Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. That is important. Someone who claims to be an aid worker or a doctor will be expected to prove that. It is not possible simply to pick one of the excuses and use it as a defence. We should expect it to be necessary for the police to investigate any case in which a person returns from a designated area, to establish either whether that person may pose a risk to the public, or whether they fall outside the offence by virtue of travelling for one of the specified purposes or can otherwise rely on a “reasonable excuse” defence.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If a person from this country were to go to one of the prohibited areas and then come back, would it be automatic for that person to be picked up if he or she had not been given permission to do something there? Is it possible that the security services—which, I presume, fully support this measure—would say, “Let him or her run, because it is more in our interests to watch what they do”?

[Mr Wallace]

As I think my hon. Friend will know, when it comes to intelligence and investigations, such decisions are operational. Should our police or intelligence services suspect that someone has committed an offence but there is nevertheless more to discover, that is a risk that they will have to take. They will take it into consideration and make a decision. Of course, any prosecution under the Crown Prosecution Service must meet a number of thresholds. It must be established, for example, whether the prosecution is in the public interest, or whether there is a likelihood of success. However, if someone does not provide a reasonable excuse, that person is potentially open to prosecution and to being sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

It is regrettable but a fact of life, given the challenges posed by end-to-end encryption, secure communications, and the ability to obtain evidence from people who we may know from intelligence—but not in evidential space—have been up to no good, that we must seek a way around the current issue. When I attended the G7 in Canada last year, it was clear that every state represented at the table, from Japan to France, faced the same challenges. We must reduce the number of offences of this type, and we hope that the Bill will make a difference. We want it to deliver a strong deterrent to ensure that people are where they are for the right reasons, and to make clear there are other ways to better people’s lives in their communities than going to a designated area for reasons that may turn out to be spurious.

To ensure that the power to designate an area is used proportionately, Lords amendment 5 provides that regulations designating an area will automatically cease to have effect after three years. That will not, however, prevent further regulations from being made to designate the same area should such a designation still be required to keep the public safe from the threat of terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Church and other faith-based organisations are often involved in peace-building activities.

I will give some examples of the sorts of things that could be covered by peace building. It could include mediation and dialogue activities to negotiate local ceasefires or broker peace talks, support for local communities to strengthen early warning schemes or civilian protection efforts and initiatives to deal with the legacy of violence and promote social cohesion so that peace is built. DFID’s single departmental plan has as one of its five objectives strengthening global peace, security and governance, and DFID seeks to spend about half its investment in fragile states. In November last year, the Department doubled the UK’s commitment to the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund as part of a long-term strategy to build global peace and prosperity by tackling the underlying causes of instability.

[Bob Stewart]

In my experience, a Department such as DFID will sometimes send in a project team to do peace building or peace making, or to build a hospital. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we might also have to consider bodyguards, because a private military company might be involved in protecting DFID’s people when they go into a war zone? Has he considered that as part of his amendment?

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Aid workers—whether directly employed by DFID or other donor countries, or employed by other non-governmental organisations or private contractors—require security arrangements in precisely the sorts of countries that we are discussing. That is an important part of the aid effort, and therefore it is, as he suggests, covered by my amendment.

My concern is that the term “aid of a humanitarian nature” does not explicitly include such peace-building programmes. I fear that without a clear exemption, there is a risk that peace building could be at the mercy of interpretation on what constitutes a reasonable excuse. This is a relatively low-profile area of international activity, so I think there is a risk that it may not be widely understood. I note that, as the SNP spokesman rightly said, on Third Reading in the other place Earl Howe for the Government said:

“In the absence of such an exemption the Government are clear that entering and remaining in a designated area for the purpose of engaging in peacebuilding would constitute a reasonable excuse.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2019; Vol. 795, c. 141.]

That commitment is welcome, but I think the risk remains that were such a case to come to court, juries might not have a full understanding of peace building and might not understand it to be covered by the concept of humanitarian activity. I do not think anybody in this House would want the Bill to have the unintended consequence of deterring NGOs from going into conflict areas or post-conflict areas. I urge the Minister, if he gets the chance to do so in responding to the debate, to give a commitment to the importance of peace building. Ideally, he will do so, as per my amendment, by adding this activity to the list of specified purposes. Alternatively, he could make it explicitly clear today that peace keeping is covered by the term “aid of a humanitarian nature”, and he could reflect that in the policy guidance.

Finally, let me refer to human rights monitoring. Rightly, the Bill now refers to

“carrying out work as a journalist”

but my amendment seeks to extend the provision to cover those who are undertaking human rights monitoring or advocacy. The United Nations defines human rights monitoring as seeking

“to gather information about the human rights situation in a country or region over time through readily available methods, with the goal of engaging in advocacy to address human rights violations.”

That is dangerous and incredibly important work. Without human rights defenders on the ground, injustices too often go unchallenged, and the most marginalised and vulnerable people have little protection from abuses of power. Those who work in the field of human rights monitoring and advocacy often put themselves in grave danger to shine a light on the abuse of power. I believe they have a right to know that when they are conducting that important work, they have protection in UK law that recognises their legitimate reasons for travelling to such designated areas.

I finish by saying that although it is fundamental that we strengthen our legislation to tackle terrorism, it is important to ensure that when we do so, we do not inadvertently undermine the very values that terrorists seek to attack. We have a proud record as an open, outward-looking country that does not turn away when it witnesses injustice. It would be sad if the Bill had the unintended consequence of limiting the contribution of our own citizens to development programmes, peace building and human rights monitoring in some of the world’s most fragile states. Although I will not press my amendment to a Division, I hope that the Minister will consider the points that I and others have made about this and will, even at this late stage, consider accepting my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) used the example of the “Four Lions” film, which is actually tragic rather than a comedy. The tragedy is in the waste of life and so on. When the characters go out for the wedding, they do not go to a wedding. It would not be a hard excuse to disprove; I do not think they actually attended a wedding. It is qualified within the list. The “reasonable excuse” would have to be tested by the prosecution.

[Bob Stewart]

So, if a person wishes to go to a designated area, that person should, perhaps on Foreign Office advice, be told, “That is a designated area; you need to declare it.” If that person declares it prior to his or her going, that is good. If they do not declare it, and they go there and are picked up on the way back—it might be a mistake, but it might not—is that what the Minister anticipates might happen?

[Mr Wallace]

The decision that we took around this offence is that it is not a permission—something that you obtain in advance. As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) pointed out, in the Danish system one effectively gets a licence. The problem with that is that people just get a legitimate licence, and then go and carry out their other mission. It is also administratively burdensome. It also becomes a barrier to travelling for those who are doing so for a genuine reason, because they would have to check in with the state beforehand. We are proposing that people can go, but that if we have a suspicion that they have been doing something, we will test their “reasonable excuse”, and if the “reasonable excuse” fails, they will be guilty of the offence. We believe that to be the best way.

The hon. Member for Torfaen said that journalists would not be able to advertise where they were going. Many are based in theatre and do not know where they are about to go. They might be based in Lebanon and choose to visit—as some have—foreign fighters in detention in Syria. We shall not set up a permissions system; it is simply that you will have to declare it.

To clarify, the list of specified purposes is an exhaustive, not an indicative list, but there is power to add to the list by regulation. To give some reassurance to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, let me say that we will review the operation of this in conjunction with the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, to see how it works, and we will of course be open to adding to the list if there were such issues as he represents. I am confident, however, that genuine peace builders would have a reasonable excuse and would not, therefore, be subject to the committing of an offence.

To give the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness some reassurance let me say that these excuses do not exempt a person from committing the offence if all their reasons for being out there are not covered by the “reasonable excuse.” You cannot say, “On Monday I am a peace builder; on Tuesday I am a terrorist.” That will not exempt you from that offence. You have to be there specifically and entirely for a reasonable excuse.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I would of course be absolutely delighted to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was concerned to read in the draft withdrawal agreement the phrase that there will be increased intelligence co-operation. I asked the Prime Minister about this on 10 December, and she said there is no problem with the “Five Eyes” agreement—none whatsoever.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to reassure everyone in this House that it is a paramount negotiating objective for the Government to make sure that we maintain an independent foreign and security policy. It always has been, incidentally, and it always will be.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was right to warn about the dangers of xenophobia and small-minded isolationism. No one in this House would think in those terms. However, he is totally wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said, to suggest that the view of Conservative Members in any way reflects that approach. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, within the framework of the new immigration policy, there will be no cap on the number of skilled workers who can enter the UK.

The hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree and for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke about the impact of leaving the EU on our universities. I can reassure them that the new immigration policy means there will be no limit on the number of international students who can study in our universities. This is very important because our international reputation benefits immensely from the excellence of our universities. We are coming to a close, but one group whose rights we have not talked about is the nearly 1 million Brits living in Europe, The withdrawal agreement protects their rights as well.

In conclusion, as time is marching on and the weekend approaches, we are now in the final stages of leaving a supranational organisation that has been central to our national life for 46 years. We all have deeply held opinions on this issue, but the voters who sent us here are looking for hon. Members to reach consensus on the way ahead. Britain’s friends across the world—the Governments I deal with every day—hope and expect that we will leave the EU in an orderly way and emerge as a reinvigorated ally on the international stage. Let us rise to the moment, meet those expectations and show that whatever our views may be—leaver or remainer—we are democrats, and proud to be in one of the oldest democracies in the world, where we do what the people tell us.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

That needs to be considered against the wider perspective of the very small chance of people being murdered with legally owned guns. In 2017, for example, just nine people were killed by someone in legal possession of the murder weapon. That is nine people too many, of course, but it is a very small figure compared with deaths by illegal weapons. There has been a lot of confusing evidence about .50 calibres potentially being used as military-style “materiel destruction” rifles—for instance, by terrorists to shoot car engines. However, that would be possible only when used with armour-piercing or incendiary ammunition, both of which are already barred for civilian use. Not only is there no evidence of such firearms being used for criminal purposes in this jurisdiction, as recognised by the National Crime Agency, but to imply that the provision would make the public any safer from gun crime is, I believe, unrealistic.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am trying to remember, but I think that .50 calibre weapons were used by terrorists in Northern Ireland, although I stand to be corrected.

[Mr Djanogly]

I believe that they have been, but I advisedly used “in this jurisdiction” for that purpose.

If we are to start banning things just because of the use to which they might be put, logic could dictate that all firearms should be used, as well as all knives. That is not my idea of a free society.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, these are not my words, but the words of the Minister in Committee. She told us then that the Government were considering other alternatives for enhanced security for storage and use, yet now we see a complete climbdown.

[Bob Stewart]

To the hon. Lady’s knowledge, have any of these heavier calibre weapons been used in criminality? If they have not, I am wondering what we are arguing about.

[Louise Haigh]

Twice in the last two years these guns have been found in the hands of criminals: once in the north, when the barrel was shortened and discovered in wasteland; and once when the weapons were found in the hands of a gun smuggler to organised criminal gangs.

Labour will vigorously oppose these amendments today and any attempt to weaken the already desperately weak provisions in the Bill. The measures contained in clause 30, which in effect ban the enormously powerful .50 calibre, 14 mm and 20 mm are necessary and proportionate. They have been backed up with expert justification of the risk assessments and we are convinced that that assessment has been made in good faith. We will not be playing politics with public safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

We are indeed introducing a blanket ban on the delivery of bladed products to homes, first because we know that test purchases online have not led to the sort of results that we have seen with retailers. We wanted to close that gap and make it clear to online retailers, some of which do not seem to understand that they currently are not allowed to sell bladed products to under-18s and should have robust measures in place to ensure that they do not. The Bill seeks to re-emphasise that, but we also want to ensure that the person picking up the knife has to go to a post office, delivery depot or local shop with such arrangements and show identification to establish that they are over 18. That is the purpose behind those measures.

We do not currently have evidence of the rate of shoplifting of knives by young people who go on to use them in crimes. That is part of the problem. As a first step, my officials are working with retailers to come up with a much stronger voluntary response, which we know retailers are responding to well, because, in fairness, the voluntary commitments have been working well.

[Bob Stewart]

When packages are delivered to post offices to be picked up, are they clearly marked, “This is a knife”, or does the post office official know that it is a knife so that it cannot be given to someone under the age of 18?

[Victoria Atkins]

The conditions in the Bill require those who are selling such products to make it clear on the packaging.

Stalking Protection Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on bringing this important Bill to this advanced stage. My only disappointment is that, in its current form, it does not apply to Scotland.

In Scotland stalking is covered under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, section 39 of which includes some of the measures we discussed this morning. Section 39 specifically mentions conduct, especially the different kinds and modern forms of stalking. The conduct defined in that Act includes: following someone; contacting or attempting to contact them by any means; publishing material relating to, purporting to relate to or purporting to originate from them; monitoring their use of electronic communication; entering premises; loitering in any place; interfering with their property; watching or spying on them; or acting in another way that a reasonable person would expect to cause the victim to experience or suffer fear or alarm.

The 2010 Act has no provision for a stalking protection order, which my hon. Friend seeks to introduce today. If the Bill is successful, we can work with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to make sure there is equality of law and equality of the protection of rights across the United Kingdom.

This truly is a British problem. In 2017-18 there were 1,376 reported cases of stalking in Scotland, up from 495 in 2011-12—a 170% increase in the incidence of stalking. I know from the personal experience of constituents coming to my office that geography is no hindrance to such crimes, and it is important that, across the United Kingdom, our citizens have the same rights and protections.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke on Report about the British Transport police—an issue that has been a bone of contention back home and has been debated here and elsewhere. It is particularly important that these powers include the British Transport police, because these crimes have no respect for geography. He accurately highlighted that busy commuter trains and other forms of transport are where individuals can be at the greatest risk, especially in this day and age when a mobile phone can be used to take a picture or a video of someone sitting on a train, reading a paper in a tube carriage or doing anything else on public transport. That is another realm of risk, and many years ago, or even in the 2010 Act, we would not have appreciated the current extent of that risk. Including the British Transport police and making sure we have a co-ordinated and joined-up approach across the United Kingdom are both important.

Many Members have spoken today about their experiences as Members of Parliament, and about the experiences of their constituents. A number of constituents have approached me with varying degrees of relationship and other issues, and whether they go to the civil courts or cross over to the criminal courts, it is important that such personal and individual matters are given the right expression and protection in this place.

Individuals can be affected in incredibly negative ways when what originally seems to be innocent following turns a lot more malicious. It is important to make sure that the protections are there for these individuals, which is why I started my speech by talking about the different forms of conduct. It is important that we consider the breadth of conduct.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who talked about a definition of stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) has just raised that matter again. The real problem sometimes is that what seems innocuous to most people preys on the mind of the person who is being stalked, so a little thing that we may think is nothing actually has a huge impact. That is one of the problems of defining stalking.

[Luke Graham]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes, as always, a very wise contribution that is very welcome. As I was saying, it is important that we protect these individual rights and make sure that, no matter how seemingly innocent these actions are, people have the right protection so that the experience is right for them because it is about their own fear of harm and harassment.

I welcome the provisions to extend this to the British Transport Police and to make sure that the protections for individuals are there. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is successful with the Bill, she will work with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament as well to make sure that we have equal rights across our United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I, like every Member in this House today, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for bringing forward this Bill. I pay tribute to the work done by the Ministers, officials and many people across both sides of the House in making sure that this happens. I look forward to voting in favour of the Bill in a short while.

As I said on Report, stalking is an abhorrent behaviour, and its victims often suffer devastating consequences that should not be underestimated. It has widespread ramifications for the victim. It not only severely impacts their mental state but can affect their careers, their relationships, and so many other things. The relentless nature of stalking, often over a period of many years, can leave the victims feeling absolutely helpless. This is exacerbated by the high threshold that must be met under the current regime for police to be able to intervene. There are many improvements in this Bill that will change things substantially.

Stalking is commonly misunderstood. Reporting unsolicited advances or a bombardment of messages can seem trivial if not considered as part of an overall pattern of harassing behaviour. Some victims have said that they were made to feel as though they were overreacting, or even wasting valuable police time, when trying to report their experiences. As one constituent of mine said about their own experiences of being stalked: “No one considers me seriously. There is no emergency but I am living with things that I simply should not have to live with.”

We should also remember that stalking can be a gateway to other criminal behaviour and often escalates, sometimes to the point of rape and murder. I welcome the fact that this Bill makes it clear that, where the police are empowered to apply for a stalking protection order on the basis that it is necessary to protect a person from risk, this risk can be of either physical or psychological harm. The risk element is key. Much progress has been made on the reporting of stalking offences over the past few years, but much more needs to be done. Although the number of recorded stalking offences has trebled in England and Wales since 2014, prosecution rates have significantly declined. It is clear that there is a gap in the law and the powers available to the police are not sufficient to tackle stalking in its various forms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, an astonishing one in five women and one in 10 men have experienced stalking behaviour in their lives, and this Bill will help police effectively to address the huge volume of cases that have not become criminal but are nevertheless emotionally traumatic for the victim.

[Bob Stewart]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea why there has been a trebling in the amount of stalking in England and Wales?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I suspect that there is a problem between the stalking and the reporting of it and, in some ways, a higher level of reporting is a good thing because it means that more people are coming forward with their concerns. I do not think we will ever be able to get a fully accurate record because there will always be situations and circumstances where some people, for whatever reason, do not wish to report.

[Bob Stewart]

People are just coming forward more.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, but the more willingness to report there is, the better.

Stop and Search

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of her local police, so it is no surprise that she has been out with them, and I know that she welcomes the fact that they are currently recruiting 150-odd officers. Our consultation on the extension of stop-and-search powers in relation to corrosive substances, drones and laser pens has just finished. I will take on board my hon. Friend’s point about cannabis.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The Minister said that a million fewer people are stopped and searched than in 2010 and that the success rate then was around 10%. What are the results under the new regime—are we getting more convictions?

Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and the family reunion rights that have been set out in the withdrawal agreement are very important. We know that many EU citizens may have caring responsibilities or, indeed, children in a home country who might yet seek to come over. Those rights are enshrined in the offer we have made, and it is important that we continue to honour that offer and, indeed, work with those individuals so that they find going through the process as easy as possible.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the European partners of British citizens have to apply for settled status?

[Caroline Nokes]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend should declare an interest. Of course, EU nationals who are living here will need to go through the settled status scheme to make sure they have access to pension rights and settled status rights, as I have set out. Of course it is important that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for settled status straightaway, and those who have been here for less than five years will be able to apply for pre-settled status and can then apply for settled status once they have been here for five years.

Fishing Industry: Visas for Non-EEA Citizens

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Minister in her place. I have no doubt that there are other places Members may wish to be for the next half hour, but this is an important issue that matters enormously to my constituents and those of other Members and is deserving of our attention.

I should thank the Minister for her previous engagement in meetings and debates about this issue. I understand the political difficulties she finds herself in, but it has been apparent in recent weeks and months that interest in this issue is much wider than just those who represent fishing communities. It is certainly a cross-party issue. I have been notified by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), a Scottish nationalist, that he wished to be here this evening, but is not able to be so. I see in the Chamber from the Conservative party, the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and other Members who have an interest in this issue. There is a broad sense of agreement underpinning this matter, because the issues are highly distinctive to our fishing communities.

The root cause of the issues we are considering have as much to do with the recent history of the management of the fishing industry as with the skills shortages with which we currently have to deal. Historically, fishing boats have recruited labour—the deck hands—from their own home ports, such as coastal and island communities, but rarely from much further beyond. In recent years, although that situation has changed, the labour market has become much more competitive. Young men considering a career in fishing these days may also consider and find a very well paid career in the oil and gas industry, for example, in Shetland or in the north-east of Scotland. Renewable energy is now a source of employment, and there is also of course the merchant navy.

It has to be said that the industry is not always seen as a particularly attractive option for young people entering the jobs market these days. Those advising them, as careers advisers or teachers at school, do not see it in the round, and often as hard work in very dangerous circumstances. Sadly, the mortality figures for those working in the industry bear that out. It also has to be said that it has not been seen as an industry with a future. If we think back to the time when I first entered the House in 2001, we were just about to undertake a programme of decommissioning boats, and there was a second round of decommissioning in 2003. All these things have come together to present us with the skills shortage we have today.

This is not an unrecoverable position. I think the things that need to be put in place can be and are being put in place as a consequence of co-operation between the different Departments, as well as by the industry itself. However, it is pretty clear that unpicking some of the damage that has been done will not be quick or easy; it will take time. In the meantime, the need for labour in the fishing industry is acute, and it is becoming more serious with every day that passes. As a consequence, many European economic area and non-EEA nationals are now recruited into the fishing industry.

The catching sector probably employs in the region of 4,000 people in the UK. We reckon that about 400 of them come from within the European Union, and a further 800 are non-EEA nationals. As a percentage of the total fleet, that is a quite remarkable set of figures, although as a proportion of the overall number of people working in the industry, it shows that we are dealing with something fairly modest in size.

Currently, the only visas available for boats wanting to take non-EEA nationals are so-called transit visas. They are normally for those joining a ship, for whatever purpose, from a port in the United Kingdom. The requirements of a transit visa state that those involved should be engaged wholly or mainly outside UK territorial waters, which for these purposes is the 12-mile limit, and they are not allowed to work within that limit. I have to say that this is a highly unsatisfactory, hand-to-mouth solution for a number of reasons. First, the requirement forces fishermen to fish where the visa regulations allow them to fish, rather than where they know they will find the fish. That has a range of consequences, some commercial and some safety-based. I can put it no better than one of my fishing constituents did in an email this morning. He said:

“The whole 12 mile thing adds stress to an already very stressful job, especially so in the winter months.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that people who come from outside the EEA do not get paid until they are outside the 12-mile limit? What happens when they get on board?

[Mr Carmichael]

They are paid for the hours that they work—or are engaged in employment—but they cannot actually fish until they are outside the 12-mile limit.

My second objection to the use of transit visas is that that does not work for the whole industry. It works better for some sectors such as the bigger boats, albeit imperfectly, but for the smaller boats, working in the inshore sectors, it has very little to offer. Again, the fishing White Paper last week said that growth would be encouraged in the smaller boat sector, but it simply does not work for them. It is certainly no good for the prawn trawlers that have to work in shallower inshore waters, or for those who fish langoustines off the west coast in the Minch or the Little Minch. Those waters are fertile territories for those boats but are entirely within the 12-mile limit, so non-EEA crew are totally excluded.

The third concern is that those employed under the visas are left without many of the protections that the House has said over the years they should have. A few years ago, there were a few well documented and reported cases of serious welfare issues involving the crews employed under this system—paid well below the minimum wage and not given the basic employment protections that they would have if they were part of the normal land-based workforce. I hope that that is no longer the case, and I do not believe that it was ever widespread. I hope that it does not still happen, but I cannot escape the fact that it did happen and has been reported. That can be the consequence of leaving fishing crew in this strange, unsatisfactory, twilight world of the transit visas. It highlights the need for a scheme to allow proper engagement of deckhands legally and responsibly under a visa scheme.

The situation led to the creation earlier this year of the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, a coalition of industry bodies and other associated organisations, including the Fishermen’s Mission and the Apostleship of the Sea. I hope that the Minister has received and is considering the alliance’s submission about a new scheme. It is not in essence a new scheme: we seek the resurrection—or re-creation—of a limited concession that operated successfully between 2010 and 2012. Other such concessions exist, and the Minister will be aware of the recently renewed one for boats working in support of offshore renewable energy developments. Such schemes can be, and often are, drawn carefully for a specific purpose.

The outline of the concession scheme that is sought is one that guarantees conditions, safety and crew welfare that are compliant with UK legal standards. It would place limits on the duration of contracts of nine months and introduce cooling-off periods to prevent long-term continuous engagements. It would include the facility to transfer employment to another operator to encourage high standards and transparency, with regular contact with the maritime charities, such as the Mission and the Apostleship, to ensure the wellbeing and fair treatment of the crews that are employed. It would seek suitable assessments to ensure that only qualified and experienced crew from outside the EEA were engaged. There would be criminal records checks, reporting obligations on arrival and departure within service events. Such a scheme would require operators to sign up to an agreed code of practice governed by an organisation, possibly like the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, in which the Home Office could have trust. Incorporated into that code of practice, there would be—

Offensive Weapons Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I want to explain briefly why I was so keen to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) briefly popped into the Chamber. I am a fan and enthusiastic supporter of her manifesto for strengthening families and I wanted to acknowledge her presence while she was here, but you very wisely stopped me doing so, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The idea of banning stuff does not come naturally to me. I have the tendencies of a classical liberal inasmuch as I believe that the freedom of the individual is considerably more important. However, I agree wholeheartedly with two thirds of the banning provisions in the Bill. Why would I not? In fact, we might ask ourselves why we are having to ban these things. Why have they not been banned already?

Some Members will be much more conversant than I am with some of the terms used in the Bill, but I had to google the term “zombie knife” to understand what one is. The classic definition is that a zombie knife has a straight and a serrated cutting edge but also includes markings or wording that suggests the knife will be used for violent ends. The idea that we might sell such things, the idea that someone thought it a good idea to design such an overtly violent piece of equipment and then sell it, strikes me as a bit crazy in the first place, so we are unfortunate to be in this position.

My excellent local newspaper, the Express & Star, is, as has been mentioned previously, campaigning to ensure that other knives are considered for inclusion in future legislation. When we walk down the high street and see the range of what can only be described as weapons that are freely available, we need to ask ourselves what other purpose they could possibly have than to be used for acts of violence or intimidation.

Banning such knives is clearly a good idea, because they are obviously offensive weapons, but I am not naturally given to the idea of banning things. I recently read this in the paper—I do not know whether it is true, but I just could not make it up—but did Jamie Oliver really meet Nicola Sturgeon to consider the banning of two-for-one pizzas? I do not know, but that is what I read. A guy who has allegedly made £240 million from selling food now wants to dictate what the less well-off can eat. A good middle-class family could go to one of Jamie’s restaurants and get a good deal on pizza, but he does not want the same opportunity for low-cost food to be extended to less well-off people. Counter-intuitive? Bonkers? Others can decide.

Instead of tackling the problem of children eating too much high-salt, high-energy food, how about endorsing the idea of a mile a day? All children should be encouraged to walk or run a mile a day, in the hope that the practice persists when they become adults. As someone who has spent six hours sat in the Chamber today, I would appreciate getting out to do my mile. I look forward to some exercise after this debate.

The idea that people might carry acid in public, in small amounts, for purposes other than to do harm to others is clearly also counter-intuitive, and it is something that we should ban.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good and hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I do not understand how anyone can be allowed to buy acid except for scientific purposes; I just do not understand how that can happen in our society. What purpose would it serve other than to do bad?

[Eddie Hughes]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. When people from the outside world look into this Chamber, they will question why some of these things are not already against the law. I am a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, and in this Chamber we recently debated upskirting, which is another example of something about which the general public would surely think, “Are you crazy? Surely this should be against the law already.”

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but perhaps we are asking and addressing the wrong question. By the time a young gang member, typically aged between 14 and 24, picks up a knife to carry out an assault, we have already failed them. A number of Government programmes are upstreaming the work to try to prevent people from getting to that point in the first place. For example, £920 million has been invested in the troubled families programme, which started in 2011. A subsequent round of funding was agreed for 2015 to 2020, with the aim of reaching 400,000 families. It has had some mixed reviews of its effect, but the idea is that there are a certain number of families in communities—everybody knows who they are—who require intensive support from several agencies, both governmental and voluntary, and they need to be where we maximise our focus and effort because, as I said, once someone is in a gang something has already gone wrong.

Before I came to the House, I worked for the YMCA in Birmingham, a charity that supports young, previously homeless people. It has 300 accommodation units, but it does not just provide accommodation; it helps vulnerable people who need a wide range of support. These are people who are not used to accessing medical and health services in the way the rest of us would; they need to be got up in the morning and shown the way to the dentist and to the doctor so that they can attend appointments. It is clear that fragile people who are offered support can be saved from a life of crime and gang culture. Often, those who engage in gang culture are reaching out for some validation—for somebody to say, “You’re welcome in our group, we will protect and support you, and you will be one of us.” That is surely the embodiment of what we consider family to be.

I completely endorse some elements of the Bill, but I am still confused about the measures on firearms. Members spoke eloquently earlier and from an informed position, asking, “Why are we trying to ban something that has super-limited previous exposure to crime and that is, generally speaking, held by people who have already gone through all sorts of security checks and is held in the most secure way?” Those provisions possibly feel like a step too far, so I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say he would further consider that element of the Bill.

As a Government, we are doing the right thing by offering a broad range of support to the most vulnerable young people in society, because the upstreaming of support is incredibly important, and we should indeed be banning these weapons.

Finally, I have had a long-running disagreement with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner. He is moving police officers from Bloxwich in my constituency to Wolverhampton, thereby reducing response times and moving those officers away from the community that they serve. That is not a good move. The Government have provided him with extra resource by allowing him to increase the precept to put more police on the street, but he has patently failed to do so, because he believes that that money is better spent on office staff. That is completely wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Prior to the debate, we were furnished with a huge number of statistics, and those statistics make stark and appalling reading, because behind every one of them is a real life that has been lost, a family that has been destroyed or a person left with life-changing disfigurement and injury. In 2017—a particularly bad year—we saw a 22% increase in offences involving knives, an 11% increase in firearms offences and a near tripling of recorded corrosive substance attacks. Within a few miles of where we sit, in the city of London, we have seen more than 70 murders just this year.

I am pleased that a good proportion of the Bill is devoted to putting on a statutory footing many of the voluntary commitments that retailers have given over the last couple of years, and I know that many local authorities have worked with local traders to implement codes of practice regarding knife and corrosive substance sales. I am also pleased that the Bill extends to internet business-to-consumer sales, which is long overdue.

Clauses 12 to 27 contain expansive measures to restrict and control the supply and ownership of bladed items. That has been mentioned at length this afternoon, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). We need a complete prohibition of these things called zombie knives, which are particularly fearsome and have no value in what they look like. They are not like 18th-century samurai swords; they have one sole purpose. They have cutting, serrated edges and are deemed and bought to be threatening and offensive.

[Bob Stewart]

I am particularly concerned that on the internet, for under a tenner, one can buy a commando knife, which is the ultimate killing knife.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My hon. Friend is all too aware of the use of such weapons from his previous life. He makes a valid point—it is not just zombie knives. All manner of offensive and dangerous weapons are available out there.

The provisions related to bladed articles are proportionate, robust and to be welcomed. However, the great problem, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) spoke, is that in every single kitchen in every single house there are the tools available to cause havoc on our streets. No matter how we frame the Bill, it is very difficult to legislate against the domestic knives that exist absolutely everywhere and are too often the weapon responsible for murders on the streets of this country.

Also, we heard clearly from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that we must be careful not to criminalise the legitimate sale of bespoke, expensive cutlery by mail order. That is a consideration.

The great difficulty, which I do not think this Bill fully addresses, is sale on the internet from foreign sources to domestic customers in this country. It is obviously impossible for a UK Bill to extend its remit extraterritorially, but I recommend that the Minister give serious thought, either this afternoon or in Committee, to including in the Bill a provision for responsibility to fall on the agent company that has facilitated the trade—whether a corporate body such as eBay or Amazon, or something else. These have become the primary facilitators of foreign business transactions and of selling to UK domestic consumers, and it is time they bore responsibility for what they are doing.

I understand the thinking behind the provisions in clauses 28 and 29, relating to high muzzle velocity rifles, but in my view this precautionary principle simply goes too far. As many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, there are no cases at all of high muzzle velocity or high-energy rifles being used in any criminal act. It is also beyond me how it was decided that 13,600 joules—or 10,000 foot-pounds in old money—should be the limit. Why not 13,500 joules or 10,000 joules, or anything else?

These are obviously powerful weapons, and they could be used as a sniper rifle, for instance, but they have never been used as such. They are large, heavy and unwieldy, and they have never been used for such purposes. For those who want to own such weapons, the reality is that it is very difficult to get hold of one. People are required to apply for a firearms certificate, which means an interview by the local police force, a Disclosure and Barring Service check and security measures in their house to ensure that any such weapon is securely stored, while increasingly—this applies across many police forces—their vetting will need to be confirmed by a GP.

Given the numbers involved, these provisions are ill thought out. As the Minister will be aware, the handgun—banned since 1997, but all too easily obtained and illegally held—is the criminal’s weapon of choice. This weapon is the killer on the street. Banning high-power rifles, on the basis of what I consider an overweening precautionary principle, would be as daft as banning vans or lorries, which in some circumstances can be, and have been, used as offensive and lethal weapons.

I support the thrust of the Bill—I absolutely support the measures against bladed weapons and chemicals—but I ask for some sensible thinking about single-shot high-energy rifles. I really beg the Minister to look again at internet facilitators, because it is time that they took responsibility for connecting businesses abroad with consumers at home and that they were held accountable for what they are doing in the consumer market.

Refugee Family Reunion

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have heard that argument, which is an intriguing one. It would be a big step to do anything that suggested those people would be able to work in this country, so we should be very careful when we think about it. However, I understand the argument that, if people have to wait a very long time, perhaps something about their treatment should change at that point.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I support everything that has just been said. However, there is a real problem with identifying people and it has to be clear. I have been dealing with people who claim to be someone they are not. The danger is that you will get the wrong person and the wrong country. So it is very important to ascertain the facts. That is the reason it takes so long. I agree it should be speeded up, but that is the reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point: this phenomenon of migration and the political uncertainty and instability are not just going to go away. In fact, if we look forward, we are probably going to have greater pressures and greater numbers of people coming from sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene on him. He cites migrants in Libya. I have not been to Libya, so I bow to my hon. Friend’s greater authority on the matter, but are those migrants refugees from other parts of Africa or displaced persons from within Libya, or are they economic migrants? It seems to me that they might be a mix of everything.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend—my very good friend—is absolutely right, and that shows how complicated and variegated the problem is. In Libya, there are all three: economic migrants, people from sub-Saharan Africa fleeing real persecution outside Libya, and people who are being mercilessly trafficked for gain. It is a complicated picture and it is not easy to say which is which. In some instances, an individual or family might have two or three different reasons why they should leave their home or why they were forced out of their home. It is not particularly helpful to come to this question with a simple, preconceived notion of what a refugee is, what an economic migrant is or what someone who is being trafficked is, because the real world is a lot more complicated than that. We cannot simply put people, families and children in such neatly defined silos. We have to be much more flexible in our approach.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar stressed how Britain is very welcoming, but he also mentioned the fact that the climate has been hostile in many instances, particularly in respect of tabloid newspapers. I am not someone openly to praise tabloid newspapers in this country—they have many strengths and many weaknesses—but it is easy in this House to pour scorn on what used to be called the popular press. The tabloids respond to the very real concerns of people throughout the country. If I speak to my constituents in Spelthorne, they express extremely generous sentiments towards genuine refugees, but there is also genuine concern that Britain’s hospitality and generosity can be abused, and it can be abused by some of the unscrupulous traffickers we talked about.

I wish to talk a little more about trafficking, because it is a problem that perhaps absorbs too little attention in this House. I was in Libya a year ago, when I was told that an individual needs to pay $1,000 to be transported from Libya to, in the first instance, Italy, which is the most common country of destination for these migrants. It does not take a mathematician to work out that if each person pays $1,000 to be trafficked, or transported, and there are—I was told—up to something like 1,000 migrants a day in the high season, when trafficking is at its peak the business of trafficking is potentially worth around $1 million a day. Such a huge amount of money that is potentially being distributed, or is part of the revenues of this business, attracts all kinds of people. When I was there, people talked about the Sicilian mafia, various eastern European mafiosi and the Russian mafia. Lots and lots of unscrupulous people are involved in this terrible trafficking.

We must look not only at the political instability and the relative disturbances in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, but at the sources of the trafficking. We must clamp down on the criminal activities of these gangs, because they are the people who are driving this trade. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) suggested, this is a problem that will not go away. I assure the House that, if it does not go away, there will be unscrupulous gangs and criminal elements all over this trafficking and this way of making money. If that is the case, any European Government will have to focus much more closely on stopping the criminality.

When we talk about refugees, we understand the humanitarian concerns of our constituents, but there is another side to this issue. I see the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) shaking his head, but we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand and ignore this terrible trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that, clearly, criminals are not, in the first instance, driving this issue. There are many social, political and economic reasons for this phenomenon but, certainly in the parts of Libya that I saw and in the migrant camps in Sicily where I talked to a few people who were unlucky enough to be trafficked, a big criminal enterprise underpins it. It is very easy in the Chamber of the House of Commons to focus on the humanitarian aspects and to remind Members of our obligations not only as MPs but as citizens and human beings to very vulnerable people. I completely accept that. It is too easy for people in this Chamber to turn a blind eye to what is actually going on from the economic and criminal point of view, which is, frankly, a scandal. Too little of our political debate focuses on these wicked criminal elements. We must take a much bigger view.

[Bob Stewart]

I ask my very good friend to forgive me for intervening a second time. I have had to deal with the mafia in the Balkans. It may be foreign-owned or run, but it uses local people. I am quite sure that, in Libya, the mafia to whom he is referring will often be Libyans who are actually working for foreigners. That makes it even more complicated.

Serious Violence Strategy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that, because the violence reduction unit works with the health service, schools and social workers to observe what is going on and to create lasting attitudinal change in society rather than just a quick fix.

Some mention has been made today of heavy sentences. Heavy sentences do not work. That is not my view but the result of research. That is why in Scotland we have looked at a more holistic approach, which has worked. Again, that is not my view but the view of the professionals who have examined the evidence. The violence reduction unit started out in Glasgow, but it is now a national unit across Scotland that receives long-term stable funding from the Scottish Government. It has been a huge success.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have listened very carefully to this debate and it has informed me a lot. Does the hon. and learned Lady think that adverts showing how awful the result of carrying knife might be and suggesting that no one should carry a knife would help?

[Joanna Cherry]

Displaying to those who carry a knife the evidence of the awful results of carrying a knife has worked in Scotland. As I said a moment ago, gang members were brought in to a court setting and they heard evidence from the mothers and girlfriends of young men who had been killed by knives. That kind of education really helps. When I worked as a prosecutor, I became aware that a lot of young men—it is mainly young men—simply have no idea of the potential consequences of wielding a knife. They think they can stab somebody and inflict a minor injury as a warning. So often, however, a stabbing leads to death. It is very important to get that message across. The violence reduction unit has worked in Scotland because it is not just a police initiative but has worked with the health service, schools and social workers to bring in young men who are tempted to carry a knife and to educate them out of the desire to do so.

The approach of the violence reduction unit fits very well with what is called a whole-system approach to crime, which was introduced by Scotland’s first SNP Government back in 2008, after their election in 2007. The whole system approach is designed significantly to change justice policy and focus on prevention rather than punishment. It is also focused on inclusion, making people feel invested and included in the society around them so they will not have the same desire to lash out at it.

The whole-system approach marks a shift away from previous policies that were very much designed to criminalise, label and stigmatise young people. Rather than do that, in Scotland we sought to provide early and effective interventions that kept young people out of formalised justice settings. That does not mean jettisoning a proper approach to criminal justice. If the crimes are committed and they are serious enough, they must be dealt with appropriately, but the whole-system approach focuses on collaboration with schools, social work, the police, the prosecution service and the third sector to stop the offending behaviour from happening at all and to reduce the rates of offending behaviour.

In addition to the violence reduction unit and the whole-system approach, the Scottish Government set up the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice at Strathclyde University. It is dedicated to supporting improvements in youth justice, and works to provide knowledge exchange, practice development for professionals working with young people, and research on youth justice issues. These approaches together have led to a vastly improved situation in Scotland. It is simply not true to say that heavy sentences in Scotland have led to that improved situation. What led to the improved situation in Scotland was the violence reduction unit and the whole-system approach. I recommend those to the House as worthy of study given the current crisis, particularly in London.

The facts speak for themselves. Crime in Scotland is now at its lowest level in 43 years. The crime of handling an offensive weapon decreased by 64% between 2007 and 2017—that is a huge achievement. The number of under-18s in custody has reduced by 77% and there has been an 82% reduction in children referred to a children’s hearing on offence grounds. The children’s hearings system in Scotland is unique; it seeks to cater for children and young people away from the court system.