ideas about initiatives that the Government can take forward. He makes a rather good suggestion and it is certainly something I am mindful of and want to take away and consider. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have heard extremely difficult testimony from individuals who have suffered the pain and trauma of these sorts of marriages. They have talked bravely about the impact that that has had on them, their families and their lives. It is important that we help them to share their stories in a way that they are comfortable with, to ensure that we drive awareness of these changes. I am always keen to do media interviews about positive announcements, as he will appreciate, but often hearing directly from survivors of this sort of unacceptable abuse is the most powerful testimony and will be inspirational in generating that greater awareness, ensuring that people know exactly the signs to spot and articulating the measures that we are taking to clamp down on this.

On the Scotland and Northern Ireland plea, I must respect that the devolved Administrations are independent. Indeed, we have taken great care to respect the devolution settlement, hence the amendments made today, ensuring that the law covers only those situations where there is a clear link to England and Wales. We in England and Wales are levelling up, tackling the awful practice of child marriage. I have put on the record in the House, and will repeat now, my wholehearted hope that Scotland and Northern Ireland will follow our lead. Colleagues in Edinburgh and Belfast cannot fail to have heard the unanimous backing for these vital measures in the House. We have all committed to eliminating child marriage by 2030 under the UN sustainable development goals. Setting a strong example at home will also help to tackle the issue globally. Leadership by example is crucial in that regard.

I have no doubt that the passionate campaign that we have seen in Westminster will now focus its energies on Edinburgh and Belfast with great vigour. I hope that Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues in this House, from all parties, will want to take this forward and champion the agenda in the devolved areas. That is important advocacy. They ought to consider taking up that baton to help the campaign in any way they can.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for introducing this important Bill. I also reiterate, wholeheartedly, the Government’s support for it. It is an enormous privilege to be the victims Minister. One reason for that is that I come across exceptional people who have been through so much and show great courage, despite the trauma, distress, sadness, hurt and upset that they feel. Often, they put others first to ensure that the harm, suffering and distress that they feel does not happen to others. A remarkable group of people have been involved in this work and I wish briefly to pay tribute to and thank them. Naomi, Natasha, Farhana, Sara, Payzee, Charlotte, Lubna and Nana—thank you for the work you have done on this issue. Your advocacy has been extraordinary. I have no doubt that the work that you have done, the courage that you have shown and the effort that you have put in will change the lives of thousands of young people in our country for the better.

I am delighted that we are joined in the House today by the Lathams. I thank Derek, Tracey, Poppy and Harry for your superb support for wife, for mum, for grandma who has done something very special. We are hugely grateful to her and incredibly proud of her, and I know that you will be as well. We just all join in that tribute.

This may not be a long Bill, but the impact is far-reaching, and many lives will be changed for the better because of it. On what is a dark day in our world, this is a chink of light and one that all of us in this House and across the country can welcome. With that, I thank my officials for the work that they have done to bring this forward: the Bill manager, Alice Harrison; Andrew Lewis; Rachel Stark; Nichola Henderson; and Joanna Norris as well as those in my private office, particularly Thomas McDonald, and Minister Maclean’s private office as well. Everybody who has been involved in the Bill can be incredibly proud of it. I wish it a speedy passage through the House of Lords and I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is now my pleasure to call my friend who apparently is going to give her name to an Act—perhaps.