Antisemitism in the UK

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee asks a very good question. It disturbs me deeply, as I am sure it does many Members, to see conflict occurring elsewhere in the world playing out on our own streets and leading to tension, to put it politely, and to a lot more—often hatred—being incited domestically. As I said, there is no excuse whatsoever for the events in the middle east, in Gaza, to lead to antisemitic hatred on the streets of the United Kingdom. That is completely unacceptable, and I am disturbed to see people engaging in that kind of behaviour.

Across the House, we as political leaders need to make it clear to our communities that that behaviour is not acceptable and not consistent with British values, and that our laws will be rigorously and robustly enforced. We have values here of tolerance and mutual respect; we abhor terrorism, violence and intimidation. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we do not want to see that anywhere on our streets, and no one—no matter how strongly they feel about what is happening in Gaza—should behave in a way that is intimidating or incites racial hatred. If we all, across this House, speak unanimously with one voice on that topic, it will be heard by all communities in this country.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

When British Jews woke up on 7 October to the pogroms and the associated rapes, butchery of children and hostage-taking, we expected sympathy from people on the streets of Britain. Instead, we have seen people attacked for speaking Hebrew, Jewish businesses attacked, Jews assaulted, and hate marches on our streets. As we saw again this weekend, the fellow holding the sign to remind marchers that Hamas are a terrorist organisation was the one who was dragged off and had his collar felt by the police, while people continue to march through the streets with cries for jihad and intifadas and in support of the Houthis.

What everyone says in this place is all fine, but the reality is that the demonisation of the world’s only Jewish state is playing out in the demonisation of Jews in this country. In our universities, the embedding of antizionism— in and of itself pure Jew hate in many cases—is being wrought on Jewish students. So although the measures that have been outlined are fine, there is a deeper problem in our society: Jews do not feel safe in this country. More must be done to tackle the real root cause of Jew hate.

[Chris Philp]

I was as appalled as my hon. Friend when some people—a small but none the less significant minority—reacted to what happened on 7 October with a deeply disturbing jubilation. That is sick, it is unacceptable and, depending on how it is expressed, it is frankly illegal, because encouraging acts of terrorism or acts by a proscribed organisation, which Hamas are, is a criminal offence. As I have said, there is no excuse whatsoever for that kind of behaviour. I was as sickened as he was, and as I am sure the whole House was, to see that some people—some of our fellow citizens—reacted to what happened on 7 October with apparent jubilation instead of with horror and sympathy.

In relation to the police response, 600 arrests have been made at the various protests that have followed 7 October. We have repeatedly met police—I have lost count of the number of meetings that we have had in the past three or four months—to urge them to use the full extent of the law and to show zero tolerance to people who break the law and incite racial hatred. As I say, 600 arrests have been made.

In relation to individual incidents, there is sometimes more to them than meets the eye, but I will ask for an account of the incident that my hon. Friend referred to. He is absolutely right to say that no member of the Jewish community, whether on the streets of central London, at university or at school, should suffer fear and intimidation. The truth is that, in the past few months in particular, they have suffered fear and intimidation, and that is unacceptable. We expect the police to use the full force of the law to stop that, and I know that the House will speak with one voice in condemning it unreservedly.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

As I speak in this debate, I will have in mind the 136 hostages who are still held by Hamas, including Eli Sharabi. Several colleagues and I met his brother-in-law, Steve, in the House yesterday.

I welcome what both the Minister and the shadow Minister said on this subject, and I disagreed with nothing. I thank the organisations that have campaigned on this issue over the years, including the UJS and the Antisemitism Policy Trust, which is ably led by Danny Stone—he has long campaigned on this and I congratulate them all on their efforts, which have now paid off.

My only slight point of disagreement with what has been said is that, once again, I voice my support for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is behind Hezbollah, Hamas and, of course, the Houthis. This is a debate of consensus, so I will leave that for another day.

As the Minister said, Hizb ut-Tahrir is an antisemitic, racist organisation that promotes and encourages terrorism. As both Front Benchers said, it openly celebrated the appalling pogroms of 7 October and has described Hamas as “heroes.” They are not heroes; they are murderers and rapists, for which they should be called out by everyone. Hizb ut-Tahrir is an explicitly antisemitic group and has targeted gay people, women and Muslims who do not share its perverse interpretation of Islam. It is right to ban this group, but will that ban include its pernicious online activities?

I will now look at some of the individuals involved with Hizb ut-Tahrir. Omar Khan Sharif, one of the British bombers of Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv, was found with Hizb ut-Tahrir literature. The bombing took place in the second intifada, so let us remember what an intifada is, for those who have been marching in the streets with signs calling for an intifada. At the weekend, people held signs calling for a “socialist intifada.” I am not sure what a socialist intifada is—perhaps it means murdering people more fairly—but that is what people have been calling for.

The second intifada involved the bombing of pubs and civilian buses, and it involved the murder of countless innocent civilians. That is what people have been calling for on our streets, and they have been allowed to continue calling for it without any police action.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

It gets even worse, because this weekend we heard people not only on the march but on the stage saying that massacres should now become the norm. There is no place for that in society, which is why such motions should be welcomed not only by every Member but by everyone in this country.

[Andrew Percy]

I could not agree more. Doubtless the majority of people who attend protests are peaceful, but that behaviour is making Jewish people in this country frightened of wherever the protests take place. The Jewish community in my region has expressed to me its concerns about the small marches we have had in my area, and of course Jews in London are afraid to come into central London when the marches are taking place, precisely because of that behaviour, which I believe is by a minority.

The leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark was convicted of racial hatred for distributing a leaflet that said:

“Kill them, kill the Jews wherever you find them.”

The organisation tells its followers that they should not be close friends with non-Muslims. In fact, one of its leaflets says:

“We maintain that the clash of civilisations is not only inevitable but imperative.”

Of course, it shares that view with neo-Nazis. It is absolutely right to ban this organisation, and I agree with everything that the Minister and the shadow Minister said. Welcome though it is, however, the ban will not end the continued targeting of the Jewish community and Jewish people in this country, which has led to a 1,000%-plus increase in antisemitism.

This week I was informed by the police force in my area that pro-Palestinian activists might come to protest one of our Holocaust Memorial Day events. I am sure they will protest peacefully, but that event is being targeted for no other reason than Jews will be present. That is absolutely appalling and disgraceful behaviour, just as it would be for a person to protest Hamas or Hizb ut-Tahrir at a Muslim community event. It is completely unacceptable. In fact, it is perverted.

A Jewish charity that supports disaffected young men and young boys in the north of London was targeted this week by activists, who screamed and shouted abuse outside. What does a Jewish charity working with disaffected youth have to do with this conflict? It was targeted for no other reason than it involves Jews.

We have seen continued denial of the events of 7 October in online spaces and on the streets of this country. Although this proscription will do a great deal, it will not prevent the continued targeting of Jews. Indeed, in just the last few days, because of a smear someone posted online after I dared to say in this place that people who do not contextualise the Israeli response to 7 October with the events of 7 October are giving the terrorists a “free pass”, I have received the most appalling antisemitic communications, including describing the hostages as, “Them Zionist rat hostages.” Someone messaged me to say, “Nobody cares about the Jews.” Another messaged me to tell me that I should be flogged because of my beliefs. I have been targeted with emails directly quoting the comments made about me on social media and telling me that they were false-flag operations, that the hostages do not exist and that it was the Israelis who killed people on 7 October—all the various conspiracy theories. The comments on social media have enabled antisemitism of the most awful kind, and I am afraid it will continue, which is why we have to do so much more.

I know that both the Government and the Opposition have done incredible things in calling all of this out and putting extra money into the CST, but the continued targeting of Jews in this country is deeply disturbing. Although this motion is welcome, it will not prevent that from continuing. We need tougher action.

As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, it has seemed on occasion as if the Metropolitan police force is acting as the public relations arm of some of the protests, instead of doing what it should be doing and protecting British Jews from such hate speech. We are such a small community, just 0.5% of the population.

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for what they have said, and I welcome this move. I hope the Minister will answer my question on whether the order will apply to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s online activities.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Mr Percy, were you indicating that you might want to speak earlier—is that right?

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Okay. The debate has to finish at 4.53 pm and I want to bring the Minister in with adequate time to respond, so I just warn Members that after the SNP spokesperson, I am likely to introduce a time limit of perhaps eight or nine minutes to give us a chance to get everybody in. I call Alyn Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I obviously support the Government on this important matter. I also pay tribute to the Opposition for the sensible approach that they have taken. Some important points have been made. The leader of the Scottish National party—or rather the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith)—[Laughter.] Well, perhaps he will be the next leader; we will see! Anyway, I think that he may have been trying a little too hard to disagree while agreeing, but he made some important points. However, I think the Minister went some considerable way to addressing those points in his opening remarks, and I also point to the decisions of other Governments around the world that broadly mirror what we have done and their continued and much needed humanitarian support and aid for the people of Gaza, and indeed more generally in the region. We all would absolutely—100%—want to see that continue, but of course this measure is incredibly important.

I was somewhat disappointed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). He seemed as blind as a flittermoose to the facts on the ground. He talked about occupation, which of course ended in Gaza in 2005; there is a debate to be had about the continuing restrictions but, on the actual occupation, Israel left Gaza in 2005. He talked about how we had created and made good on Balfour, but seemed to forget the other part of the story as to why the other elements of it had not been made good on and the culpability of Israel’s neighbours in preventing the creation of a viable Arab state at the time of the creation of the state of Israel, so there was something lacking there. I was also slightly confused, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), about his comments around weapons not being targeted enough and making them therefore legitimate to use against targets in Israel. I am sure he did not mean that, and I tried to decipher his response to my right hon. Friend but am still a bit confused about what he was saying.

Then of course there was a bit of an attack on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Israel, or so it seemed, which again is what too often happens in this debate: instead of having a conversation about what is a despotic antisemitic terror organisation, we again get back to talking about the activities of the Israeli Government, in this case a press release from the MFA. I think more important are comments by senior Hamas officials who say they want to cross the border and reach into the hearts of Jews and Israelis and rip them out. Those are the comments I am more interested in, rather than some press release from the MFA.

[Crispin Blunt]

First, I of course absolutely condemn violence—that is the only point I make on that. Secondly, it is hardly an attack on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to read out a tweet by the Israeli Foreign Minister.

[Andrew Percy]

I was commenting on the application of that in the context of why we have reached this decision in the UK today; that was my criticism. But I will not focus my comments on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, because we are here to talk about the terror organisation Hamas.

Comments have been made today about the targeting of British nationals and the threat to Brits, and we saw with the murder of Eli Kay this weekend how attacks from Hamas are targeted indiscriminately not just at Israelis but Brits in the country. I myself have spent time in Israel in bomb shelters as rockets have rained over from Gaza; it is not a pleasant experience, but Israelis are at least to a great degree protected from that.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to the debate and this is an extremely complex issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that, in essence, those who incite terror are as culpable as those who implement terror, and that is really what we are discussing this afternoon?

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say that I hope that even if such important interventions are taken, hon. Members will stick to the eight-minute limit, or else I will not be able to give a fair allocation to everybody.

[Andrew Percy]

As my constituency near-neighbour, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know how much I like the sound of my own voice—I am not alone in this place in that to be fair—but I will try to limit myself. My hon. Friend’s comment is absolutely right. The crux is that this is an antisemitic, despotic terrorist dictatorship, effectively, in Gaza, guilty of war crimes, targeting civilians and hiding behind its own civilians. That is why I entirely support this measure, which the Minister put across in a very measured and thoughtful way, and I appreciate that.

The only sadness, when we get to the conclusion, is that life for Gazans will continue to be pretty horrendous. We must all work and strive towards a resolution that improves the lot of everyone in the region, especially those in Gaza who have to live under this regime and under the other restrictions that are placed on the people of Gaza. We have heard about the summary executions and the treatment of women and homosexuals. I recently read about the experience of a young gay man called Hamza, who described what had happened to him at the hands of Hamas:

“They arrested me, hanged me from the ceiling, beat me up and interrogated me for five days”.

They then made him sign confessions saying that he had had sexual relations with other Gazans who happened to be supporters of Fatah. Sadly, all of that will continue, as will the brutalisation of women, the summary executions and the trumped-up allegations of collaboration with the state of Israel. I welcome this measure today, but I do so with a great degree of sadness that life will continue in such a way for Gazans. I hope that all of us in this place will do everything we can to strive towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that part of the world.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate the Home Secretary on this excellent move. Let us be clear about Hezbollah: it is a group that promotes Jew hate. It promotes murder and it will never, in any circumstances, recognise the only democratic state in the middle east. In that context, does my right hon. Friend share my surprise and confusion over why the Opposition Front Benchers cannot support the proscription of a group that promotes murder and racism?

[Sajid Javid]

I very much understand everything that my hon. Friend said, and I obviously cannot speak for the views of the official Opposition. They will get an opportunity in a moment to set out their views, and the public will be able to draw their own conclusions.

Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2018

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 General Committees

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Some colleagues might think that when they call a Westminster Hall debate, it has zero effect; I am pleased to say that the Westminster Hall debate that I secured on 12 October 2011 at 4.30 pm, which called for just this change, has finally led to it. I assumed that I had been simply ignored, but it turns out that the report of that debate has gone into the depths of Government and resulted in this very sensible policy.

I specifically welcome this measure in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada, because one of the principal issues raised with me on my visits by Canadians who come to the UK, not just for business but as visitors, is the delays they experience at the border. In fact, for many visitors, particularly from a country such as Canada, which shares so much with us—intelligence and security, our “Five Eyes” partnership and even a Head of State—it is a very unwelcome feeling to arrive in the United Kingdom and be told that they have to go through this much more strenuous system.

I was surprised to hear the shadow Minister say that we do not make exceptions on the basis of nationality at our border when that is exactly what we do. What we have at the moment is a border system that says, “If you are white, you will be treated differently than if you are non-white”, because we prioritise European Union citizens over everybody else, and that is a—[Interruption.] I will give way on that point, of course.

[Neil Coyle]

It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that there are only white citizens living in EU member states. That is a massive insult to the 40% black and minority ethnic community in my constituency, let alone the BME communities across all the other member states of the European Union.

[Andrew Percy]

If the hon. Gentleman, instead of shouting, had allowed me to continue to develop my argument, he would have heard me go on to say that, absolutely, the European Union has a diversity of population, but overall it is overwhelmingly a white club and it provides—

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

No, no—I will not give way—[Interruption.] I am not going to be shouted down and I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, particularly after the slur on Members yesterday who dared to raise legitimate questions in the main Chamber—[Interruption.]

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Mr Robertson. I think that is an entirely inappropriate remark for the hon. Gentleman to make, which I urge him to withdraw, and in addition I do not believe that it has anything whatsoever to do with the order that we are discussing this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point of order. We need to keep this debate relevant to the point we are discussing and we also need to treat each other with respect, because no amount of shouting or inappropriate language will change what the Government are about to do.

I call Mr Percy.

[Andrew Percy]

Indeed, and I wish we had been treated with that respect yesterday instead of being accused of some sort of co-ordination for—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. I have just made the point that we have to be relevant and what happened in the Chamber yesterday is not relevant to today’s proceedings.

[Andrew Percy]

The point I was making, Mr Robertson, is that we do have a system that prefers people who come from a continent that is overwhelmingly in one direction and I am not going to apologise for that; it is just a statement of fact. I am grateful that we will now have a system in place that will allow people from different countries to have easier access on the same basis, rather than maintaining that privilege of Europeans over people coming from countries that are clearly not a risk to this country, be that South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or the United States. That is perfectly sensible, and I make no apology for criticising the current system, which maintains a European privilege over other people. It is ridiculous that we have had a situation in which people from “Five Eyes” nations, where there is clearly no security threat to this country, are made to go through a system that is not commensurate with the security risk that they pose to this country.

I have two specific questions for the Minister on matters that have been raised with me. A number of people who will benefit from the change have applied and paid for trusted traveller status to enter the United Kingdom from the United States, Canada and possibly Australia, too. Presumably, they will now be able to use the e-passport gates, as they can under the trusted traveller programme, so will they be recompensed for the fee?

Secondly, this is a two-way process, so will there be discussions to facilitate easier access for UK nationals on a reciprocal basis into the countries that will benefit from the order? Countries such as Australia and Canada have already introduced terminals that have eased the process, but many business travellers and visitors to the United States find substantial delays at the border because US citizens go down one channel—not even green card holders can use that channel now—and everybody else goes down another. If we are to offer this change, as we should to end this European privilege, can we make sure that discussions are ongoing to ensure there is a reciprocal benefit for UK citizens entering the border in the countries that will benefit from this change?

I hope this is the start of a process to ease access into the United Kingdom for low-risk travellers from a range of countries from different continents that do not enjoy the same demographic and social and economic privileges that the European Union perhaps considers itself to have.

Police Employer Pension Contributions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I would never knowingly criticise myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you will be pleased to know that my constituents care about and raise with me far more than Brexit the issue of policing and in particular the consequences of Government changes to employer national insurance contributions and what that will mean for the funding of policing in my constituency and every other community up and down the country, because, as was stated in the excellent opening speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East, the consequence of increasing employer contributions will be a cost on police forces of an entirely unexpected and unplanned £165 million for 2019-20, and, as has been stated, that employer pension contribution liability will rise over time, so by the time that we get to 2020-21 the liability will be more like £420 million.

Money, as we know, does not grow on trees, and those responsible for managing police budgets and resources and making sure the budget is properly deployed to keep our constituents and country safe will be faced with an invidious choice. Of course they will want to make the right contributions to people’s pensions, but, as the National Police Chiefs Council has warned, the reality is that this could amount to the loss of a further 10,000 police officers right across the country, with every police force in this land being affected.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the opening of this debate as I had a clash of business. In Humberside, we have seen police numbers rising in the past couple of years, but these changes would reverse that, and our chief constable has issued a very stark warning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is completely unacceptable for these changes to be loaded on to police authorities? I make it very clear in this Chamber to the Minister that if this continues, I will vote against the police grant when it comes before the House next year, as I did between 2010 and 2015.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have known the hon. Gentleman for many years, including before I was elected to this place, in my previous role as president of the National Union of Students, and I know that when he says he is prepared to vote against his own Government he genuinely means it, not out of disloyalty to his party, but out of loyalty to the interests of his constituents and our country.

I could make the point that the Government Benches are almost entirely empty, but we know that that would be unfair because Adjournment debates are very rarely well attended and this one is better attended than most. But the truth is that Government Whips know that, even in parliamentary prime time, in debates about police budgets and employer pension contributions in particular, they have to struggle and strong-arm to get loyal Back Benchers in to defend the indefensible. Conservative Members know this is an indefensible position and that the consequence of these changes to employer pension contributions will be to cost police numbers in their constituencies, and which constituency MP in their right mind would, no matter what the size of their majority and however secure they might feel about their own electoral prospects, want to come here to defend police cuts that will affect public safety in their own constituencies? No one wants to do that; it is not why we come into politics.

We must see the budgetary pressures presented by changes to employer pension contributions in the context of what has happened to policing budgets more generally. The hon. Gentleman mentioned police numbers in Humberside, and we do not have a happy situation in my city either—our capital city. The Metropolitan police have had to grapple with budget cuts amounting to more than £1 billion. Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and in Westminster Hall debates and try to justify their budget decisions. They try to pass the buck by blaming the Mayor of London for the police cuts, but the truth is that when central Government are cutting funding to local policing on the scale that they have done, there is only so much that Mayors and police and crime commissioners can do to offset the impact of those cuts.

The Home Secretary has finally acknowledged that cuts have consequences, and we are seeing those consequences in the rising violent crime in my constituency, across our city and across the country. The Government consistently attack the Mayor of London and try to make this a party political issue, but the facts speak for themselves. It is not just in Labour-led cities that violent crime is rising; it is rising in the leafy Tory-led shires. Violent crime has doubled in counties such as Hampshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk in the past three years. People do not have to be experts to understand the obvious: if there are fewer police on the streets to catch criminals and deter criminal activity, crime will rise. This applies not only to violent crime but to motor vehicle crime, for example, and it is leading to people feeling less safe and secure in their communities. It is changing people’s way of life. They do not want to go out of their homes or run errands of an evening because they are afraid of being mugged or attacked. That is the reality.

Every time I speak on policing in this House and publish the video on my Facebook page or on Twitter, it goes viral because people are really concerned about this. They cannot understand it. As one now former Conservative councillor in my borough told me, they cannot understand why any Government would cut policing to this extent. Before the local elections this year, even a Conservative councillor told me that Conservative voters were saying, “We know there are difficult choices to be made; we expect the Government to be tightening their belt, but we do not expect a Conservative Government to cut policing in the way they have.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

As I said during the urgent question, our intention is to resolve the issue at the time of the police funding settlement. It is my responsibility to bring that to Parliament and it is currently scheduled for early December. That is when we will announce our police funding proposal for next year, and I hope to resolve the pension issue.

The Government have made it clear that the costs for beyond 2019-20 will be resolved in the comprehensive spending review. So there is an issue for 2019-20, which I hope to resolve at the 2019-20 funding settlement in early December, and we have made it clear that the costs beyond 2020 will be resolved in the CSR process. I want to give a little more detail and context to that.

[Andrew Percy]

Does that mean that I can go back to the chief constable of Humberside—he is a first-class police officer, and, as I have said, we have managed to secure increased police numbers in recent years in our area—and say that the Government will absolutely ensure that Humberside Police does not have to cut a single police officer or all of its police community support officers, which is the potential effect of these changes in Humberside?

[Mr Hurd]

What I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have absolutely no intention of coming to this House to propose a funding settlement that will result in fewer police officers. [Interruption.] No, last year I submitted a police funding settlement that resulted in—

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

First, I have given that commitment. I will find out how many times this has been used in the past, and, as I have said, I will write to Members. As for the seriousness, the reason the Government oppose Guantanamo Bay—as, indeed, do the Opposition Front Benchers—is that it is not an institution that follows due process. It is set outside the bounds of international law. It is not in compliance with nearly everything that this country stands for. That is very different from the justice system of the United States.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Like, I suspect, the majority of my constituents and those in the country as a whole, I am perfectly comfortable with the position of the Home Secretary. These people are not United Kingdom citizens, and they are owed nothing by this Government. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the unrepresentative grandstanding that we have seen from some today will not knock the Government off its course of assisting the United States in the prosecution of these murderous terrorist scum?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is our constituents who face the consequences of not getting this right. The last thing on my mind at night and the first thing on my mind when I wake up in the morning is the balancing of risk—the balance between people who we know pose a risk, trying to plot to bomb us and kill us every single day; and the needs of my constituents and the constituents of the United Kingdom. The duty of Ministers is to balance that risk, and to try to get that balance right.

Medicinal Cannabis

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I want to reassure her that the Government are very clear that this is a discussion about access to cannabis-based medicine and nothing else.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

There is clearly a consensus in the House for a review of policy in this area, but neither this House nor public opinion is expert, so can the Minister assure me that we will always proceed on the basis of clinical evidence? Will he look particularly closely at the good, the bad and the ugly examples from North America, where medicinal cannabis has been legalised?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I come back to the point that we have to proceed on the basis of good evidence and the most up-to-date information. Some of the evidence in this area is mixed, and therefore we need to be very careful about how we proceed. That sounds bureaucratic and a bit plodding, and I apologise to anyone who feels that way, but it is the responsibility of Government to think things through and get things right, and we will proceed on the basis of evidence and introduce more clinical leadership to this process.

Draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am absolutely appalled by comments that have been made about the cost of the passport not being excessive. The cost may be all right for the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, but it is not all right for a good number of my constituents in Scotland, who not only struggle to pay for the school trips that their children might want to go on, but will very much struggle to pay these exorbitant passport fees.

I am deeply concerned that, for many people in poorer communities in Glasgow, there is also a digital divide. That has been a well-documented phenomenon. Carnegie UK Trust’s recent report, “Across the Divide”, says that around 40% of the poorest communities in Glasgow are not online. They are being asked by the Government to pay a premium for the online service, despite the fact that they are not able to get online and access it.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a second. In some of these communities, 46% of single parents do not have internet access. If the hon. Gentleman would like to explain how this is a good deal for single parents, I am happy to let him intervene.

[Andrew Percy]

I simply point out to the hon. Lady that I represent a constituency that has very poor broadband coverage and comprises some of the most deprived postcodes in the country. However, if people go to a local library or even some schools, they will be able to access the service and can often receive support. There is a lot of support for people to get online and access the digital world. It is not impossible to access the passport service online through a facility in their area.

[Alison Thewliss]

It may be possible for random constituents in his constituency to stroll into schools and go on to the computers, but that is not the case in Glasgow. There are many computers in Glasgow’s libraries, and they are very much used by the population, including those who are trying to apply for universal credit online. There are lots of pressures on library services, precisely because the Government are moving things online, while many people do not have the facilities to access them: they cannot afford broadband, if it is even available, or a computer, and unfortunately still do not have the digital skills to access them. It is unacceptable that the Government are making people in poorer communities pay a premium for something to which we should all have a right.

Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I apologise that I must leave this debate early. I mean no discourtesy to the House, but I am chair of a governing body and we are discussing the new school uniform this evening, which is somewhat controversial, so I must be there.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands); I agreed with much of his speech. Given the time constraints and the fact that I am leaving early, I shall endeavour not to repeat much of it. I pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who also sponsored the motion. I have been a member of and an ambassador for the white ribbon campaign for two or three years now; it is great to see them here at this debate. The issue is important.

Having said that I would not repeat what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, I will now do so. We are aware that domestic violence does not affect only women; in fact, sadly, sometimes when I have posted on social media about this particular campaign, I have been instantly attacked by people saying, “Ah, but what about the men who are victims?” Nobody involved in any of these campaigns is trying to brush that under the carpet. We know that it is not the case that all women are victims, or that all men are perpetrators, but it is a fact that the majority of people who suffer domestic violence are women, and the campaign seeks to address one particular element of that: the role that men can play in tackling violence against women.

Actually, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, it is about men and boys, because boys are an important part of the campaign. I know as a former high school teacher that unfortunately, teenage boys in our communities sometimes have views of women and girls that are entrenched from an early age. It used to sadden me often in the community where I taught. It was a difficult community; we had considerable social problems. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems that we had to deal with was boys’ views of women and girls, often because the person they came up against most in their lives, such as their primary caregiver, was a woman. Their behaviour towards them became unacceptable, and their view of women was concerning. We used to deal with that quite a lot.

I am open-minded about personal, social, health and economic education—I used to teach it—but I am not sure that it has a particular impact or value in schools. As a result of the new workload agreement, it is often not taught by teachers but delivered by others within the school. Unfortunately, when a subject is not examined—even when it is statutory, as religious education is throughout the English curriculum—the priority given to it by the school and the quality with which it is delivered are sometimes questionable. I would argue that equality should be embedded throughout the school curriculum, in both the pastoral role that tutors play and through delivering the curriculum. That is the most effective way to deliver on a theme across schools.

We heard from the hon. Gentleman about the cost of domestic violence, which is estimated at about £23 billion to the United Kingdom and £3.1 billion to employers. Of course, putting a figure on it does not do justice to the real cost of domestic violence, which is human and emotional suffering by the victims and their children. We also heard from him that one in four women will experience physical abuse, and almost half will experience some form of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. As he said, two women a week in the United Kingdom are killed in that context.

Although progress has been made, and in many respects it is encouraging that women now feel able to report far more than they used to, it is worrying that back home in Yorkshire, one in five cases of reported domestic violence are not pursued any further. Public interest issues are sometimes claimed, as are other reasons. That is a major concern, but progress has undoubtedly been made. The hon. Gentleman talked about that, so I will not repeat it, but domestic violence has more repeat victims than any other crime in the United Kingdom, and we should bear that in mind.

The hon. Gentleman also outlined much of the Government action that has been taken. I am pleased that this is the sort of debate that unites people across the House. We all want to go in the same direction. We may debate and discuss how to get there—comments have been made about local government funding and all the rest of it—but I think that the issue unites us politically, and we should pay tribute to this Government and the previous Government for the progress that they have made and the action that they have taken on the issue, some of which he reported.

I will not repeat what he said, but I will mention my local authority. The reason why I became a white ribbon ambassador involves Steven Marshall, the South Australian Liberal leader, of all people, who is a good friend. I noticed that he was involved with the white ribbon campaign in Australia. I thought that it looked like a thoroughly good thing to do. He signed up on behalf not only of his constituents and his party but ultimately, if his party forms one, of the Government, to support the campaign. I thought that that seemed sensible, which is why I approached the white ribbon campaign a couple of years ago to ask how we could engage in it better in my own area. My area is served by two local authorities: the East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.

I approached our leader—Baroness Redfern, as she now is—in North Lincolnshire and asked if she would sign up the council to become a white ribbon council and Scunthorpe to become a white ribbon town. She was pleased to do so. I encourage other Members to ask their local authorities to do the same. Local authorities are already undoubtedly spending a lot of money and engaging a lot of time and effort to tackle domestic violence, but what the white ribbon campaign can bring is important, including getting councils to rethink how they view the issue.

We have engaged Scunthorpe United, which I am pleased to say has now hosted us for two signings. However, it is not just about signing up, getting an award and all the rest of it; it is about what the local authority is actually doing. My authority is now rewriting all its policies, and there are some progressive examples that would read across to other authorities. The entire domestic violence policy is being reviewed in light of the white ribbon campaign.

Importantly, the council is also reviewing its code of conduct for employees. The current code of conduct states that employees must not behave in work or outside work in a way that calls into question their suitability to work for the council. We do not think that that is tightly defined enough, so the local authority is seeking to make it absolutely clear by writing it into the code of conduct that any employee who engages in domestic violence is never suitable to work in North Lincolnshire. I would say that they are not suitable to work anywhere, particularly if they deal with other vulnerable people.

When commissioning and procuring services, the council will ensure that the principles of the white ribbon campaign are written into new contracts as much as possible, so that anybody with whom the council contracts is aware of them too. The council is also considering a youth engagement strategy, which is important. I agree with what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said. I know what it is like, as a former teenage lad and a teacher of teenage lads. The people they look up to are, frankly, not Members of Parliament. I am sure that the public generally look up to and respect Members of Parliament, but a really good way to teenage lads is their role models in sport—in the local football team, in rugby and, I hope, increasingly in American football, a proper sport. That is how to engage lads of a particular age, which is why a youth engagement programme run by the local authority with sports teams—not just football, but other sport clubs—is important.

There is no doubt that in northern Lincolnshire, we have a big ethnic and minority population who can be difficult to reach on this issue. We have teams operating in those communities, and the council is looking to engage them to find role models there as well, which will be important. Getting the local leaders to take a stand is important, so we have engaged with people in business and local solicitors, and we are encouraging all the elected members in the cabinet to sign up and become ambassadors for the campaign. Then, of course, there is the training for staff and all the rest of it, which is so important.

There is a lot that the council can do. I am really interested to see whether one idea comes to fruition. It is to consider a graduate placement or apprenticeship opportunity in this field, specifically to promote the white ribbon campaign in North Lincolnshire, which I think would be really innovative.

A lot is being done; there is a lot more that could be done. Local authorities have a really big role to play in this area, as do schools. The NHS is also important, because one issue that still comes up repeatedly is whether or not the training on domestic violence provided within the health system is as widespread or as sufficient as it should be.

I will not say much more than that, Madam—Mrs Gillan. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I believe that this issue unites the House. As I have said, a lot is being done. I pay particular tribute to the white ribbon campaign. If we can get Government working more closely with campaigns such as that, it will be all for the better. I agree that we need to look at the Istanbul convention and consider where we are with that.

There is a real leadership role here for Government, but we will never tackle this problem from the top down; we will tackle it from the bottom up. That means men taking a stand and making it absolutely clear that we will not remain silent whenever there is domestic abuse or violence perpetrated against women, or tolerate it. We have a responsibility. Those of us who are not involved and never will be involved in domestic violence have a responsibility to make it absolutely clear to those of our gender who are involved that we will not stay silent if they engage in that sort of behaviour.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

I call the other sponsor of the motion, Jess Phillips.