Encouragement of Terrorism Offences

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

At the outset, I feel that it is only right that I set out the motivation behind my request for this debate. I want this evening to take the House to the townland of Legananny, five miles outside Castlewellan in the parliamentary constituency of South Down in Northern Ireland—to a quiet, rural location, where both traditions lived together in relative harmony throughout much of the time now described by many as the troubles.

On 3 May 1985, William Heenan, a 52-year-old widower, went outside to feed some livestock in the yard. This was his home, along with his 12-year-old son, Sammy; sadly, William’s wife had passed away two years previous. It was the last morning that William would ever feed his animals. Sammy Heenan, William’s son, is now a grown man with his own family. I have known him for some time. He is a man of great character, great resolve and very strong faith. If his late father had grown old to see his son grow up, Sammy would have made him very proud. As a 12-year-old, Sammy’s life changed forever. This is his account of that morning in 1985:

“When I was a 12 year old child, I lived 5 miles north of rural Castlewellan. On that fateful morning on the 3rd May 1985 at 7am, I went out to find my father brutally murdered after I heard his final haunting and dying screams. He had been forced to his knees and shot twice in the top of the head at point blank range by a South Down PIRA gunman. The image of his face bloodied and unrecognisable as he lay on the ground that morning will be etched on my mind forever. After which I had to run to a neighbour’s house half a mile away to raise the alarm sobbing and in a state of utter despair.”

Sammy Heenan’s life story is replicated for many across Northern Ireland—mothers and fathers, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, friends: murdered by terrorists. The broken-hearted remain, to live a life with psychological and physical scars that will never heal, and it is for those victims that I have asked for this debate today. Despite the scars, despite the lifetime of grief and of anguish, despite the trauma inflicted on them that no one should face, there are those within our society who glorify the terror that caused that pain, and who revel in the actions of those who planted bombs or shot people in the head. Sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, some of them are Members of this House.

A little over five miles from the very spot where the IRA murdered William Heenan, in the town of Castlewellan sits the McNulty-Magorrian advice centre. It operates as the constituency office of the Member of this House for South Down (Chris Hazzard). For your information, Madam Deputy Speaker, McNulty was killed in a premature bomb explosion during an IRA attack on Castlewellan RUC station in January 1972, while Magorrian died after being shot by the Army in August 1974; both were Provisional IRA terrorists.

Given that an office has been named after two terrorists and a Member of this House is performing his role from that office, one would think that this Parliament—the bastion of democratic principles, the very place where parliamentary democracy was founded—would stop such an affront to democracy. This House knows only too well the barbaric actions of terrorists: Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Reverend Robert Bradford were serving Members of this House murdered by members of the same terrorist organisation that we have a parliamentary constituency office named after in South Down. Yet action is not taken.

I have raised this issue with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has responded by saying she has no grounds to investigate, and, likewise, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority says it is not a matter for it. By doing nothing, we facilitate—indeed, financially support—an MP who daily glorifies terrorists. I urge the Minister this evening to undertake to address this issue at the earliest possible opportunity.

In this instance, it is a case of doing what is right—of recognising the hurt and pain this causes innocent victims and saying, “This House will not facilitate or allow this to happen any longer.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I know that the Minister in particular understands this issue.

I know Sammy Heenan as well, so I understand the matter that my hon. Friend raises. Does she share the concerns of many others outside that family circle that the local council in Newry, Mourne and Down has named a playpark after Raymond McCreesh, one of the hunger strikers who gave their life—or committed suicide, depending on how we want to put it—at the Kesh, and who was a convicted terrorist? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something wrong if Newry, Mourne and Down can name a playpark after a convicted terrorist? Should the House not take action against the Member for South Down?

[Carla Lockhart]

My remarks are larger than the Heenan family and the hurt caused to them. My hon. Friend is right that the glorification of terrorism anywhere is wrong and has repercussions for innocent victims.

When I told Sammy Heenan that I had secured this debate, he asked me to make this plea on behalf of him and the many victims of terrorism in South Down:

“How can we as a progressive society in 2020 continue to countenance the repugnant naming of an MP’s constituency office in the United Kingdom after two dead IRA terrorists? The symbolism attached to this office-naming is massive and morally obscene, thus inadvertently legitimising every terrorist act perpetrated against UK citizens. I implore this Parliament to exhaust every avenue in righting this grievous wrong, which continues to cause affliction to the innocent of our country. As a Parliament, please be cognisant of our traumatism and use whatever means necessary to ensure terrorist revisionism such as this ceases to be funded and tolerated.”

I cannot add any more to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is important that, as we in Northern Ireland look to the future, those who want to revel in the evil deeds of the past, to seek to re-write that past and make acceptable the murder and mayhem terrorists imposed on our country, are not aided and abetted by our accommodation of such a perversion of what actually happened. To enable that in any way will only serve to bring about a generation who believe such heinous crimes to have been justified, acceptable and worthy of celebration.

Only this week, members of the County Armagh ladies camogie team—a Gaelic game, for those unfamiliar with the term—were videoed celebrating success on the pitch with repeated chants of, “ooh ah, up the Ra!”: a clear reference to the IRA, a proscribed terrorist organisation responsible for the killing of some 1,700 people. How utterly depressing. None of those girls was alive during the worst years of IRA terrorism, yet this chanting was part and parcel of their celebrations.

Closer to this place, earlier this year, London Young Labour tweeted a picture of the Falls Road mural dedicated to the IRA man, Bobby Sands. They wrote:

“On this day in 1981, socialist and republican Bobby Sands died as a PoW following a hunger strike during which he became an elected MP. We remember him and continue to fight for an end to imperialism and for a free and united Ireland.”

Madam Deputy Speaker, Bobby Sands was a bomber. Bobby Sands was not a prisoner of war. He was a terrorist—a man so consumed with hatred that he killed himself. Yet here we have a youth wing of the official Opposition in this place lauding this man. What does that say to victims?

There are many, many other examples of how this encouragement and glorification of terrorism happens in our society: the Policing Board member who describes the shooting of a prison officer in the head as one of the “best ops”; the Gaelic football grounds and competitions named after IRA men; and the Northern Ireland Executive Ministers who attend glorification events. Madam Deputy Speaker, if Members of any other party in this House were to do that for any terrorist event or organisation, it would not be accepted.

I have a young son, Charlie. I want him to grow up in a society that has values, that has respect for the rule of law, and where people are at peace with one another. Yet I look at a society today where the very encouragement and glorification of terrorism goes largely unchallenged. In such a society, real reconciliation cannot happen. For in such a society, those who suffer most, our victims, are not respected—they are insulted. Until this stops, until those who engage in this behaviour cease and recognise the hurt and the wrongs they do and have done, we will never have that real peace we crave.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate and respect the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He will understand that I am not familiar with all the circumstances or indeed whether it would be appropriate for me as a Minister to try to determine what a particular community would do, but obviously he makes an important point on how we reflect on the issue of building strong communities and looking beyond division and that sense of difference. Indeed, we should not be looking backward to the issues of the past, but looking forward to what I believe can be a positive, outward-looking, exciting future for Northern Ireland and all the young people who have not been touched directly by those issues of the past that sadly still, through family and through the impact of things such as paramilitarism and separation, touch Northern Ireland in this way.

[Carla Lockhart]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I can see the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, and I will give way to her.

[Carla Lockhart]

I genuinely thank the Minister for his efforts in Northern Ireland; he did a sterling job when he was Secretary of State. The crux of this, in my mind, is the victims of South Down, where I believe this House has a responsibility, while councils sit within the Northern Ireland remit. This House needs to take action against a Member of this House who has an office named after two convicted IRA terrorists. I know that the Minister is bringing his remarks to a close, but could he clarify how we can have this investigated and, ultimately, overturned?

[James Brokenshire]

A number of the issues of which the hon. Lady speaks are, in essence, matters for the House and equally for some of the external bodies that maintain standards in relation to the House. I do not have direct oversight or responsibility for those particular organisations. I think I am correct in saying that the Leader of the House has that relationship on issues of policy. I will certainly draw her comments to the attention of the Leader of the House, which is probably the most appropriate way that I can approach this.

I hope the hon. Lady will have heard from me the emphasis that we give to confronting terrorism in all its forms and its glorification. Our approach to terrorism makes it illegal to make statements in support of a terrorist organisation, or to be reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support such an organisation. It is rightly for the police and relevant prosecution services to decide whether any offence has been committed and whether it would be appropriate to bring charges in the circumstances. That is rightly a matter for the independent law enforcement agencies, not this House.

In conclusion, I would like again to sincerely thank the hon. Lady for raising these issues and all those who are working to tackle the threat of terrorism across the United Kingdom—all of the United Kingdom. Whatever their ideology or motivation, terrorists seek to undermine our way of life, but our message is clear: we will never compromise on the values that they hate. We will not allow them to encourage or glorify terrorism and push their warped view of the world on others, and we will maintain our relentless determination to tackle terrorism in all its forms.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Speaking frankly, my hon. Friend is right in much of what he says. There are considerable issues with the way our asylum and immigration system has been operating in this area. I can confirm that there is considerable policy work under way to address areas where the UK’s immigration and asylum system is being exploited and abused. We are working on developing legislation to address those loopholes in exactly the way he describes, because we will not tolerate our system being abused in any way.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The UK has often been a safe haven for those fleeing their homeland for genuine reasons, whether persecution or fleeing terror. That should continue, while recognising that other countries can provide such protection. However, does the Minister believe that the Government have sufficient domestic tools, and co-operation from the EU and others, to manage illegal immigration into the common travel area and inward into the UK, whether through Northern Ireland or other ways?

[Chris Philp]

As we leave the transition period in a few months’ time, we will want to continue co-operating with the European Union and, indeed, bilaterally with individual European countries. The problem of mass migration is in many ways a shared problem, so I hope that co-operation will continue. We are discussing that with the European Union, and we are discussing it bilaterally with France, Belgium, Germany and many other countries. I hope that the co-operation that the hon. Lady describes will continue, but, of course, it takes two to tango. I agree with her first point. We do have in this country a long and proud history of providing protection for those who are being genuinely persecuted and, of course, that will continue.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I was proud to support the Bill on Second Reading, and am happy to see it back here today for its final stages.

This is a landmark piece of legislation, which shows the best of this House; we can work cross-party to achieve something fundamental. If I were to have one criticism, it would be that the Bill could achieve so much more. That said, this is an admirable start and one that I fully endorse. However, the Bill needs to be the starting point for protecting victims, not the destination.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for securing the amendment on rough sex—new clause 20— which will prevent men from literally getting away with murder.

This needs to be a victim-led process. There are concerns about a stalkers register that means that the victims need to correct their behaviour; that cannot be right. If a victim has to modify their behaviour, then we have let down the victim. I am hopeful that the Minister will agree that there is scope to review victim support services, and that victims should be included in that process. Despite the good intentions of stalking protection orders, I fear that they will not protect victims in the way that they should.

This truly is a heinous crime. If not prevented, it can and often does lead to further crime, such as sexual abuse and even murder. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) mentioned the murder of Jane Clough. I am a long-standing friend of her sister, Louise Berry, who tragically lost Jane 10 years ago. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to John and Penny Clough for the fantastic, tireless work that they have done with the Justice for Jane campaign to prevent other women from paying the ultimate and avoidable cost of this crime. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for securing an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that allowed the prosecution to appeal against bail, to further aid victims of this awful crime.

I conclude by reiterating my opening remarks. If we are serious about tackling this most heinous of crimes, which has affected millions of women throughout recent years, we really need to ensure that the victims are fully included in the entire journey, and that this is a journey. This is not the destination; it is just the start of the process to ensure that we tackle this crime fully. In doing so, we need to ensure that adequate funding is in place, not only to bring the perpetrators to justice but to protect victims in their entirety. I trust that the Minister will continually review the matter, and take further action where needed to truly support victims of this most awful crime.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, and Members from both sides of the House, for bringing to fruition a Bill that will protect and support victims of domestic abuse. As many in this House have outlined, domestic abuse is on the rise in the UK. Northern Ireland figures released today show an increase of 1,000 cases in the past three months. The figures show a 15% increase on the same period last year, and domestic abuse is no respecter of gender or age.

Last week, as I travelled by car around my constituency, I listened to an interview about a young lady called Joleen Corr, a 27 year-old girl from Downpatrick. She was a mum of one and she was propelled down a set of stairs and died as a result of a brain injury. Her mum was devastated, and continues to be devastated. I trust that the legislation will assist in bringing some comfort to people like the Corr family. As a wife and mum, I am thankful for the safe haven of my own home, but I know that many throughout the UK do not have the safety that I enjoy. I want the Bill to be just the start of great things to assist victims. I also pay tribute to Mr Steven Smyth from Northern Ireland, who is today running 100 miles to raise awareness for Men’s Alliance Northern Ireland, a support group for male victims of domestic abuse. I commend him for his efforts.

A person who works with women experiencing domestic abuse in England said of new clause 28 over the weekend, “We work every day with women who experience domestic abuse. We see the way they are controlled and manipulated. To me, this suggests the legislation will only be making that worse. It will give abusers more power and more reason to keep the woman being abused at home, away from people who can really help them.” This House should not hinder those professionals in their work.

The new clause seems to be a clear attempt to use the Domestic Abuse Bill as a vehicle to advance an agenda that is emphatic on expanding access to abortion, seemingly failing to acknowledge that allowing women to have an abortion at locations other than hospitals or places approved by the Secretary of State has already led to serious complications. We all know that abortion is not the answer to domestic abuse. Surely we should be addressing how women find themselves in such difficult situations, and take measures to prevent that?

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing that agenda has led to the ludicrous situation in Northern Ireland where one Minister brought forward a proposal to allow for abortion pills to be administered by a foreign jurisdiction over the phone to patients in Northern Ireland? Is she as appalled by that proposal as I am?

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have an absolutely terrible situation in Northern Ireland as a result of the legislation that was railroaded through this House, and forced on the people of Northern Ireland.

The amendment makes no provision for helping women to get out of the abusive situation. Providing women with abortion pills while failing to address the reasons why women may be unable safely to attend a clinic does not present itself as a responsible or logical solution to tackling domestic abuse. Our laws should be designed to help vulnerable women escape domestic abuse situations, not enable them to remain in those horrific situations. Indeed, if a woman is not assessed in person—and, specifically, given an ultrasound—and if she has gone beyond the legal limit for an abortion by pill, the risk of complications goes up dramatically. Coercion of some kind is frequent in an unplanned pregnancy and in removing the requirement of a face-to-face consultation, there is no guarantee that a patient can speak freely without the coercive party listening in. Furthermore, we know that women are coerced into having abortions based on sex selection. If an abusive partner does not want a particular sex of child, they can force their partner into having an abortion via telemedicine.

On new clause 1, I welcome changes being made to remove the defence of consent in cases of rough sex, but I believe we need to do more to tackle the drivers for rough sex practices. I strongly support new clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom I commend for her efforts and work in this regard. The House needs to be clear about depictions of rough sex in pornography. Such practices cannot be normalised, and such content should be made illegal. In terms of pornography, it is already illegal, but it is notable that the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This, which has been advocating for a change in the law on the rough sex defence, states:

“In four of the most recent killings”—

of women and girls—

“the men viewed ‘extreme porn’ featuring violence including strangulation…before or after the killing of the women.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Retail Workers: Protection

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing the debate.

My hon. Friend covered most of the important points, so, given the time, I will cut to the chase. However, it is important for me to put on the record that my constituency, which is in the borough of Hackney, has a high percentage of small businesses. More than 95% of them employ fewer than six people, and a large number of them are retail premises. A lot of them are small, family-run businesses. We pride ourselves on our independent shops, but I also want to focus on employees of larger organisations. As a number of Members highlighted, with more than 50 types of products restricted by law, many small retail premises deal with the frontline interaction between enforcement of the law and people who may not want the law to be enforced.

I have some simple asks of the Government. First, as was highlighted, it is now more than 200 days since the Government closed their call for evidence on violence and abuse towards shop staff. It is estimated that there have been 200,000 incidents of violence towards shop workers in that time. Around 12,500 of those incidents—I am a Labour and Co-operative MP—involved Co-operative colleagues. That is just unacceptable. If that were happening in any other sector, we would be having a hoo-hah in the main Chamber rather than a small, albeit important, debate in Westminster Hall. It is not acceptable that people have to face such abuse when they go to work.

That is not all in the hands of the Government, but I want to touch on what the Government could do. First, they could publish their response to the call for evidence. Even an interim response would help those of us who have an interest in this issue, including the bodies that my hon. Friend named, to get to grips with what can be done practically. We would rather get it right than have the Government wait ages and produce a blueprint that they think is right but that cannot be changed. We must engage from all our different perspectives. We have a shared agenda—I hope—to ensure that the people on the frontline are protected.

Secondly, it should be a legal requirement that shop workers who are employees and lone workers get proper support. If there is an argument for having lone workers—there may be challenges for employers if we suddenly say, “You must always have more than one person there”—proper devices should be available to them. Petrol stations, for example, have well worn routes for this, and bookies also have a process, although it is not always perfect. In many shops, people are very vulnerable: they are often right out there, loading the shelves and very much in the frontline. I do not think lone working is acceptable in most cases, but where it happens there must be proper support, which could be enshrined in law.

Thirdly, there need to be security guards. Big chains and employers should ensure that they have proper security and people trained to deal with conflict. Fourthly, we need more prosecutions. The number of prosecutions is just woeful.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and I thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for securing the debate. Last week, just outside my constituency, a lone worker was attacked when gunmen entered Bingham’s shop just outside Katesbridge. Does she agree that there needs to be tougher sentencing and more involvement from the police in setting up provisions for lone workers in shops in rural areas?

[Meg Hillier]

As I have reached the end of my time, I cannot go into any of the horrific examples, but I know all hon. Members are aware of such examples. I completely agree that we need more prosecutions and tougher sentences.