Oral Answers to Questions

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We recognise that the future system must work for the valuable industries that make this nation great. We are working with many businesses and employers, including some in the sectors that my hon. Friend has listed, to ensure there is proper engagement which will achieve precisely what he has described.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

On Thursday night, a 17-year-old schoolboy visiting Canterbury from Germany was violently attacked in our city centre. He is now fighting for his life. I thank the Home Secretary for intervening personally to enable the boy’s family to travel to be at his bedside, and I am extremely grateful for his—and his team’s—rapid response, kindness and hard work over the weekend. In the light of this awful incident, will he please reassure me that he is listening carefully to the grave concerns that are being expressed about the dwindling number of police on our streets?

[Sajid Javid]

I was very concerned to hear about that case when the hon. Lady contacted me, and I am pleased that the young man’s parents are now at his bedside. I can give her the assurance for which she has asked. We have a big police funding settlement this year, which is leading to the biggest increase in police numbers since 2010.

Draft Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 General Committees

[Vernon Coaker]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who, with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, has made several important points. I say to the Minister, and the Committee, that this measure is hugely important. Statutory instruments are not regarded as being on the Floor of the House, but they are important pieces of legislation that have a dramatic effect and impact on people’s lives.

As I say in virtually every statutory instrument Committee—I will repeat myself—we all often get people coming to our surgeries who say, “This has happened. Why did you pass it?”, and we then have to trawl back through the statutory instruments to find the regulation that implemented it. One of the processes that I think Parliament has a problem with is that, even if it is a good idea, an SI cannot be amended—it is a case of take it or leave it. That causes all of us, across the House, great problems at times, and is perhaps something that we should address on another occasion in a different forum.

The order is one part of a complex set of arrangements about the status of non-EU nationals, EEA nationals, EU nationals—people leaving, staying or short-term working, and also students. I cannot keep up with those arrangements, but on the particular issue in question, the Minister should give us some clarity about the points made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. All of us want people to be clear about what it is they have to do in order to stay here. To be honest, when I was doing research to prepare for the Committee, I found it difficult to unpick the various websites and understand things myself.

This is not just a matter of the various Opposition parties, whether the SNP or ourselves. The House of Lords Select Committee that looks into SIs has written to the Home Office to raise certain concerns about the practical implementation of the policy. The European Union sub-committee in the Lords has written to the Home Secretary about the matter.

There are very specific concerns that I ask the Minister to address. First, at the end of free movement, for three months somebody can automatically come into the country. The Minister says that the normal processes will apply, but when somebody has come in automatically—they will have come through customs and immigration—how on earth will the Government know when the three months are up? There is no system because such people will automatically come in. It is not right for the Minister to say that the normal process will apply, because there is no process. What is the process? There is no stamping.

I am not saying that the policy is wrong or right. It is good that people can come in, but the law says that after three months they have to either get indefinite leave to remain or go. That implies enforcement action. What is that enforcement action? How will the authorities know when to start enforcement action? There is no form to tell them that the three months are up. The Minister needs to explain that to all of us. Otherwise, whether it be in north Cornwall or other parts of the country, we will have people turning up at our surgeries after seven or eight and a half months—or, as sometimes happens, after a couple of years—saying, “I’ve been here for years and my kids are going to school, and now the Home Office is banging on the door saying I’ve got to go.” That causes huge problems. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the policy, if its bureaucratic implementation is not right, how can it work?

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our backlog of casework and constituency problems will be added to with this huge load of additional legislation and bureaucracy that we have to try to understand, and that our case workers have to understand? Does he share my concern about whether the Home Office itself, as well as us MPs, will be fully educated on how the whole new system will work in the first place?

Rural Crime and Public Services

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Despite having two towns, the majority of my beautiful constituency is rural, meaning that my constituents are increasingly on the receiving end of rural crime. Nationally, fly-tipping has increased by 7%, becoming something of an epidemic in rural areas. In 2016, agricultural vehicle theft cost farmers and others working in rural industry £5.4 million. It is likely that that increased in 2017 and in the first quarter of this year, which is simply unacceptable. How long will the Government stand by, slashing our police force funding and leaving my constituents to pick up the pieces and pay themselves for the damage caused to their livelihoods?

My constituency is in Kent, which is the fifth-worst affected area for rural crime. Sadly, that is not a surprise. The Government have cut 532 police officers and 104 police community support officers in Kent, while simultaneously ever promising us that they will be tough on crime. To be honest, the myth of the Tories being tough on crime has been long since busted, and probably no one living in Kent believes it to be true anymore. These days, “tough on crime” is just about as untrue a Conservative adage as “strong and stable”.

The truth is that due to the shocking austerity measures imposed on Kent’s police since 2010 not only are our towns and high streets more vulnerable, but so are our rural lanes, our quiet villages and our previously idyllic hamlets. All those places have seen a huge rise in fly-tipping, littering and nuisance crime. Kent police has launched the Country Eye app, through which members of rural communities can share information on crime and suspicious behaviour. While I of course commend the effort and thought behind the initiative, it is a sad indictment of the state of police funding that communities are expected to shoulder the responsibility to deal with problems themselves. An app and volunteers should supplement adequately resourced police forces, not simply replace them.

I recently had another meeting with the National Farmers Union, an organisation comprising over 55,000 members, and it shares my constituent farmers’ concerns about livelihood-destroying crime. Farmers are paying for the damage to their equipment; they are rebuying livestock; they are paying to clear waste that has been dumped on their land; and they are paying for installing expensive CCTV camera systems. They cannot afford it.

I am standing up for Canterbury and for Kent by saying that enough is enough. When will this Government start taking seriously the concerns of farmers and those who live in rural areas? More than 9 million people live in rural areas, and agriculture contributes around £24 billion to the UK economy, yet rural crime continues to be ignored and the issue has been sidelined again and again. Why? The Government admit there is a problem, so they therefore admit the entire austerity agenda is flawed.

Although we need to be clear that rural crime predominantly affects farmers and agricultural workers, it is also a question of animal rights. This country has a moral duty to uphold high animal welfare standards. From foxhunting to badger baiting, we are neglecting our responsibility to protect our animals and wildlife. Although foxhunting remains illegal and polling suggests that 85% of the British people are opposed to making it legal again, we know foxhunting is still widely practised in Kent and other areas.

Just last year, shocking online footage showed two fox cubs being taken into a kennel and being brought out dead. This so-called “sport” is a savage exercise in bloodlust, and it must be properly policed. Equally, we see badgers being sold on the black market by criminal groups for as much as £700, often for badger baiting. The chief inspector of the RSPCA special operations unit recently spoke about the effect of this exercise on dogs:

“Because the criminals can’t go to a vet, they self-medicate: they patch the dogs up with drugs bought from the internet. Eventually the flesh of the jaw may fall away. We’ve seen dogs with their faces destroyed by these fights.”

It is clear that badger baiting is not only cruel to the badgers themselves but is detrimental to dogs’ health and wellbeing. Despite the clear brutality, the Government fail to act or police it properly.

Instead of listening to those with expertise in animal welfare and providing funding for police forces to enforce existing laws, the Government lazily abdicate their responsibilities. I suggest they look at Labour’s plan for animal welfare, which pledges to strengthen the Hunting Act 2004 and to look at ways to close existing loopholes that allow for cruel illegal hunting to take place in rural areas.

Rural crime is not just an economic issue of people’s livelihoods; it is a moral issue. I am sure the Government will agree that more action needs to be taken to ensure that rural communities are protected and our animals are not subjected to such terrible cruelty.

Vote 100 and International Women’s Day

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

I am delighted and proud to be making my debut at this Dispatch Box to close this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. We have heard today about how we have record female employment in this country, but, as the Secretary of State rightly said, this is not just about getting in—it is about getting on. I could not agree more, which is why I am so pleased to see Labour’s announcement that we will ask business to take a more proactive approach. Under a Labour Government, the onus would be on employers to close the gender pay gap, and provide action plans or face fines. We have heard agreement from Members from across the House that while we all celebrate the centenary of women gaining the vote, there remains plenty more to be done. It is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State’s pledges to tackle the gender pay gap and to make sure that funding for women’s refuges is protected.

The first Back-Bench speaker, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, is a determined, passionate advocate for equality. She has worked extremely hard to open doors and discuss issues that have never been tackled head on. I was inspired by her as a member of that Committee and continue to follow its work closely. The right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said that gender inequality represents the biggest waste of talent. She also mentioned the sustainable development goals—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali)—and our need to help stop FGM and health inequality, reminding us of the ”International” in International Women’s Day. We have to help our sisters across the globe, while continuing to ask ourselves difficult questions about our own gender balance in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke powerfully and moved the House with her list of murdered women. Every one of those women should be here today and it is our absolute duty to make sure they are never forgotten. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked of the horrors of war, and women facing rape or being trafficked and sold as sex slaves. The first female Member for Coventry, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), told us that although we now have 208 women in Parliament, that is still only 32% of the House. It was also lovely to hear about her mother, who inspired her to enter politics.

Other Members spoke about the girl guide movement. We heard further great contributions from the hon. Members for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) talked about maternity leave, and we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Mother of the House, who has tirelessly battled for our rights in this area for decades.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—my good friend—spoke about the new all-party group on single parent families, which a few of us have set up. I am a proud founder member. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) told us of those amazing working women who helped to forge the union movement and the Labour party. We also heard further contributions from the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) who spoke of the dangers of restricted abortion laws leading to serious and life-threatening harm to women.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) called International Women’s Day “feminist Christmas”, but called for “deeds” not “words”. She said that the course of progress is agonisingly slow. She also mentioned period poverty, a cause on which we are fighting on this side of the House. We finished by hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who were calling for us to commemorate those women who gave so much to our fight for equality.

What a year it has been for women! We have seen the #MeToo movement, the fabulous Megan Markle, the inspiring Jacinda Ardern and more recently—last week—Maisie Sly showing us that being deaf does not stop someone winning an Oscar. As we know from even those few examples, women young and old continue to push boundaries, challenge expectations and work hard, not because they are women, but simply because they are brilliant.

As my friend, the shadow Minister mentioned earlier, the International Women’s Day flag is now flying proudly as the sun begins to set over Westminster. However, events celebrating the day are continuing, and this evening I will be speaking at an event with the incredible Frances Scott, championing her campaign to get a 50:50 Parliament: equality in representation on these very Benches.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Lady on her first outing at the Dispatch Box, and I will be joining her to speak at that event. Will she say a word about the importance of campaigns such as the 50:50 Parliament and, in particular, its #AskHerToStand campaign, which I understand is partly what led us to having the hon. Lady in this place? It is a brilliant campaign, and everyone in this House and outside it can do this, in order to improve the representation of women. When they see women who are doing a brilliant job in the community and who would be amazing elected representatives, they should ask them to stand.

[Rosie Duffield]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know that she is also an ambassador for that campaign. I would not be in this place without the encouragement of Frances and the #AskHerToStand campaign, which encourages women from all walks of life to stand for local politics and positions of leadership in all sorts of areas. We know that there is just not enough representation, as she said. Every time I retweet a 50:50 tweet, at least one or two men—I am afraid to say—always ask why we need equal representation. The answer is simple: women make up 51% of the country’s population, and we need to see that here on these Benches. It is that simple as far as I am concerned. I will be attending that event later on, and I am an ambassador for that campaign.

We need women in the home and in the house—this House. We need to stand up and say, “I am proud of my gender, I am proud of my mother, I am proud of my daughter, I am proud.” With that, I will say a very simple happy International Women’s Day to men and women.

General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

I will answer some of those points in my speech. I suspect that what happened was partly due to the increased use of social media sites, which have more users than at previous elections, but I will come to that.

The same inquiry and the Law Commission argue that the current legal system is not fit for purpose. They urged the Government to redraft electoral offences in a more simple and modern way, so that they can be readily understood and enforced by campaigners, the public and the police, and the Opposition would support that.

We must see some action on this issue. The Government’s domestic policy agenda cannot stop because of the Brexit negotiations. In response to a written parliamentary question last week, the Minister stated that the Government will respond to the Law Commission’s 2016 interim report in due course. Can he be a little more specific on the timeframe? The Institute for Jewish Policy Research findings published this week showed that one quarter of British people hold an anti-Semitic belief. Those findings make for sobering reading.

Given the high prevalence of this, it would be foolish and wrong for any party in this House to assume that it did not have members or activists who hold such beliefs. Labour Members recognise that political parties have a responsibility to stamp out any form of abusive behaviour. To ensure that Labour Members comply with the high standards expected by our party, our internal procedures for dealing with abuse and intimidation were reviewed and improved following the Chakrabarti report on anti-Semitism. We have a detailed and publicly available social media policy, and we have employed more staff in our governance and legal unit to make sure that our members’ conduct is up to scratch.

However, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook must take their share of the responsibility for this issue and act faster to prevent and remove abusive behaviour online. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) pointed out in the Westminster Hall debate on this topic before the summer recess, Facebook was very quick to remove pictures of a woman breastfeeding, but when my hon. Friend reported a fake account that was set up in her name sending out intimidating messages, it took Facebook two weeks to respond.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing up such an important and relevant topic as the racism and anti-Semitism that are going on. I would like to highlight the unacceptable level of vitriol and aggression directed towards female candidates, in particular, during the election. Does she agree that the Government need to do more to ensure that women are not unjustly dissuaded from campaigning, joining in and putting themselves forward as candidates?

[Cat Smith]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Only this week, there were reports in the press regarding some rape threats I reported to Facebook that I was told at first did not breach its community standards. It does appear that women MPs face a particular kind of intimidation—threats of rape. Those comments have now been taken down, but I sometimes wonder whether that would have been the case had I not been a Member of Parliament and received some of the press coverage that I did, which has now seen this issue resolved.

Women MPs have been speaking out about these problems with social media for years. MPs and campaigners involved with the women on banknotes campaign were subject to sustained campaigns of harassment in which some members of the public were arrested and charged. Can the Minister assure us that he is working with social media platforms to combat this issue?

There is also a need for better collection and analysis of election-related racism and discrimination data. In March, the Home Office confirmed in an answer to a question that the Government do not hold specific data relating to hate crimes during election campaigns. If the Government are committed to tackling this very important issue, when will they recognise that data on it must be collected and scrutinised? As a consequence of this failing, the monitoring and reporting of racism during elections has fallen to the third sector. New research by Amnesty International found that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who joins me on the Front Bench this afternoon, and who was the first black woman MP in this House, received half of all the threatening tweets sent to women MPs between January and June this year. In fact, black and Asian women MPs received 35% more abusive tweets than white women MPs. As evidenced by the recent report, unacceptable behaviour towards candidates from all parties is disproportionately faced by women and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.