Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill is an improvement on its predecessor, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for that, because it allows the defence to which she referred in her earlier remarks, and that is better. I regret that she would not accept the amendments that would have removed the attempt issues, but I must say I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this Bill would be replicated more widely in other Bills. Would that be in relation to Wimbledon or Twickenham? It seems to me that the mischief being addressed in this Bill is peculiar to soccer supporters. I am not sure about the suggestion that we need to go more widely to deal with this type of hooligan behaviour. I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, and I have never experienced the sort of problems to which she was referring.

When I was at university, I can remember the first football match I ever went to, which was at Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground. The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. Then, when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was a frequent visitor to the Dell. Again, I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of policing to enable that to happen. That seemed to me a sensible arrangement, because the burden of policing soccer matches was not borne only by the local constabulary and its taxpayers, but also by the club itself. As Baroness Casey’s report makes clear, the Wembley incident that prompted the Bill was essentially a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances, including that we were still during the period of covid, which meant a severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. Other problems were created due to the absence of experienced stewards and so on.

I remember asking the hon. Member for Amber Valley why provisions in this Bill would not be included in the Football Governance Bill, which was discussed earlier in the week. She said that although these provisions could have been included in that Bill, because of her legal experience she particularly wanted to have a Bill in her name on the statue book. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled, as that is an important matter for her.

I have reservations about how this Bill will work in practice, and I am concerned about unintended consequences for the police. If there is an incident similar to the one that took place at Wembley, how will we be able to arrest all those people? Every time somebody is arrested by the police, a policeman has to take that person away and put them in a black Maria or whatever, which means that they are no longer able to police the ground. I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. We will get a situation similar to the one in supermarkets, with blatant shoplifting and a failure of the police or security people to take any action because they choose not to do so.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said on Report, there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them. As I said earlier, the Home Office has responsibility for all this, but every day we find that it is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities, let alone new ones that will be placed on it as a result of this Bill. Most recently, the Home Office revealed that it is unable even to record the number of people who have entered this country and then left. Obviously, the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas is to check the visa records when people leave. The Home Office cannot even deal with that. We are talking about extending its role in the belief that some magic new Bill will control unauthorised entry to football stadiums, when the Home Office cannot even control our country’s borders.

I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation. It is a pity, in a sense, that the private Member’s Bill process is giving rise to this sort of legislation, which is—I return to the word I used earlier—relatively trivial compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced and with which this legislature should be dealing.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but is he saying that the safety of those attending football matches and the likelihood of them being hurt and, in some cases, killed is a trivial matter?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

There are already laws against killing people at football matches. There are already laws against criminal damage. There are already laws against violent behaviour. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has looked at Baroness Casey’s report on the incident at Wembley in 2021, but it says that the issue of tailgating highlighted by the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not the only problem. There was also lots of drunken behaviour—

[Carolyn Harris]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that is in Baroness Casey’s report—she finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drug taking. Those are criminal offences. The expression on the hon. Lady’s face makes it seem as though either she believes that Baroness Casey’s findings were incorrect or she has some other reason for disagreeing with that.

I think that bringing the criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences covering these issues is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in the minority on that.

Victims of Terrorism: State Support

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend and colleague, for that intervention, and I apologise, Mrs Harris.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

No need.

[Jim Shannon]

I will mention others who are very important to me. As the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), said in a recent debate on the European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, Northern Ireland has endured the brutality of terrorism for decades, and the legacy of so many atrocities remains in many hearts and homes to this day, right across all of Northern Ireland—not just in Strangford, which the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge referred to and which I have the joy, honour and privilege to represent.

I think of the families of the Kingsmill massacre, where 10 Protestant workmen were slaughtered. It is as real today as if it had happened just yesterday. They still await justice. When I think of state support for the victims of terrorism, I think of accountability in the process of justice. I think of those who, to this day, hold on to the candle-like figure of justice that might just come their way, so that the person who murdered someone will be accountable. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with fairness, it is not just about the support given; it is also about justice and responsibility. It is about feeling that the state—my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—has been able to satisfy our quest for justice, so that those who carry out the crimes are accountable.

I think of La Mon in my constituency. They were having one of their dinners for the Irish Collie Club. Someone planted a bomb—there was a massive inferno of fire—and basically burned them alive. Accountability? Nobody has been held accountable for that—but they should be. I think of the Enniskillen bombing. People were attending a Remembrance Day service; again, the IRA put a bomb there among men, women and children and just killed whoever was close to it.

I think of the Darkley Hall massacre—people were worshipping God. I think of the Tullyvallen Orange Hall, where Orangemen were killed just because they were Orangemen. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered at Ballydugan; I knew three of those men personally, and I often think of them—indeed, I think of them nearly all the time. No justice—no one made accountable; but there needs to be. That is what we want to see. That is what I want to see. My heart burns for justice for all those people who have lost loved ones over the years—for those families.

The inquiry into the Omagh bomb is currently sitting. Today, I was pleased to hear that Mr Speaker—and I am sure others also caught it in the Chamber—has agreed to what the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked for last night. He has agreed to the disclosure of the information that is relevant to the Omagh bomb, so we are going to have that on Monday, I understand. I do not know it yet, but that may give accountability and responsibility for those who carried it out.

Yet the pursuit of truth is too often obstructed, whether by the police ombudsman’s office or through political calculation, as displayed by the Irish Government’s ongoing stymieing of the truth of their role in our past. I think of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. They were murdered on the border as they travelled home. The story is, very clearly, that those two men were murdered while returning, and the reason the IRA knew they were coming through was that someone in the Garda Síochána passed the information through to the IRA, who then made sure that they were targets. Accountability? No one has ever been made accountable for that. Indeed, the Irish Government run away from it. It is time that they stood up and made sure that the inquiries that we all wish to see actually take place.

Again, it is the same thing for my cousin Kenneth, who I referred to earlier. The three people who murdered him and his companion were looking for victims for supported violence. When Kenneth Smyth was murdered, his best friend was Daniel McCormick, who just happened to be a Roman Catholic—but that did not matter to the IRA, of course. As far as they were concerned, he was a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Therefore, he was a target, and he was murdered as well. I want to see justice for him and his family every bit as much as I do for my cousin.

When it comes to support and financial restitution, they gave Daniel McCormick’s wife and three children, one of whom was disabled, £3,500 pounds, I think. My goodness—it might have been back in 1971-72, but £3,500 pounds to rear your children and bring them up! They are all, of course, young adults today. The point I am making is that when it comes to restitution, we do not seem to have it. There can be no discussion of state support for victims without highlighting the need for justice for them. If you offered my cousin Shelley £100,000 in compensation, or the truth and accountability for Kenneth’s murder, I know what she would take. She would take the accountability and the need for truth. Those are the things that I would love to see.

However, we must also be practical and say that there are those who need that financial support as well, and that is also the thrust of this debate. All those people suffered that trauma, that ache and those recurring nightmares—perhaps we do not understand those things in their entirety, but they understand them, every day of their lives. We need to ensure that those who need our financial support get it.

With the death of a father or mother comes undoubted financial difficulty and disadvantage. It is right and proper that true victims of terrorism, while they can never be adequately compensated, are supported—and that is what this debate is about. That is why I welcome the commitment from the Minister and Government to this strategy, this policy and this way forward.

That leads me to my final point, which is to ensure that those victim makers, whose hands are not clean, but drip with blood, cannot ever access support or any form of financial compensation from this or any other successive Government. I welcome the news that this Labour Government, the Minister, the Prime Minister and others have said they are to ensure that Gerry Adams and other architects of heartache will be precluded from claiming compensation.

Whereas a libel case in the Republic of Ireland may seek to whitewash history—as it often does, unfortunately —I say unequivocally in this House today, using a phrase that has been said a thousand times to me, and which others will know: the dogs in the street know their own, and they know what Gerry Adams did. To ever conceive that he be due a form of compensation spits in the face of every victim of terrorism and indeed spits in the face of justice.

Today, we stand strong beside the victims of terrorism across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I respect the Minister, as I think we all do. He has lived a life; he is an honourable gentleman. He has served in uniform—he served in Northern Ireland—so he understands the issues and comes with the knowledge and experience that I believe is necessary for his role, both in this debate and in the future. The legislation will ensure that only victims, and never victim makers, are eligible to receive state support or help. I respectfully ask the Minister: when will it come to the House, and what measures will be put in place to ensure the Attorney General’s past support of Gerry Adams, as his legal representative, will not be a factor in any role that the Attorney General’s Office plays in the legislation?

To the true victims of IRA terrorism, of loyalist terrorism and of extremist terrorism across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, support must always be given, and by extension to their families, and it must be withheld from the perpetrators. I believe in my heart that the Government must be crystal clear about that.

International Women�s Day

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

In my almost 10 years in this place, I have become somewhat vocal on women�s issues. Some would call me a �ferocious campaigner�, others a �challenging mouthpiece�, but I will take both. My passion for ensuring that women get access to the support and services they need is what drives me�from women struggling through the menopause to women in prison, and women who are victims of domestic violence, human trafficking or modern slavery. It has been my mission to use this platform to be their voice.

Today, I will speak about an industry that is powered by women but is all too often overlooked and undervalued. As a former co-chair�alongside you, Madam Deputy Speaker�of the previous Parliament�s all-party parliamentary group on beauty and wellbeing, which we are reconvening, I have often spoken about the personal care sector. We championed such businesses during the pandemic, when they were belittled by those in power and were among the last businesses to reopen. Since then, we have continued to promote the contribution that they make to our economy, as well as the physical health and mental wellbeing benefits that they bring to society.

More than 80% of those working in the personal care industry are women, and the industry has one of the highest rates of business ownership compared with other sectors�especially for women. In fact, women are four times more likely to own a personal care business than a business in any other sector. �The Future of the High Street�, a report published by the Federation of Small Businesses last year, recognised that women owners of small and medium-sized enterprises were more likely to engage with their communities, but also highlighted the difficulties women faced, such as excessively high rental costs, when women typically earn less than their male counterparts and bear the brunt of the time and cost demands of raising a family.

It is especially encouraging therefore to see that beauty and wellbeing businesses, which are predominately owned and staffed by women, continue to open and thrive�and they really are thriving. In 2023, there was an 11% year- on-year growth in the GDP contribution of the industry to �27.2 billion. The same year saw a 10% increase in the industry�s workforce, with businesses employing 418,000 people. Professional services, such as salons, directly employed 224,000 people, of which 180,000 were women.

Every day, the industry plays a role in our lives�from the products we buy to the services we use. It keeps us clean, enhances our appearance and helps us to protect our physical and mental health. Will the House join me in wishing every woman who works in the personal care sector or owns a business�let us face it, they will probably be working all day Saturday�a very happy International Women�s Day? [Hon. Members: �Hear, hear!�]

[Several hon. Members rose�]

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I was waiting for that reference to Gloucester. As the right hon. Lady will know, the NAO report is largely based on the previous Government’s period in office, and although it makes clear recommendations, it would be premature of me to comment. However, the strategy to combat violence against women and girls that will be published by this Government in early summer will undoubtedly be looking to the NAO recommendations.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce demand for sex trafficking and sexual exploitation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

The trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime, and the Government work closely with law enforcement to tackle the drivers of that offending and target prolific perpetrators. That includes through operational intensification initiatives aimed at tackling modern slavery threats. The Online Safety Act 2023 sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences, and starting from 17 March, in-scope companies must adopt systems and processes to address those offences.

[Carolyn Harris]

I thank the Minister for her response. In 2023 the then Home Affairs Committee recommended that pimping websites be outlawed, but the previous Government took no action, allowing sex traffickers to continue legally to exploit their victims online. I have since been made aware of further online exploitation, with websites allowing men to rate and review the women for whom they are paying for sex, including admissions of trafficking, under-age sex, and rape. Will the Minister share what action this Government will take to protect victims of online sexual exploitation?

[Jess Phillips]

Like my hon. Friend, I am horrified that such practices should be allowed to continue. Online platforms have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, with a deadline of 16 March 2025, subject to the codes of practice completing the parliamentary process on 17 March. Online platforms will need to take safety measures set out in the codes of practice, and to use other effective measures to protect users from illegal content such as that of which my hon. Friend speaks. If they fail to do so, they will face significant penalties. As she might imagine, I will be keeping a close eye on that.

Commercial Sexual Exploitation

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Giving someone money, accommodation, food, a job or other services on the condition that they perform sex acts is sexual exploitation and abuse, yet the global trade in sexual exploitation—perpetrated primarily against women and girls—is bigger than ever before. Sex trafficking is the most profitable form of modern slavery in the world, while violent, misogynistic pornography is consumed on an unparalleled scale, mostly by men. This was not an accident, and it was not inevitable: we could and should have done so much more to protect women and girls. Instead, the past 14 years have been a veritable golden age for pimps and pornographers.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that under the United Nations protocol on trafficking, a victim does not need to have travelled in a vehicle in order for a trafficking offence to have been committed, yet under the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, they do? This means that exploiters who are not actually moving a victim in a vehicle from one place to another are not being prosecuted as traffickers. It would make a huge difference if there were parity between the two pieces of legislation, to make sure that trafficking is justly prosecuted.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that the Minister is listening and will likely agree with her, as I do.

Multimillion-pound pimping websites have been allowed to operate freely. Men who drive demand for sex trafficking by paying for sex have been left to abuse with impunity, while the most popular pornography websites in the country have been free to peddle videos of rape and sexual abuse.

Criminal Justice Bill

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

It is imperative that all people, regardless of their disability status, their sexual orientation or their gender identity, feel secure and protected from fear and violence. I can see no justification in law for treating those protected characteristics differently. By treating them all as an aggravating factor, we can ensure equitable treatment under the law for those who are victims. I hope that the Government will either support new clause 32 to advance this critical objective or be willing to table their own amendment in the Lords in lieu of mine.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Hon. Members may be shocked to learn that some forms of pimping are still legal in this country. One of the most significant examples is pimping websites, which are dedicated to advertising people for prostitution. They function like online brothels, making it as easy to order a woman to sexually exploit as it is to order a takeaway.

Despite it being an offence to place a prostitution advert on land, for example in a phone box, our laws have failed to keep up with technology, meaning that those same adverts can be placed legally, for a fee, on pimping websites. That represents a win for the website owners, some of whom are generating millions of pounds in profit every year, and for sex traffickers, who can easily and quickly advertise people for prostitution and connect with a wide customer base across the UK, but certainly not for the victims—the people who have been advertised and sold for sex and who have no legal protection from their perpetrators.

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have heard harrowing evidence on the dangers of these sites. Shockingly, one pimping website admitted to the Committee that it allows single individuals to advertise multiple women for prostitution at the same time on its site, as well as allowing the same contact number to be used across multiple different adverts. Those are both red flags for sex trafficking. The Committee also heard of a trafficking gang that spent £25,000 advertising a group of young Romanian women. Rather than alerting the authorities, the website owners allocated them an account manager to help them to spend more money, showing a total disregard for the women’s welfare. It is quite clear that these pimping websites are now a key component of the business model for sex trafficking, and they must be stopped.

The provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 do not close the legislative gap that allows online pimping. That is why the Home Affairs Committee recommended a new offence of enabling or profiting from the prostitution of others, which I have tabled as new clause 8. New clause 8 would make it illegal to advertise another person for prostitution, regardless of whether it takes place online or offline.

I am delighted to have cross-party support for the new clause, including from the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson); the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan); the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith); and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It is an absolute scandal that pimping websites are allowed to operate in plain sight. I urge the Government to support my new clause.

New clause 29 is also designed to combat human trafficking. The definition of “human trafficking” in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is out of line with the internationally agreed definition, and traffickers are benefiting from that. The United Nations protocol on trafficking, the Palermo protocol, does not require victims to have been physically transported from one place to another for an activity to be recognised as trafficking, but our Modern Slavery Act does. Essentially, that means that an exploiter who forces a woman into prostitution, advertises her on a pimping website, controls how many men she has to have sex with each day, and takes her money from her could get a substantially lower penalty simply by virtue of not physically having transported her.

The maximum penalty for controlling prostitution for gain is seven years’ imprisonment. For trafficking, it is life. It is vital that we send a message to all traffickers that there are no get-out clauses for that offence, and that we say: “If you trade in human beings, if you profit from women being raped and abused, the absence of a car journey or a flight should not exempt you from punishment.” New clause 29 would bring the UK definition of human trafficking in line with international standards and remove the opportunity for perpetrators of such crime to play the system. That, too, was a recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee.

Again, I urge the Government to support the new clauses.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I restrict my interest today to new clause 55, which I tabled. It would set up the offence of child criminal exploitation—in other words, it is Fagin’s law. The essence of the name Fagin explains the new clause. In simple terms, if an individual—whether an adult or a child—approached a child with the intention of persuading that child to engage in criminal activity, that in itself would be a crime. That would apply whether or not the child ultimately engaged in the criminal act.

I am delighted to see the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire on the Front Bench, because I blame him for my dealing with this. We discussed it in a meeting, and I put it to him that we really ought to adapt the grooming legislation or bring forward new legislation to deal with the criminal exploitation of children. Like a normal Minister, he said, “Can you go away and sort it out, and come up with something for me?”, which I have done. He might now refuse it this evening, but I hope that he does not, because I will keep on coming back.

The most obvious crimes to target are county lines, organised shoplifting, independent shoplifting, pickpocketing, carrying goods from pickpocketing, carrying weapons or the proceeds of crime on behalf of another—usually an adult who has groomed the child—prostitution and sex activities, of which there has been quite some mention, as there always is, and, finally and horrifically, the grooming of a child for terrorist purposes. They wrap the child in a bomb, send them off to wherever they need to go, and press the button—absolutely horrific.

I have had considerable discussions with a few very senior, very knowledgeable police officers. They are—unlike what the Minister may feel—very enthusiastic about this tiny bit of legislation going through. One of the senior officers, who targets county lines, explained to me that they rely mostly on trying to fit the Modern Slavery Act to that particular problem, but it is a poor fit.

It has been pointed out to me that this approach has already been covered in section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. In answer to a recent parliamentary question of mine, I was informed that section 44 was used 93 times in 2021-22 and 60 times in 2022-23, which is pathetic. Those figures are further diminished when we look at them a little more closely: they relate to the number of offences, not to the number of individual defendants, and I am not sure whether some or any of them involve a child.

A second, even more senior, police officer who I have worked with has a special interest in child protection—that is his job. He has made it clear that he is enthusiastic about this move, and I am sure he will thank the Policing Minister if we nod it through today. He has made the point to me that while there are provisions in the Serious Crime Act—which I have just mentioned—as well as in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and other Acts that the police can try to make fit, they are a poor fit. It does not work, because that legislation is not specific to children.

In essence, senior police officers point out to me that those pieces of legislation are rarely used to stop child criminalisation. They also make the point that if the legislation were adapted ever so slightly to refer to a child, that would make a difference. Any Members present who are parents or have had care of children will know that children—not all of them, but most of them—are persuadable.

One of my villages, Bookham, has a petrol station on the A246 with a shop attached to it. That shop is big, well known and open 24 hours. Late one evening, the single man who was in there looking after the customers noticed that there was a single person in the shop, an eight-year-old child in a dressing gown. She was helping herself, and was obviously going to zip out the door with what she had pilfered. When he approached her, she said, “If you come any closer, I’ll open my dressing gown, and I’ve got nothing on underneath.” She would not have thought of that. She could not have thought of it—she was only eight. She was quite clearly doing that for somebody else, who was probably sitting outside with a camera. That is the sort of thing that we should be stopping. Of course, I am going to find out in due course whether I am persuading the Minister.

As I have said, the opinion of that child protection officer is that the legislation we have does not fit. He and many other senior police officers working in this area want further legislation to specifically equate grooming through criminal exploitation with what is contained in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, targeted at child protection. All the officers who have an interest in the protection of children with whom I have discussed this matter have pointed out that the key difference between my new clause 55 and section 44 of the Serious Crime Act is that my new clause is specifically targeted at the child. From my discussions with police officers, I have been impressed by the deterrent effect on criminals who may be prosecuted for a child offence. That, I understand, tends to make life in jail even more difficult than it might otherwise be.

As a number of senior lawyers—including Members of this House—have pointed out to me, there is overlap and duplication within British law. I am no lawyer, but many lawyers have said that to me. If my new clause 55 became law, the tariff applied to the crime would be that which would apply to the crime that the culprit was attempting to persuade the child to commit. If it was murder, the tariff would be life; if it was just pilfering from a shop, it would be very much less. As many Members will be aware, for many years, I have been pushing for improvement in legislation for the protection of children. I have also worked—particularly as a councillor—in the inner cities, so I know they are vulnerable. If my new clause is accepted, it would make a huge change to the protection of children against a life of crime.

Criminal Justice Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

I hope Members understand the spirit of what I am intending with these new clauses. They are quite simply designed to ensure that those who seriously injure or kill a person they collide with face justice if they decide to leave the scene of the collision. As I said earlier, if Minister wishes to take away my new clauses and give the intent behind them some thought, I would be more than willing to withdraw them and give the Government the opportunity to carefully consider the points I have made, our constituents have made and road safety campaigners would make if they could speak directly to the Committee.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 49 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and others. The new clause would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide that dangerous and careless or inconsiderate driving offences may be committed on private land adjacent to the highway. In August 2017, 22-month-old Pearl Melody Black from Merthyr Tydfil was tragically killed while walking with her father and brother. Pearl was killed by an unoccupied vehicle that rolled from a private drive in Merthyr on to a highway and down a hill, crashing into a wall that subsequently crushed Pearl and injured her father and brother.

In the months after the incident, officers from the serious collision unit of South Wales police worked tirelessly to put together a case to provide justice for the family. In short, all tests concluded that the car was mechanically sound and that it had rolled because the handbrake was not fully engaged and the automatic transmission was not fully placed in park mode. The case was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in March 2018 and was worked on by the London office as well as by an independent QC hired by the CPS. Everyone was hopeful of a conviction under the causing death by dangerous driving category, and the CPS looked at other possible options. However, in June 2018 the CPS stated that it was unable to send the case to court as a glitch in the law states that the vehicle must have started its journey on a public road for a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Even though Pearl was killed on a public road, the fact that the vehicle started its descent from a private drive meant that prosecution was not possible.

The coroner stated that the vehicle was well maintained and it seemed that the issue was very much driver operation. The inquest heard that the handbrake had not been fully applied in park mode. The inquest into Pearl’s death was heard in October 2018 and the outcome was that it was an accident. However, with the support of South Wales police and the CPS, Pearl’s parents have been seeking a change in the law to prevent other families from being unable to secure justice due to a legal loophole following such a tragic and completely preventable accident as this. As Gemma and Paul acknowledge, it will not help to bring justice for Pearl, as legislation is not retrospective, but if this law can be changed to prevent anyone else from suffering this injustice again, it may provide some comfort.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney put forward a ten-minute rule Bill that had cross-party support, including mine, but it fell due to a lack of parliamentary time. Meetings with various Justice and Transport Ministers have been helpful in that they were all sympathetic, but there is currently no major transport Bill that could provide a vehicle for this change. This new clause would therefore allow for the change to be made.

It is wholly wrong that, in cases as tragic as the one I outlined, justice cannot be achieved. There can be no conviction simply because the land on which the incident took place is not classified as public. If the law were changed in relation to driving offences occurring on private land adjoining public land, that would be a powerful deterrent to road users being careless, as well as those who have no doubt exploited the current loopholes in the law to avoid conviction when they have undoubtedly been at fault. People would be more likely to take care and pay more attention when parking or driving on private land close to public land if they knew that there could be serious consequences for their careless and reckless behaviour.

There are a huge number of instances where private land adjoining public land is readily used and potentially dangerous to those around it, including residential driveways, schools and nurseries, supermarkets, shopping centres, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries to name some of the more common ones. When we consider those examples, we can see that driving on that specific category of land can present a high risk to people in everyday situations, and especially children, the elderly and some of the most vulnerable among us.

I am sure that all hon. Members agree that nobody who has suffered the loss of a loved one or had an accident or an injury as a result of a driving offence should have to endure the injustice of seeing those responsible go free simply because of a loophole in the law. Prosecutions for driving offences—indeed, for any illegal action—should be based on what happened, not where it happened.

[Alex Cunningham]

I shall be brief. My hon. Friends the Members for Bootle and for Swansea East have addressed new clauses 17, 18 and 49, and I pay tribute to them and to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for the work they have done on road traffic incidents. All three new clauses illustrate the need for a sentencing review for serious road traffic offences, and Labour is committed to doing that alongside sentencing for other serious crimes across the system.

The Minister and the Committee heard the tragic accounts outlined by my hon. Friends, including that of a runaway car that killed a young child. Sadly, in that case, there could be no justice for the child or her family as no offence related to the circumstances of her death. Surely that cannot be right. I am sure the Minister agrees that we have a duty to act in all three areas outlined in the new clauses. Has she examined the impact of those measures on cost, particularly in relation to the additional cost of prison places? If she has not, will she consider doing so before Report and share that information with the Committee, so that we are better informed? If she cannot support the new clauses today, I would be obliged if she told us what action, if any, her Department is considering for such offences and whether the Government plan to address them in the Bill at a later stage, or perhaps during Committee of the whole House on the Sentencing Bill, which I believe is due within the next few weeks.

There can be no doubt that the new clauses would close loopholes in the law that currently prevent families of loved ones killed in tragic circumstances from achieving either justice or closure. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Criminal Justice Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

Using anything for a purpose for which it was not intended risks damage, because the possibility of that damage has not been designed out. What if someone is sleeping on the bench persistently over a period? “Damage” could be breaking one of the wooden slats, but it could also be whittling down the paint or varnish. The Minister rolls his eyes. If he gave the commitment today that he personally will make all these decisions every day across the country, well, that might give me some comfort, but he clearly will not apply the test. It will be applied by possibly relatively junior members of staff with very little training. If the test is applied overly officiously, and there is a clear risk of that, then the damage to an individual could be considerable, and their recourse minimal. That is why this point matters, even in an extreme case.

Subsection (5)(c) refers to

“damage to the environment (including excessive noise, smells, litter or deposits of waste)”.

“Smells” is particularly problematic. That is part of the stigma relating to people who do not have a roof over their head. Smelling could be enough to make them a nuisance. That is a real problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about the stigma test; the provision does not pass that test.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a very passionate representation. Last November, on a very wet, cold night, I slept in a doorway. I went armed with a tarpaulin, a sleeping bag and cardboard. Homelessness is not a lifestyle choice. There were other people there who were obviously suffering from mental health issues, and some had been victims of sexual abuse. I had gone armed with equipment to be homeless, and to sleep on the streets. Does he not agree that under the rules in the Bill, I could have been arrested?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend would certainly have passed the test of intending to sleep rough. A subjective decision would then have to be made on whether her behaviour caused damage, or even was capable of causing damage—the damage does not have to occur. She might also be found to have caused “disruption”, which is

“interference with…any lawful activity in, or use of, a place.”

It would not be very hard to pass that test. She is a fearsome opponent, so perhaps she is also a health and safety risk to others at times. So yes, she could in some way fail many, if not all, of the tests. [Interruption.] I think she will probably take that as a compliment.

Criminal Justice Bill (Tenth sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Laura Farris]

On Jonathan Hall’s comments, there are two points to make. First, given his expertise, it is relevant to consider what he said about polygraphs in general, which is that

“polygraph measures for released terrorist offenders are a good thing.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2023; c. 64.]

You asked for an updated example of where polygraph testing had been instrumental, and he gave an example—in fact, I do not think it had been used—when he said:

“I was in favour of polygraph measures after Fishmongers’ Hall. It was partly on the back of one of my recommendations that polygraph measures were brought in. They always, or at least for a long time, existed for sex offenders. You will recall Usman Khan, who was clearly a very deceptive man. My view was that polygraph measures could be useful.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2023; c. 66.]

It is difficult to prove a negative, but they were brought in shortly after that.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify whether the polygraphs are administered by the private sector or the statutory sector? Given that we have had some startling problems with technical issues in the private sector of late, it would be interesting to know who is responsible for the polygraphs.

[Laura Farris]

Polygraph conditions are set by the Secretary of State.

[Carolyn Harris]

Yes, but what about the company responsible for provision?

[Laura Farris]

Can I come back to you on that? The shadow Minister talked about the categorisation of former terrorist offenders, and I hope I can answer his point.

We have made the point, and I hope it was clear, that those who were convicted of an alternative offence where there was a strong belief that there was a terrorism connection—it is a small cohort—were convicted before the counter-terrorism law came in. They would have been convicted separately. Politicians are not making a random adjudication of whether an offender should be classified retrospectively as a terrorist. It is about looking at the sentencing remarks and what the judge, who heard all the evidence and sat through the trial, made of that offender.

It is a fair challenge. I know that it is quite an irregular provision in law to have, effectively, a retroactive clause. However, when you look at the failings that applied in the Fishmongers’ Hall case, there is a very strong public interest in ensuring that we maximise and extend the protection of this provision in a way that the public would find reasonable. When you refer back to sentencing remarks, you can be reasonably confident that you are—

Criminal Justice Bill (Ninth sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th January 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Laura Farris]

The provisions on the removals of foreign nationals are set out in the 2012 immigration rules; it is section 339 that governs removal. If the sentence has been two years or more, only truly exceptional circumstances would allow them to stay. The simple fact of somebody who has committed a category A or B—

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Laura Farris]

Let me finish the point. It has to be truly exceptional. I have done cases in court for the Home Office. The Home Office is nearly always successful when it relies on that clause because, as the court always says, when the offence is serious, there is an overwhelming public interest in the removal of a dangerous offender from the United Kingdom. Article 8 is qualified under paragraph 339 of the immigration rules.

[Carolyn Harris]

Would those exceptional circumstances include prisoners whose crime was committed after they had been trafficked to the United Kingdom, if they committed it because of the trafficking?

[Laura Farris]

I have never been involved in a case of that nature; cases where the offending is really serious tend to be much more straightforward. There is flexibility, because we can take such cases to court to appeal the removal. Obviously, when someone is already a victim of crime, that is a different context, so I do not know how the courts would deal with it. The law itself, however, is set out under the established immigration rules, in primary legislation and has been operational for 12 years now. That is not part of the dispute today.

To continue, it is right that we take innovative measures to ensure that we always have sufficient prison capacity to fulfil the orders of the court and to punish the most dangerous offenders. I reiterate at this stage that the powers simply lay down the foundation for future arrangements. I repeat: all the points raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North, about the considerations that might apply were relevant, but this is about future arrangements so that we will have the power to transfer prisoners to rented foreign prisons. No foreign prison rental agreements are yet in place, however. As he is aware, there is precedent in Europe: both Norway and Belgium have similar arrangements with the Netherlands at present.