Criminal Justice Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

There are a number of measures in the Bill that we can all agree are very welcome, and I want to recognise that. However, there is a wider challenge for us all when we see such a deconstruction of our criminal justice system, given that parliamentary time is so rare and precious. Are we doing everything we can do through this Bill to tackle the challenges in our constituencies?

I am sad that the Home Secretary is not here. His approach to talking about knife crime will not go down well in my constituency. We are facing an epidemic of knife crime in our community. For many of my residents it is a sign of real concern that they see a lack not only of the police they want, but of the social fabric that we need, both to tackle knife crime and to prevent it in the first place. I am also sorry that our SNP colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), is not in his place. He talked about the Glasgow model. I would go further than a public health model; I would go for an education model to try to prevent these issues in the first place.

I ask Ministers to look again at what more we can do to tackle knife crime. It has risen substantially and I am afraid that my local police consistently seem stretched to the point where they cannot do the work I know they want to do. I put on record my gratitude to the police for the work they are attempting to do, but we all know it is not enough.

The same is true for antisocial behaviour. My office has taken to mapping out the many areas where we know there is persistent drug dealing, in the hope that at some point we might be able to use that information to effect change and progress. We hear from residents that, even when they report things and try to do everything we tell them to do to stop those problems, nothing changes. I look at the Bill but do not see the measures that will help them with antisocial behaviour.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is not in her seat because I absolutely agree with what she said about rough sleeping. There is a rough-sleeping epidemic in my local community. Criminalising it—separately from begging—will not help us to deal with it, and, indeed, could be counter-productive. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, we recognise the overwhelming cries from those in our brilliant night shelters, who work on the ground to tackle rough sleeping, about how counter-productive that would be.

I put on record my gratitude for the work of Daniel Johnson, a Labour/Co-op MSP, on tackling violence against shopworkers. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), has done brilliant work on that in this Parliament. We have a model for what works. We know that our shopworkers deserve better; they are trying to help us. I hope that we can finally agree that such legislation is needed.

In an outpouring of collegiality, let me also agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) said, as well as with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is a powerhouse of changes in this place, as she has proved yet again. I agree with the case made by my right hon. Friend about the decriminalisation of abortion. I will focus on that in my speech because I will also table an amendment on that matter. I will set out why I believe we can take that way forward. I think there is growing agreement that the issue needs to be addressed.

Indeed, on 15 June, when faced again with the evidence of the continued prosecution, criminalisation and incarceration of women for having abortions, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), challenged us by saying that it was up to this place to do something about that if it had a problem with it, particularly the difference now between the experience of women in Northern Ireland and women in England and Wales. He tried to argue that the House made a decision knowing that it would create a different regime for access to abortion in Northern Ireland. I disagree. As somebody who was heavily involved, I do not think that, when we voted, we deliberately wanted to give second-class status to our constituents in England and Wales as to their rights. But I also recognise the challenge that the Minister set us that day: to test the will of the House through a free vote on an amendment to a piece of legislation.

Let me clear: I intend to table an amendment to begin that process of testing whether an Englishwoman’s right to choose should be confined by a piece of legislation from the 1600s. We know that abortion is a routine health procedure. One in three women in this country will have one in their lifetime. This Bill is the right place to act, because even if we see abortion as a healthcare matter, it is first and foremost a criminal offence that every one of those women is enacting before seeking exemption from prosecution.

When Roe v. Wade was repealed in America last year, many were quick to dismiss the idea that such attacks on women’s basic rights were possible in this country—access to abortion was secure and reflected the settled will of the people—but in the last few months alone, we have seen what the Government have done on buffer zones, for which the House voted overwhelmingly. Those same voices are silent as the Government drag their heels on the implementation of buffer zones, which are the will of Parliament.

In the meantime, multiple women are awaiting trial, under a law that is older than Germany, for the offence of just having an abortion. Last year, six women were charged with having an abortion. Each of them could, in theory, spend the rest of their lives behind bars. It is not just about the high-profile cases that have gone to court and been in the press, and the prison sentences that the legislation drives; investigations into women have rocketed in the last few years, too. Police data shows that, since 2015, 52 women have been reported for having an abortion.

I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who is no longer in her place, but I genuinely feel that looking at sentencing guidelines alone will not do. It is having the offence in the first place that is driving those investigations and prosecutions. The cases that come to court are the tip of the iceberg of a culture in which we use a woman’s reproductive capacity against her at a time when she is most vulnerable. Many people agree that that is wrong, but we in this House have yet to address it because we have always put decriminalising abortion in the “too difficult” box.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Ind)]

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Lady. Can I ask her to explain why there is a sudden rash of prosecutions of women? It seems extraordinary. What is the catalyst that has caused it?

[Stella Creasy]

I wish I could tell the hon. Gentleman what I think is the cause for sure. There are a number of pressures—perhaps the move towards telemedicine or a renewed interest in the issue—but I hope we can agree that in the 21st century the idea that having an abortion in and of itself is a criminal offence is outdated and unworkable with a commitment to equality between the sexes. Indeed, we are increasingly seeing—I know this will shock him—any woman who has had a miscarriage or stillbirth being at risk of being dragged into a criminal investigation.

A young teenager called Megan suffered a stillbirth at 28 weeks. The police investigated Megan’s involvement in her child’s death for a year before the post-mortem confirmed that the pregnancy loss was due to natural causes. She faced that ordeal while dealing with the trauma of stillbirth, and it resulted in her needing emergency psychiatric care. She is not the only one. Another young teenager, unaware she was pregnant, delivered a stillborn child. Once this was declared, her hospital room was flooded with police officers—the presumption of foul play assumed before a post-mortem or a doctor’s examination. Although sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 have become more widely known, it is section 60 that is most frequently used to charge an individual at initial stage, and that was originally written in 1643 to be used to prosecute where there was a suspicion of abortion. That is why senior obstetricians are now raising concerns that the provision, if it stays on the statute book, leaves bereaved parents exposed to intrusive questioning and investigation from the police.

For those who have suffered a stillbirth, the knock on the door that they need is from a counsellor, not a constable. If these cases were occurring in Northern Ireland, women would not face this pressure. That is why in 2019 MPs in this place voted to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland. It is also why women in Northern Ireland now have buffer zones; they are part of a decriminalised process and protected as such. Crucially, when we know people wish to attack a woman’s basic right to choose, in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State must uphold that human right to choose to have an abortion—safely, legally and locally. Those who seek to frustrate that access, whether through formal or informal ways, face a Government who know they will have to go to court if they do not overcome those barriers and protect the rights of women to choose. That is because that legislation is founded under the auspices of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—a treaty that we technically have yet to ratify fully, but which expressly states that states parties should remove criminalisation of abortion and

“withdraw punitive measures…on women who undergo abortion”.

The amendment that I will table this evening, which is open to all MPs to support—and which I hope I can convince my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North to co-sign—does not ask for something new or to set a new precedent. It is rooted in practice and evidence about what works when we are protecting the human right of women in the UK to choose. This is not untested because decriminalisation of abortion has already happened not just in Northern Ireland, but in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We are simply asking for equality and for somebody in Government whose role it would be to uphold that right to access an abortion without the threat of punitive measures.

In tabling my amendment I want to be very clear, because I understand that there will be concerns, especially in the light of recent court cases: nothing in my proposal will change the time limits in the Abortion Act 1967. Indeed, my amendment would explicitly enshrine those limits in future regulations. We should all be clear that 90% of abortions in this country happen before 10 weeks and that those having late-term abortions often do so for the most heartbreaking of reasons—the fatal foetal abnormality that means that if we try to move the time limit, we force women to give birth to babies they know will die. After carrying a much wanted child, we would be criminalising them rather than medicalising this matter.

Decriminalisation is about taking away the threat of prosecution. It does not take away the principle of viability in accessing services, so I state here and now—and for the purposes to be repeated online and offline as we move through the issue—that a vote for decriminalisation is explicitly a vote against abortion up to birth, though some have tried to scare otherwise. It is not the case in Northern Ireland, and it will not be the case here. Neither is it a vote for no regulation: the removal of the criminal underpinning of our legislation would mean its replacement with a medical one that puts the health of women first and ensures appropriate professional delivery of services as well as clinical safeguards.

I know there are some who will never want this progress. I respect their views: I respect the fact that they do not believe abortion should be an option, and will fight for their voices to be heard in this democracy. Surely we all want positive sex education in all our schools and support access to contraceptives, which will reduce the number of abortions required. However, many more of us disagree that a woman should be forced to give birth, and recognise that having bodily autonomy is a human rights issue.

The Northern Ireland experience shows that it is possible to make progress but also means that we currently have a two-tier system, with women in the UK being given different rights depending on where they live. Why should the women of Birmingham, Bangor, Bradford, Bury, Broadstairs, Bournemouth and Barking not enjoy the same protection of buffer zones as the women of Belfast? If colleagues voted for those buffer zones in Northern Ireland, why would they not extend them to their own constituents? If colleagues were not in this place to vote for them in Northern Ireland, why would they accept their own constituents being considered second-class citizens when it comes to their basic human rights?

Now is the time to recognise the damage being done because our criminal code does not allow a right to be accessed safely, legally, locally and equally across our nations. We know that this will be a long fight, that the wording may change and different variations may be put forward, but we also know that the time is now. Colleagues who agree—who do not want to see women prosecuted, obstetricians worried and stillbirths penalised in this way—should co-sign our amendment and say, “It is now an equal time to choose for all our constituents.”

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

I am pleased to welcome the Bill, and many of the measures to tackle serious organised crime and antisocial behaviour that it contains. These are important issues that are often raised by my constituents in surgeries and through surveys, because they impact on people’s daily life and their sense of safety and belonging in their community. I pay tribute to the work of Sussex police, as well as the Government funding that has focused action on the town centre most particularly, delivering the safer streets that give people the confidence to be out and about, especially in the night-time economy. However, I will confine my remarks not to measures that are in the Bill but to one measure that is not in the Bill but might be.

If there is one place where everyone should feel safe, it is surely within the comfort and confines of their own home, but the reality is that thousands of vulnerable people across the country are terrorised in their own home by criminals who take control of that home and use the property for criminal purposes. That horrendous exploitation is known as cuckooing, where criminals target the most vulnerable, such as socially isolated people, those with learning difficulties or those dealing with addiction and drug use. They may initially befriend those people, or may simply threaten them. They are often violent, ultimately taking over the victim’s home to store drugs, grow cannabis and facilitate prostitution or any number of other criminal activities. The influence of cuckooing goes further and wider, because the neighbours of people whose homes have been invaded have to contend with disruption, antisocial behaviour and intimidation from the criminals who operate from that property.

Cuckooing happens across all communities in our country, including—I am very sorry to say—in my own constituency of Eastbourne, and it is a rapidly growing problem. Figures from Sussex police reflect that: in the past five years, there has been a tenfold increase in cuckooing. Understanding the impact on the victim in one local case—their powerlessness, despair and shame at having been so abused and exploited—must surely command further action.

[Bob Stewart]

May I ask my hon. Friend what the reason is for a tenfold increase in cuckooing in Eastbourne?

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his question. I cannot explain the increase in Eastbourne, but I imagine that the increase is across the land. There will be an increase and an uptick because it has been found to be a very effective way for criminal gangs to operate, and they move from home to home to evade detection. It is an absolutely vile crime, but one that clearly lends itself to the activities being pursued.

It was actually a real shock to me to discover that this hostile takeover or invasion—this taking over of somebody’s home—was not already a crime. However, I believe the Government recognise the need for it to be, because in the antisocial behaviour action plan, published just in March, there was a commitment

“to target the awful practice of ‘cuckooing’ or home invasion”

and a pledge or commitment to

“engage with stakeholders on making it a new criminal offence.”

Indeed, Emily Drew, who is the exploitation co-ordinator at Sussex police, substantiated that point when she said:

“It’s definitely hard to tackle cuckooing when it’s not technically a crime. There are lots of other tools and powers we can utilise and we can be quite creative with it but it does rely on perpetrators committing other offences.”

Hence the real challenge of making this a stand-alone and discrete crime.

Clearly the action plan was a very positive step forward, but at the moment the Bill does not include such an offence. However, in his opening remarks, the Secretary of State talked of “every possible support” and “additional powers” for the police. He spoke about people feeling safe in their homes, and about opportunities during the passage of the Bill to consider further amendments to cover some of the concerns raised by hon. Members. I very much hope that the Bill will provide the perfect opportunity to introduce a new criminal offence to outlaw cuckooing once and for all. I hope the Minister and the excellent ministerial team, with the Secretary of State, will bring forward such an amendment in due course.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to some of the amendments and proposals outlined in this Bill, and to echo some of the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members. One of the key things in it—requiring individuals who are facing a sentence to come up and hear their sentencing—is a step in the right direction. I am sure that provision is welcomed, and it is good to see that the Home Secretary and Ministers are listening to many of the bereaved families about the impact non-attendance has on them. They have spoken about how it is distressing, exacerbates trauma and essentially denies them the opportunity to address the perpetrators. However, I hope that the Minister, in responding, will address some of the concerns of campaigners and organisations, including Justice, which have highlighted that the use of force may have a disproportionate impact on BAME offenders and could also put custody officers and prisoners at risk. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when they are looking at how to implement this power.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally agree with what the hon. Lady has said. Are we envisaging someone who refuses point blank to come into court to receive their sentence being forced into court by police officers and manacled to the dock? Personally I agree with that, but is that what we are envisaging?

Dangerous Drugs

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Poulter]

If the House divides this evening I will be voting against the measure for the further reasons I am about to outline.

I think it would be helpful to remind the Minister what the ACMD actually said with regard to legislation:

“Based on this harms assessment, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 remains the appropriate drug legislation to tackle supply of nitrous oxide for non-legitimate use. There is, however, a need for enforcement of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to be supported by additional interventions designed to reduce health and social harms. Based on this harms assessment, nitrous oxide should not be subjected to control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for the following reasons”.

Those reasons have been drawn out to some extent during the debate, but they are neatly summarised by the ACMD in its recommendations to the Government in its report.

First,

“Level of health and social harms”,

which is relatively limited, and

“current evidence suggests that the health and social harms are not commensurate with control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”

Secondly,

“Proportionality of sanctions: the offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 would be disproportionate for the level of harm associated with nitrous oxide and could have significant unintended consequences.”

Thirdly,

“Impact on legitimate uses: control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 could produce significant burdens for legitimate medical, industrial, commercial, and academic uses. The current scale and number of legitimate uses that stand to be affected is unknown but is estimated to be large.”

I think it is fairly clear that the Government did not carry out a proper impact assessment before bringing this measure to the House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. Does that mean that he thinks we should do nothing at all?

[Dr Poulter]

No, I do not think it means we should do nothing. I think that if we believe, as I think many of us do, that we should control the illegitimate supply of nitrous oxide, we should look at existing legislation, such as the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which was designed and taken through its stages by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). This point was discussed at some length during its passage. The focus was not on criminalising use and the potential users, but on controlling the supply: a clear distinction was drawn. The Minister may correct this view, but the ACMD made it clear in its report that better enforcement of that existing legislation to control illegitimate supply would be a much better and more proportionate way of dealing with the issue at hand, and the same was suggested more broadly in the evidence supplied to the ACMD while it was compiling its report.

So there is already a legitimate means of dealing with this, but unfortunately there is the potential for unintended consequences, and I was not reassured when the Minister said earlier that the Government would introduce another measure—which no one in the House has seen as yet—to ensure that there would be no such unintended consequences. If a Government are introducing two good pieces of legislation, they should introduce both of them together so that the House can consider them in the round. My concern is that primary legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs Act is tightly drawn, and unless it is amended, it is difficult to introduce another measure to sit beneath it and mitigate its provisions. I am therefore not reassured by the Minister’s comments, but in any event it is not good or effective government not to present the two measures at the same time so that we could consider the issues in the round.

Because I believe that there is already legislation in place which needs to be better enforced to deal with illegitimate supply, and because I do not believe that the Government have given adequate weight or consideration to the potential unintended consequences for legitimate users of nitrous oxide—which the Minister effectively admitted in his opening comments—I believe that the Government are in the wrong place at present, and that it would have been better to produce a proper impact assessment of the legitimate uses to sit alongside this measure before bringing it to the attention of the House. For all those reasons, I will vote against the order if it is put to a vote.

Public Order

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Mullan]

The other point that I think the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), completely ignores is that we have a common law legal system in this country. It is perfectly normal for Parliament to pass legislation and attempt to apply that law via the police. That is another reason why I think the hysterical reaction to the police beginning a process of using new law and not getting it right every single time totally betrays the normal way in which law is developed in this country. We legislate, we use certain terminology and we try to be clear, but it is for the courts and the police to operationalise it and feed back if they think we need to go further. It is all very normal, and again, this is just histrionics from the other side, because it suits them to put their clips on social media standing up against us over these “draconian” protest laws that are not in the least bit draconian.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend made a point about social media. One of the main intentions of this disruption is to get publicity for the protesters’ cause, so they make maximum effort to try to get maximum publicity, which is cheap.

[Dr Mullan]

Indeed. I am going to finish by making a point to the protesters. If they want to change opinions, they should do what we all have to do most weekends, on both sides of the Chamber: put leaflets through doors, knock on doors, persuade people and run for election. If they do not believe in that, they do not believe in democracy, and whether it is for Extinction Rebellion or any other cause, that is not how we get things done in this country.

When people hark back to the suffragettes, let us remember that they did not have the vote. They were campaigning for the vote in order to be participants in the process. We have a universal franchise: everyone has a say. Everyone can run for election and can campaign, so why do these protesters not put their energies into that? I am sorry that the British public are not open to their arguments, but that is not my fault. I agree with the public, because those arguments are so extreme. The answer is not to stop the public going about their daily business, and I suggest to Opposition Members that they should be in keeping with what the British public want, not with what the people who are funding them millions of pounds want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

The fact that the right hon. Lady has to ask that question reflects her total misunderstanding of what we are debating here today. Of course the police have powers enshrined in legislation already, but we are trying to clarify the thresholds and boundaries of where the legal limit lies, so that they can take more robust action and respond more effectively. Perhaps if she had not looked at her phone so much she would know what we were talking about. She would also rather spend her time at the Dispatch Box playing pantomime politics than engaging with the serious issue of public safety and the right to protest.

People cannot get to work. They cannot get to school. Ambulances cannot get to patients. People cannot get to funerals. Hard-working people are paying well-earned cash to attend live sporting events, public galleries and public shows not for them to be ruined by a selfish minority.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for allowing me to intervene. I endorse entirely what the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said. The reason for these measures is that the nature of protests on our roads—the blocking of our roads—has changed over the past few years. No one wants to impose more restrictions on anyone in our country, but what is happening now is making it impossible for normal people to have decent lives.

[Suella Braverman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the evolving tactics—the guerrilla tactics—that we are now seeing being deployed by these campaigners are unacceptable and the police need more clarity as to how to use their powers. The sad fact is that Labour Members would rather look after their Just Stop Oil friends and obstruct this Government from giving the police more powers. Frankly, they are on another planet if they think that they speak for the British people. They are on the wrong side of this debate and they are on the wrong side of the public.

I thank hon. Members who made powerful speeches. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) who spoke very powerfully, and with the benefit of his own experience from the frontline of policing as well, about the careful balance that is involved in tackling this issue. As he said, we need to balance rights with responsibilities. This is about protecting the public and enabling the law-abiding majority to go about their business. It is about stopping them from being impeded, obstructed, delayed, inconvenienced and frustrated. These measures are designed to support them.

I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for his potent words, As he said, this is about crossing a boundary. This is about making it clear that when protesters use disruptive means and deliberately seek to cause misery and disturbance through physical disruption, a line has been crossed. These measures clarify the law, so that the police can take more robust action.

There has been some mention of the coronation this afternoon. I want to put on record my thanks to the police for delivering what was the largest operation that the Metropolitan Police Service has ever led, with more than 11,000 officers, staff and volunteers. They ensured that the coronation operations were delivered successfully, safely and securely in a challenging environment. I was proud of their work and proud of the fact that they enabled millions of people to enjoy such an historic event peacefully. At the same time, they struck the right balance. When they received intelligence that indicated that groups were seeking to disrupt the coronation, including by using rape alarms to disrupt the procession, they took the requisite action that they deemed fit within the bounds of operational independence. Hundreds of individuals participated in peaceful protests in and around the coronation footprint on 6 May, including a large group of Not My King supporters in Trafalgar Square. I thank the police for their incredible effort in policing the coronation and enabling millions of people to enjoy such an important event.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have, with respect, missed the point when it comes to these measures. This is not about banning protest. This is not about prohibiting freedom of assembly. No one in this House is suggesting that at all. Those are human rights, and they are protected by law. I will fiercely defend the right of anyone to exercise those rights lawfully, but they are not absolute rights; they are qualified rights, as set out in the European convention on human rights. These measures are about the balance to be struck, and they turn on the need for clarity, so that law enforcement knows where the boundary is and how to exercise their powers.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) spoke with characteristic alarmism, if I may say so. We have become accustomed to her doom-mongering over the years, and I will actually miss it when she leaves this House. Let me take this opportunity to thank her for her years of hard work for her constituents and for the causes about which she is so evidently passionate.

Members in this House now have a choice before them: do they support the disrupters, or are they on the side of the law-abiding majority. Are they here to help the grafters and the strivers, or to facilitate the obstructors and the fanatics? We know that Labour is here to support the militant few rather than the law-abiding majority. It is this Conservative Government who are on the side of all reasonable people across the country and on the side of common-sense policing. These measures will ensure that public order laws are clear, consistent and current, and I commend this statutory instrument to the House.

Question put.

Net Migration Figures

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As I said in answer to earlier questions, we expect numbers to reduce. We are taking further steps this week, which we think will make a material difference. If we need to do more, we will, because net migration is far too high. I hope the hon. Gentleman, by his question, agrees with me in that regard, and that he will support the measures we take to bring numbers down.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If it were possible for everyone who crosses the channel illegally in a small boat to be returned to France, that would be not only in our interests but in the interests of France, because we would stop people buffering on its north-east coast to try to get into this country. I know it is very difficult, but what are the chances that that could happen, because it would solve the problem?

[Robert Jenrick]

We are making considerable efforts to deepen our relationship with the French Government. In fact, next week I will be in Paris to meet our counterparts in the French Interior Ministry. The Prime Minister achieved, in short succession, two significant deals that are leading to an increase in activity on the beaches, increased joint working on counter-organised immigration crime, and a new joint working centre in Lille that I will be visiting shortly. If there was a possibility of a readmissions agreement with France, that is certainly something the Government would welcome and we have made that clear. In our conversations with both President Macron and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, we offered a range of solutions that could lead to that.

I would just say, however, that the previous readmissions agreement—Dublin—which operated during our time in the European Union, was not successful. In the last years of its operation, more people were being brought from France to the United Kingdom than were sent from the UK to France, so this is not a panacea. But if there are ways in which we can take this forward, we will.

Public Order Act 2023

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is very difficult to strike a balance between respecting peaceful protest, which of course is a cornerstone of our democracy, and occasionally placing a limit on it when the action of the protesters goes too far, causes immense disruption to the law-abiding majority who are just going about their business, and, on certain occasions, may cause a risk to people’s lives: we have seen many occasions when ambulances have been blocked.

On Saturday 18 March, Just Stop Oil held a protest in Ipswich. It was one of those go-slow marches; it started the go-slow marches last December. It is a new tactic from Just Stop Oil, the aim being basically to bring traffic to a standstill pretty much; traffic is almost stationary. I suspect that, curiously, that has a negative impact on the environment—we all know that air pollution is worse when vehicles move at that pace. The irony of that is a slightly different issue, but that is a tactic it has employed, including in Ipswich on 18 March.

I will not overstate the disruption that was caused. There was not a massive amount of disruption. A number of different people locally made it clear before the go-slow march that it would not be appreciated, and I think that by and large the police should be commended for taking a reasonably robust line—it was perhaps not quite as robust as I would have liked, but it was reasonably robust. Ultimately, it still should not have happened. We still should not have a situation where Crown Street, one of the business streets in Ipswich, on a Saturday, a match day, is basically closed off.

Under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the police had the ability to go further than they did. The Public Order Act gives them a much firmer steer than the provisions before the Act. Ultimately, however, we still had a degree of disruption caused that should not have been caused. We also had various activists going around making various demands. I am sorry, but a protest is about expressing your views strongly. It is not about making demands and saying, “We are going to do this and we are going to cause untold disruption to the vast majority of people until we get what we want.”

We can add to that another way in which my constituents have been negatively impacted. Many of the most disruptive protests have been to do with oil refineries in Essex and the eastern region. That has of course pulled policing resources from Suffolk. The police have had to go out there and cover some of the Just Stop Oil protests on the M25 as well. At a time when we have a problem with antisocial behaviour and crime in Ipswich town centre, police officers who could be on the beat in the town centre, making my constituents safer and making them feel safer, are being drawn elsewhere because of some of these reckless, disruptive protests.

Coronation day was, of course, a great national spectacle of profound importance to our country, a once-in-a-lifetime thing for most of us, and the world’s eyes were on us. Again, I think the police should be commended for the role that they played. They had to make incredibly high-pressure decisions: they had to make judgment calls in moments when they did not have much time to think about it. We had a fantastic event that passed with great fanfare. Yes, the police made decisions to arrest a number of people, the vast majority of whom probably deserved to be arrested. A small number, it turns out, did not, and the police have apologised for that. But ultimately we had a very successful day, and I think that the vast majority of my constituents backed the way the police handled it. They did it properly and got the balance right between allowing peaceful protest and preventing action that could have caused significant danger. We heard examples of rape alarms being set off, which could have disturbed horses, with all the security concerns associated with that. I myself stood on Whitehall and saw opposite two different groups of protesters holding up “Not My King” signs. I profoundly disagreed with their message, but it is their right to express that and they did express it. The idea that there were not significant numbers of people protesting against the monarchy that weekend is ridiculous. There were: I saw them and many others saw them as well.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. I think that this matter is all about fairness. It is fair that people are allowed to protest, but it is equally fair that people’s lives should not be seriously disrupted by those protests. Human rights, on both sides, are what this Act is about.

[Tom Hunt]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is about a balancing act. I am not concerned about the Act: it does a good job in getting the balance right. It still allows peaceful protest, but it draws a sharp line. Actually, it was explicitly asked for by the police. The Labour party says that it respects and supports the police: well, the police asked for the Act. They said they wanted more clarity and they have got it through the Act, and that is to be welcomed.

I find this slightly curious. It is interesting watching the dynamic at play between the Scottish National party and the Opposition. An interesting dynamic seems to be emerging here; a bit of tension between the two parties. It is intriguing that this was selected by the SNP as the subject of the motion today. It is also intriguing that virtually no Labour MPs are present. It is interesting that the Labour party explains this away as “Oh, this is all the SNP playing games and we’re bigger than this.” That is really not the case. The reason no Labour MPs are here is that they find it profoundly awkward. There is a huge tension between two different groups that they look to appeal to. The first is voters in Scotland who may be torn between the SNP and Labour, who might be very much on the side of protesters. On the other hand, Labour MPs might deep down know that the vast majority of the public—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

I think it is ludicrous that the police apologised. Apologised for what? As the Minister said, the police set out a statement on the circumstances of what they said had occurred on the day. It was perfectly lawful—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady raises her arm, but the one thing we know from the police perspective is that the police’s position was that the arrests were lawful. The matters were then investigated and, like many other applications or incidents, the people arrested were released without charge, because a decision was taken—with the Crown Prosecution Service, I am sure—that intent could not be proven.

There is literally nothing unlawful about that. The police should not have apologised. It was a ridiculous thing to do, because it plays into exactly what we are seeing here: the left-wing media hysteria that can be whipped up in circumstances that are completely legal.

[Bob Stewart]

I do not think it was political pressure that led to the arrests; it was following an Act of Parliament that we had just passed. The police were acting on that Act of Parliament, and they were doing so to the best of their ability.

[James Daly]

That is absolutely correct. In terms of how statute is drafted, I do not know what the Opposition want. If, for each criminal offence on the statute book, they want an absolute definition to cover every single circumstance that the police ever face, we will have the longest Acts ever to appear in this place.

The Conservatives have confidence in our police and our prosecuting authorities to use the discretion that this Parliament gives them to make correct decisions. If they do not make the correct decisions, those matters are tested in court and, as has been said, if there is an unlawful arrest, there is a legal process to deal with that. The fact that we are arguing about that here is utterly bizarre to me.

National Security Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My understanding of the legislation—someone from the Intelligence and Security Committee is due to speak after me who has a better perspective of the detail of this than I have—is that there are safeguards against anything that could possibly be used to justify or facilitate torture. This was debated in considerable detail in Committee, and I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect from our time together on the Select Committee on Defence, still feels that the safeguards may not be strong enough. Perhaps we will hear from him later.

We are pleased to see that the Government have incorporated various changes recommended by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including on strengthening the Bill’s independent oversight provisions and replacing the “exemption” under clause 21 with an improved “defence”, with stronger safeguards and accountability provisions.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) flagged a moment ago, there has been a missed opportunity, namely the failure to reform the 1989 Act. As the ISC has said since the Bill’s introduction, it does not go far enough, despite reforming the espionage regime under the OSA, because it fails to reform the 1989 Act, as both we and the Law Commission recommended. That is despite a previous Government commitment that reforming the 1989 Act would be a key part of the Bill. This means the problems with the 1989 Act, which the Government have already acknowledged, will persist. Among those problems is the requirement to prove that damage has been done by unauthorised disclosures, which acts as a barrier to prosecution because showing that disclosures have done damage risks increasing the damage.

The recommendations include increasing the two-year maximum sentence, which we feel is clearly insufficient to deter or to respond to the most serious unauthorised disclosures. Will the Minister commit to introducing legislation to reform the 1989 Act in this or the next parliamentary Session? I would like an answer either now or at the end.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The problem is that classified information sometimes has to be used to prove something like this, and it is just not acceptable to use classified information in an open court.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My right hon. and gallant Friend underlines my point, which is that, in proving damage has been done, the mere fact of displaying why something has been damaging can increase the damage and adverse impact by many multiples.

Both Front Benchers focused on Lords amendment 22, on foreign interference in elections, and Lords amendment 122, on the duty to update the MOU of the ISC. Like Admiral Lord West, who spoke in favour of Lords amendment 22 on the ISC’s behalf, I firmly support the introduction of the proposed new clause, which would help to increase the transparency and accountability of our political system. The ISC’s Russia report of 2020 recognised that the UK has clearly welcomed Russian money, including in the political sphere. It found that several members of the Russian elite with close links to Putin have been identified as being involved with political organisations in the UK, including by making large donations to political parties. That clause would require a UK-registered political party to create a policy statement, and to provide the Electoral Commission with an annual statement of risk management, identifying how risks relating to donations from a foreign power are being managed to ensure such donations are properly identified. This should not be controversial, and it is still not clear, despite the Minister’s best efforts, why the Government would wish to oppose that clause. Indeed, the Government said in the other place that the current electoral finance legislation is sufficient.

Several Lords also noted that, unlike companies or charities, political parties do not have to examine the source of the funds they receive. As those Lords explained, that means it is perfectly possible for companies to make significant donations to political parties despite clearly not making operating profits—so with limited explanation of how they can afford such donations or where the money comes from. That means that, unlike companies and charities, there is no enhanced due diligence even when a donor is operating from a high-risk country listed in terrorism-financing or money-laundering legislation.

As was also suggested in the other place, incorporating this modest amendment would mean that political parties develop a culture of knowing their donor, just as companies, particularly financial and legal entities, are required to know their customer. It is entirely appropriate for political parties to do more to determine the source of donations. The additional measures proposed would not be over-onerous. Lords amendment 22 is eminently reasonable, and it should not be controversial for political parties to want to ensure the transparency of their foreign political donations. We must protect against covert, foreign state-backed financial donations if we are to defend our democratic institutions from harmful interference and influence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Absolutely. My right hon. and learned Friend is far too modest to say that his input, as a former senior Law Officer of this country, to the changes that were made was of extreme importance and assistance to the Government.

[Bob Stewart]

In short, we have to revise the MOU because at the moment we on the ISC cannot do our job properly and it is a job that everybody in this Chamber wants us to do.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am grateful for that strong support. It should not have been necessary for people in the upper House to bring forward a legal requirement to update the MOU. For the benefit of people not buried in the intricacies of these arrangements, let me say that the MOU means that at any one time an exchange of letters between me, as the Chairman of the ISC, and the Prime Minister can modify the range of organisations that the ISC has the right to scrutinise. As we will be hearing in a few moments, that is because when that arrangement was initiated, it was recognised that from time to time changes in the structure of Departments mean that different parts involving classified intelligence-related activities would pop up here and there in different Ministries, so we would need an ability to adjust the MOU to approve our scrutinising the classified parts of those activities. That is precisely because ordinary—I know that my colleague on the Front Bench does not like my using that word—departmental Select Committees are not able effectively to scrutinise highly classified material in any systematic way. If they were, it would not have been necessary to set up the ISC in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for the contribution she made and the spirit in which she has approached these debates. She is absolutely right to talk about Caoilfhionn Gallagher and Jimmy Lai and to highlight the many issues that she did. Such matters unite us; another is the fact that this Government, like every Member of this House, I am sure, remain absolutely committed to the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There is absolutely nothing in this Bill, or in any other Bill that this Government are bringing forward, that would in any way undermine our obligations or the seriousness with which we treat torture as it is practised, sadly too frequently, around the world. Although I hear what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) say, there is quite literally nothing in the Bill that would give rise to the need for amendment (c) to Lords amendment.

The point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about Lord Pannick, however, was entirely fair. A letter should have gone back to him. In fact, the point was made and the answer given in the form of amendments to clause 3 that address his concern about the carve-out for lawyers. Although I agree that I should have written, the reality is that I addressed the points Lord Pannick raised in the Bill itself.

The matter of foreign donations has been raised again. The reality is that we have to treat British citizens like British citizens. The idea that we can treat British citizens differently depending on how we feel about them seems to me to be rather a bad way of making law, but that does not mean that political parties have to treat British citizens exactly alike. Surely the rule here is: just because you can does not mean you should. There are many donations, and perhaps many individuals making them, that many of us would not wish to accept. The point about politics is that it is about decisions, judgment and choices, and while the law has to apply to everyone equally, we as politicians and as political parties are not so obliged. We have to make judgments and decisions, and we have to carry our reputations and the reputations of our organisations with us when we make those calls.

On the changes to the MOU that the ISC suggested, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) had the opportunity to give me the power to make those changes, but I am not the Prime Minister, so I cannot do so. The Prime Minister will have to make that decision, but I will raise the matter again with his office, because my right hon. Friend’s points were well made.

I have heard many comments about the Official Secrets Act 1989. The nature of this reform is complex and there are many and various arguments because this piece of legislation ties into so many others. I will not give my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) a commitment to act in this Parliament—he will understand that more work is required. As for my ability to make commitments into the next Session, he tempts me too far.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has achieved the great honour of being treasurer of the Scottish National party. I hope it comes with a caravan and that he is enjoying the touring that that affords him.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) raises many good points. The reality is that these challenges must be addressed as a whole and require further discussion, so I am very grateful for his time.

[Bob Stewart]

I accept the Minister’s points on the Official Secrets Act 1989 and the fact that it is complicated, but do the Government recognise that, complicated though it is, it must be addressed?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend tempts me in a direction I would love to go in, but in the minutes I have left, I shall not be lured. An awful lot of legislation would require work if we were to amend the Act, so a huge amount of drafting work would be required before I could express an opinion. I see other right hon. and hon. Members nodding in agreement.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) made a fair point on the Electoral Commission. I shall follow up with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for electoral law and which will be responding to the commission on that issue.

If I may, I will finish by simply saying that tomorrow is polling day, and while this Bill addresses many different aspects of our national security, the single best thing that all of us as citizens can do to defend our country and our future is to vote. As such, I urge everybody who has the opportunity to do so—in England and Wales, in our local government areas—to please get out and vote, and of course, to vote Conservative.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 26.

Amendment (c) proposed to Lords amendment 26.—(Mr Carmichael.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Illegal Migration Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Let be me clear: this Bill is inhumane. It is not an illegal migration Bill: it is an anti-refugee Bill, and an extension of the failed hostile environment policy introduced by the Conservative party.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

No, I am not going to give way at this point; I have waited since 5.30 pm. Sorry, Bob.

Anti-refugee MPs have been emboldened by the Home Secretary’s rhetoric of hate, as we can see from the amendments and new clauses and by what we have heard from many Government Members. Unbelievably, the Bill has the potential to be even worse than when it came to the House on Second Reading. Let us not forget that the day after an immigration facility was attacked—it was firebombed—the Home Secretary spoke of an “invasion” of southern England. It has been reported today that the Home Secretary even fuelled a rebellion against her own Bill in order to introduce tougher amendments.

Security Threat to UK-Based Journalists

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I spoke to the head of MI5 only this afternoon; I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to answer for the other two agencies. It is incredibly important to make sure appropriate information is available quickly and in a timely fashion for the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I know it is conducting a very important inquiry—indeed I believe witnesses will be appearing before it in a week or two.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said: “We know that the Iranian intelligence services work with organised criminal gangs.” Mindful of the fact that Colonel Gaddafi’s terrorists used to work quite closely with the Provisional IRA, is my right hon. Friend able to say whether there are indications that such links are happening between Iranian terrorists and home-grown terrorists?

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

At bleeding last! It is here. We have been waiting for years. Alleluia! It has finally arrived.

We have all heard some of the history of how long we have been waiting for the Bill, but it is also true to say that a few years ago Britain was at the forefront of this legislation. In fact, in some respects we are still the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. There are still many other countries that have not taken even the initial step of introducing beneficial ownership transparency, which we have long had in this country. But—and it is an essential “but”—because we have the City of London and the wholesale financial markets that are the envy of so many countries, we have to live up to a much higher standard than other countries, and that means that we have to go further.

We know that we have loopholes in our existing laws, and it is well past time for us to plug them. The Bill is the first step on that road, but it is only a first step, and I was delighted to hear the promise of more in the White Paper and the promise of a second Bill. Like the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), I hope that that will come early in the next Session, because only if we do both those things in parallel and in tandem will we finish the job that was started back in 2015 or 2016, depending on which version of history we adhere to.

I am also delighted at the acceptance of the manuscript amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), which aims to speed up the application to deal with the oligarchs who own property in this country and will even now be searching for buyers to palm the assets on to so that they can get their money out, because they know that we are moving and also know that, as matters currently stand, they have some time to complete their transactions. It is vital that we move faster, and I am delighted that we will have a chance to consider the manuscript amendment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. I hope and presume that this Bill will freeze assets; will the second part of the legislation, when it comes, allow their confiscation? I hope that it will, in which case we might even put it to good use and help the people of Ukraine. Is that out of the question?

[John Penrose]

That is a question that I think the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who I know is listening carefully, will be able to answer in his summing up. To the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), we cannot sanction an oligarch’s cash if we do not know where it is, so the essential initial step is to rip back the veils of anonymity so that we can find it, so that we know what we are looking at and so that we can at least stop it leaving the country before we move on to those other steps.

There are two other points that I hope the Minister can address in his summing up. They relate to things that could be in the Bill but are not. I hope that they will appear later or that they will appear in the follow-up Bill that we are being promised. The first is the need for proper measures to deal with whistleblowers. We have heard a great deal already about the importance of enforcement. Enforcement is vital, but it is so much faster and so much better applied if proper whistleblowing legislation is in place. As with transparency of beneficial ownership, a few years ago this country’s legislation on whistleblower protection was among the best in the world, but the world has moved on and other countries have overtaken us.

We urgently need to improve the quality of our whistleblower legislation. It is good that the Minister who will respond to this debate is from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy because it is in his Department that the whistleblowing team sits. I fear that it is well behind the curve of where it needs to be if we are going to move promptly on this. We have a long way to go and a great deal of thinking to do, and I hope that he will be able to make some commitments when he gets to his feet at the end of this Second Reading debate.

Foreign Interference: Intelligence and Security

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that important and powerful point. Of course racism and racist abuse against any community is abhorrent, and we have to work to stamp it out. She is right to highlight the fact that, throughout the coronavirus pandemic—this is a tragedy and awful to know—the south-east Asian community have been particularly vilified and subjected to racist abuse.

It is right that not just the Government but the Home Office, working with our community partners and the police, do everything possible to ensure that any racist incidents are dealt with in the right and proper way and that we give the right protective measures, awareness and support to members of that community.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The granting of a parliamentary pass is a real privilege, and I think that all of us should take responsibility by helping the House authorities and the Security Service when we are looking at people for our own offices, because we have the right to nominate people. We bear responsibility for checking out these individuals. May I suggest, from my previous experience in the military, that one way of doing that is to make each and every one of us sit down with anyone who wants a pass or who comes into our office and jointly go through a detailed form, with very detailed questions, and jointly sign it?

[Priti Patel]

I return to my earlier comments about vetting and the support that is currently in place. We can work together to close down any issues of concern. For the assurance of not just all right hon. and hon. Members but the British public, who will no doubt be watching this debate and wondering how on earth any malign influence could enter the heart of our democracy, we will continue to work collectively to make sure we put all the protective measures in place.