Online Abuse

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Jones

Monday 29th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 190627 relating to online abuse.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. The petition was started by Katie Price following the abuse of her son Harvey online. The Petitions Committee set up an inquiry into the subject, throughout which we have been led by the experiences of disabled people. We held an event in Westminster to listen to their experiences and scope out our inquiry, as well as six further events around the country. We took formal evidence from the police, technology companies, charities, the Minister and disabled people themselves, and we published draft recommendations and consulted on them. I think we were the first Select Committee to do so, and we held further events around the country to make that work.

I place on record my thanks to all the people who gave so generously of their time to engage with us, and to the Select Committee staff, who not only worked extremely hard on the inquiry but travelled widely throughout the country to do so. That engagement was very important to us because, despite the fact that other Select Committees have done excellent work on both hate crime and internet safety, we found that the voices of disabled people were often not heard, and that became even clearer to us as the inquiry proceeded.

We found that rather puzzling; after all, disabled people are more likely to be in contact with a range of services—from council services to the Department for Work and Pensions and the health service. They therefore should be easy to contact, although, as one of our witnesses said:

“We’re not hard to reach, only easy to ignore.”

That leads to a misunderstanding of what disabled people are facing online, and what their problems really are.

When we asked both the technology companies and the Minister questions about disabled people, we often got answers about children. The Government’s Green Paper on internet safety said very little about the experiences of disabled people. When we raised that with the Minister, she kindly wrote to us in April last year saying that the Government planned to hold a roundtable with disability organisations and social media companies. The only problem with that is that the inquiry closed in December 2017.

Most disabled people are not children; they are adults who are able to make their own choices and decisions, and they deserve to have their voices heard. What we found out when talking to them was truly shocking. Disabled people are less likely to use the internet than the majority of the population but, among those who do, many are avid users. To be frank, the internet has been a boon to many disabled people. It has allowed them to connect with others with similar conditions, which is very important, especially if they have a rare condition. It has allowed them to widen their social circle, progress in their careers, organise, campaign and challenge stereotypes. However, while doing that, they face the most horrendous abuse—not occasionally, but day in, day out.

Such abuse is, frankly, a stain on our society. Disabled people are regularly told that they should have been aborted. They are targeted with requests for explicit images—the implication being that disabled women, in particular, ought to be grateful for any attention. They are told that they are benefit scroungers or fraudsters, and a drain on our society. That leads to a culture of fear among many disabled people who post about their lives online.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee for giving way. She and I worked together on the report, and I commend her for the speech that she is making. Almost all of us in the Chamber know that people say things online that they would never say directly to someone’s face. However, one of the most distressing aspects of the report—this was shared with me during one of the outreach events that we held in Newcastle—is that the abuse that disabled people receive online often reflects the abuse that they receive out and about in their daily lives in the real world. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as is set out in a conclusion of the report, the Government need to amend hate crime legislation to ensure that disability hate crime is dealt with on a par with other hate crime offences, to send a very clear message?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I will come to that point later in my remarks.

Online, those with visible disabilities are often mocked for how they look. Those with learning difficulties are targeted for sexual or financial exploitation. Some of the terms used—I will repeat them only to show how vile they are—such as “mong”, “retard” and “spastic”, are as vile as the worst terms of racist abuse; yet they are often not treated in the same way. People even join Facebook groups that disabled people use for support so that they can steal images and transform them into so-called jokes or memes online.

My hon. Friend is entirely right; the disabled people we spoke to were very clear that the abuse that they get online reflects attitudes in society. That is why our report called for more education. We found that 21% of young adults would avoid speaking to a disabled person. Unless we break down those barriers, things will not change. I am sorry that the Government were rather dismissive of that recommendation in their response.

Disabled people were also clear that the abuse had increased since 2010, when certain politicians started to ramp up the rhetoric about benefit fraudsters and scroungers, despite knowing that, even on the worst estimate, benefit fraud is only 1% of the spending. In many estimates, it is less than that. That should be a reminder to everybody that such rhetoric has an impact on real people living their day-to-day lives.

We were clear that part of the way to counter the abuse is to promote more positive images of disabled people. After all, they are 20% of the population, and 19% of the working-age population. They are our friends, neighbours and work colleagues; yet they are seldom visible, either in the media or Government campaigns. That is why we recommended that the Government ensure that there are positive images of disabled people in all their campaigns, events and advertising.

The Government’s response says that they used a picture of a disabled person in a campaign on transport because disabled people often have problems with transport. It would be an understatement to say that that comprehensively misses the point. We do not want always to see pictures of disabled people who have problems—indeed, sometimes they themselves are seen as the problem. We want to see pictures of disabled people going about their everyday lives at work, at leisure and contributing to society, as they do.

That kind of misunderstanding is everywhere. It leads to a situation in which disabled people who report abuse are often told to go offline. That is as unacceptable in the 21st century as it would be to tell a black person or a disabled person not to go down the high street in case they get abused. When that happens, disabled people face a double whammy: first, their health is damaged by the constant abuse—Members of this House ought to know how that feels—and then they are denied opportunities that would improve their health, in volunteering or in work, and their social circle is narrowed. For those who are in work, constantly having to change their details to avoid abuse leads to loss of employment opportunities or promotion.

We cannot do anything about this problem until we start to understand it, but people do not. For example, we became aware during our inquiry that a lot of the abuse related to football, with people using disability terms as insults. Shockingly and appallingly, they were using the name of Harvey Price, who is a child and a football fan, to insult someone on their ability as a footballer. We wrote to the footballing organisations—the Professional Footballers Association, Kick It Out, the Football Association, the Premier League and the English Football League—but only one replied before our inquiry concluded. The Premier League’s reply was about access to football grounds and abuse at the grounds—it just did not get it. It is shocking that some of those organisations did not reply at all; it is shameful, in fact, because clubs and footballers have a great influence on their fans. I hope that in future they will use their position to call out hatred of disabled people in the same way that they have rightly called out racism associated with the game.

It is that lack of understanding that leads to disabled people being categorised as children and to their voices not being heard. We have therefore recommended that in future the Government should consult disabled people explicitly and directly on all matters that concern them—not those who claim to speak on their behalf, but disabled people themselves.

We were bemused about why social media companies have failed to engage with people who could be among their strongest advocates. What engagement there has been has come too late and has often been too little. For example, where people with learning difficulties are concerned, Facebook told us that it thought its how-to videos made easy-read guidelines unnecessary, while Google said that it thought its community guidelines met the easy-read guidelines. Disabled people disagreed: they do not.

Twitter told us that it thought that simplifying its policies would make them harder to understand, yet easy-read versions are frequently produced of complex documents such as health consultations, tenancy agreements and even—dare I say it—Select Committee reports. It is not that the guidance and expertise needed to produce easy-read versions are not available; it is that social media companies have never thought to seek that guidance and act on it.

We also found that most disabled people, like the rest of us, were confused by the fact that policies are called different things on different sites. Even more importantly, reporting mechanisms are often not accessible to disabled people. Shockingly, we heard again and again that when disabled people have reported hate speech, often nothing has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

Whether there should be a particular person charged with that is one issue, but I think disabled people are well able to speak for themselves about this, and have been doing so when people choose to hear them.

Social media companies should certainly do more. For example, we found that Twitter talks about dealing with threats of violence by removing an offending tweet or suspending an account, but nowhere does it say that threats to kill are a serious criminal offence and should be reported to the police. That in itself is breeding confusion. We often found that the police were having to pick up things that should really have been dealt with by social media companies. We think it quite wrong that police resources should have to be used in that way because the social media companies are failing.

Social media companies need clear rules, policies, mechanisms and settings that are accessible to all disabled people. They also need to be much more proactive in removing hate speech from their sites and reporting potential criminal offences, including the theft of images, which was one of the worst things that we found—particularly images of children that were used to create so-called memes or jokes.

Rightly, the Government’s White Paper on online harms commits to imposing a duty of care on social media companies and making them responsible for harmful or illegal content on their sites. However, the document refers repeatedly to

“children and other vulnerable users”.

We must understand that many disabled people resent the categorisation of all disabled people as vulnerable. They are not. Like the rest of us, some are vulnerable and some are not. Mostly, they are disadvantaged by how society treats them, rather than by the intrinsic nature of their condition. I hope that the Minister’s reply will reassure us that those things will apply to all kinds of abuse.

What is very clear is that self-regulation has comprehensively failed disabled people in the same way that it has failed many other people who use the internet. Unfortunately, so has the law, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out. The Government tell us constantly that what is illegal offline is illegal online. That is true as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. There are potentially 30 statutes that could apply to online offences. Some offences, such as the theft of images or instigating pile-ons, can occur only online.

The fact that, as one of our witnesses put it,

“not all the pieces of the jigsaw join up”

is leading to a low rate of prosecution in this area. If the law cannot deal with the creation of fake child pornography to mock a disabled child and his family, as happened in the case of Harvey Price, it is simply inadequate. We need a new law that is fit for the digital age, which is why we have recommended that the Government bring forward legislation as a matter of urgency and consult disabled people before doing so.

The Government should make disability hate crime an offence in the same way that crime against someone due to their race or religion is an offence. At the moment, it is only an aggravating factor at sentencing, and it is necessary to prove that someone committed a crime because of hostility to someone due to their disability, which is a very high threshold. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and Detective Inspector John Donovan of the Metropolitan police’s online hate crime hub pointed us to the research by the University of Sussex, which shows that disability hate crime was under-reported and under-prosecuted due to the current state of the law.

In their White Paper, the Government include hate crime in a list of harms that they say are clearly defined. I am afraid that it is not clearly defined on disability hate crime, and it urgently needs to be. As our inquiry proceeded, it became clear to us that disabled people do not feel adequately protected by the law, and do not feel that they are heard when they report crimes. People not being heard properly was a recurring theme throughout our inquiry.

Some good work has been done at senior levels of the police and the CPS, but the law will not work properly unless that percolates down through the organisations, and unless the person on the desk in the police station or the officer who comes out to see people understands it. That is why we have recommended more training for police officers, including in dealing with people who have learning disabilities or autism, so that they are not automatically pigeonholed as being unreliable witnesses.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. From the most appalling case in my constituency—the abuse and murder of Lee Irving—I know that so-called mate crime is an enormous danger, particularly for people with learning disabilities. The phrase does not adequately describe in any way the serious financial, physical and often sexual exploitation faced by far too many disabled people at the hands of those they are led to believe are their friends. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that although many disabled people can feel isolated in the real world, the friendships that they develop on social media platforms can actually pose a real danger and harm? Social media companies do not have a grip on this, and the legislation does not reflect the seriousness of such offences.

[Helen Jones]

I agree. We say in our report that

“mate crime is hate crime”,

and it should be treated as such. There is a real risk to people from the activities of those vile individuals who target them for exploitation.

We have been asked, and were asked in the petition, whether we thought that a separate register of offenders was necessary for online hate crime. We came to the conclusion that there is no need for a separate register if our suggested changes to the law and to disability hate crime legislation are to be instigated, because those crimes would show up through a normal Disclosure and Barring Service check. We should make it very clear that at the moment, they do not. Often it records the offence but not that it was motivated by hatred of a disabled person. In organisations that are employing someone to deal with disabled people, there is a problem with being unable to check whether they have a record of not instigating any hate crime. That is a real problem, which we think needs to be addressed by changes in the law.

The other thing that we encountered and felt very strongly about during our inquiry was the fact that disabled people do not feel adequately protected by the law, as I said. We were so concerned that we recommended in our report that the Government should commission an overarching review of disabled people’s experiences of the law, including their experiences of reporting crime and giving evidence.

Disabled people are already marginalised by society. They are being marginalised even more by being abused or driven away from one of the key tools of the 21st century: the internet. That really cannot carry on, and I hope the Minister will commit to consulting disabled people on the proposals in the White Paper, just as I hope she will commit to ensuring that internet and social media companies consult them on their policies, settings and so on. In my view, saying simply that that is an example of good practice is not strong enough. We need to ensure that it will happen, because time and again it is clear that disabled people are not heard when they raise issues that concern them. They are not heard when they talk about this kind of abuse, which they get all the time on the internet. It is time that they were fully heard, and that we grasped this issue and did something about it. I hope the Minister will commit to doing that today.

Retail Store Closure: Boxing Day

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Jones

Monday 12th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 168524 relating to the closure of retail stores on Boxing Day.

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I confess that, being a bit long in the tooth, I can remember when Boxing day closure was the norm; it was a bank holiday, and nobody thought of doing anything other than closing. Certainly all big stores were closed, and people stayed at home with their family. In fact, I am old enough to remember when the new year sales actually began in the new year, after 1 January. People stayed at home, and if they wanted to go to the sales, they went later on—and here’s the thing: nobody starved to death. The world did not run out of cheap televisions. Nor did the country run out of supplies of winter coats and boots at reduced prices.

When I first realised that people were shopping on Boxing day, I would look at people going to the supermarket, and the queues, and would think, “For heaven’s sake, get a life.” However, I have moved from indifference to anger, because all the evidence shows that poorly paid retail workers are being exploited to fuel a national obsession—a debt-fuelled shopping binge that, in the end, does no one any real good. As my family will tell you, Mrs Moon, I can shop with the best of them, but if my shopping on Boxing day is done at the expense of some of the lowest paid workers in the community, something has to give way.

I should declare an interest, because I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, although it is quite a long time since I worked in a shop. When I did, I learned two important things. First, the job is physically exhausting, because workers are on their feet most of the day—and in my day, we worked only 9 till 5. Secondly, shop workers need inexhaustible reserves of patience and self-restraint to deal with the rude, demanding and frequently abusive customers that they have to put up with. Of course, that gets worse in the run-up to Christmas, which is why my union runs its “Keep your cool at Christmas” campaign before the Christmas rush, but for shop workers and those who work in warehouses and distribution—it is not only those on the shop floor who are affected—there is no respite.

The responses to our online consultation were interesting and overwhelming. We had nearly 6,000 responses. Many told us that they were not allowed to take holiday in December. One person working in distribution said that they could not take holiday in November or December. Indeed, in one case, people were not allowed to take holiday from October onwards. That means that people in the sector arrive at Christmas very tired. They now often work late on Christmas eve to prepare for Boxing day. In fact, we heard of one person working until midnight on Christmas eve. They arrive home to their families exhausted, long after the rest of us have begun our celebrations, and are then expected to be in work again on Boxing day.

As we know, Christmas day can be a very nice day, but it is not necessarily very relaxing. It is not relaxing for people with young children who are up as early as possible, or for people who have to cook the Christmas dinner, so many of us—including me—say that Boxing day is our day of rest. That choice is not available to many people in retail—if, indeed, they get Christmas day off. There are constant suggestions that some people are called in on Christmas day to keep preparing for the sales. The British Retail Consortium has said that large retailers are not allowed to open on Christmas day. We know that; it is a prime example of answering a question that was not asked. It also says that most preparation for Boxing day is done by Christmas eve, and that people working on Christmas day is not a problem. I am afraid that it is a problem; it keeps being reported as a problem, and I do not believe that the people who report it are lying to us.

If people get Christmas day off, they often find that they are unable to enjoy it fully, because they must be in work again on Boxing day; many people are expected to be in work by 7 o’clock. There is little public transport, so there are stories of people having to get up at 5 o’clock in the morning to get to work. The Minister shakes her head, but those testimonies were given to us online in our consultation.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful speech that rings true in the light of the many testimonies that I have seen and heard. Christmas is special because people who might not normally be able to spend time with family can do so. Is it not another issue that many people who work in retail do not have the option of travelling to see their family, because now they must travel so early on Boxing day to make it back in time for the sales?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. We have heard from people who work from 7 am to 6 pm on Boxing day. We heard from one lady who has to stay in work until 10 o’clock. People are at work not just when the shops are open; they do the restocking afterwards as well. So that lady has to get her partner to come and get her late at night, bringing with him their two small children—there is no one else to mind them—because she cannot afford taxis. Retail wages do not stretch to taxis at the best of times, and certainly not at Boxing day premium rates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman is right about the law as it stands; if he will forgive me, I will come to that in a moment.

Retailers say that Boxing day trading is important to them. The British Retail Consortium declined to give written evidence to my Committee before the debate, but in the past it has said that last year’s sales were up 0.7% on the year before. However, it is important to remember that those sales did not reach the December peak, which last year was on 23 December, or the November peak, which last year was on the day after that appalling American import, Black Friday.

The director of retail intelligence at Ipsos Retail Performance said:

“Boxing Day has grown in significance as a shopping day over the last 5 years, as increasingly more retailers have started their Sales immediately after Christmas.”

I say two things to that: first, sales are on now, as anybody who has looked around knows; secondly, I have not seen any evidence that Boxing day opening generates more trade, rather than moving it about between days. If retailers were closed on Boxing day, there might well be more trade on 27 December—or, more likely, the Saturday following Christmas, when most people are off work.

However, we have had evidence that some stores may not even be that busy; I accept that some are, but some are certainly not. One store manager told us that his store was less busy than on a usual Sunday. Other people working in retail have told me that they are not busy, and that they do not accept returns on Boxing day because that would make the sales figures look worse. There are differences across the sector, and it seems that many shops open simply because others do; staff and store managers in my constituency say that that is often the case. As someone said in our consultation, retailers are great followers. Many in the sector would like Boxing day to be treated like Christmas day and Easter Sunday, when large stores cannot open. In fact, 92% of respondents to an USDAW consultation did not want to work on Boxing day, but 78% felt that they were pressured to.

The opening of the stores has a price for our communities, for families and for individuals; nothing in life is for free. If more shops open on Boxing day, there needs to be more of other services, such as waste collection; emergency services must be on duty; and there is more pressure on transport to run as normal. There is a spiral effect when more and more people are made to work the bank holiday. As I said, there is a price for families. People lose the time with their children or their parents, and other members of the family are very often pressed into service looking after children, meaning that they cannot make plans for the day. The real impact is on the poorly paid retail workers and their families, and from the comments that we have received, it is clear that most people would rather have that day off.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I will put on the record another thing that, like childcare, is not generally available on Boxing day: the usual support for those whose family members require care. There is testimony from retail workers who are in the difficult position of both having to care for their family and being forced to go to work or ultimately risk not being able to bring the bread home.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. That is an example of the pressures that those retail workers come under, many of whom are women and have caring or childcare responsibilities. I doubt that much would change if store openings began on 27 December. As one of the contributors to the consultation said about stores, “They will make their money back, but we will never get our time back.”

What is the purpose of all this? Does anyone actually gain? As another person said to us in the consultation, “I should like to think that the keen shoppers of the UK could wait one more day to grab a juicy bargain”—or, as staff call it, stock that has been gathering dust in the stockroom since 1993. Another person said, “Isn’t seven-day trading and numerous late nights enough?” I think it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. A lot of the testimony is heartbreaking. I come at this from this direction: if I deserve time with my family over Christmas, other people do, too.

Of course, there are exceptions. A number of workers in the emergency services—nurses, paramedics and police—have responded to our consultation, and they all accept that they may have to work on Boxing day because it is a matter of life and death. Shopping is not. Politicians are often quick to jump in if they think Christmas is being downgraded. People respond to spurious stories about Christmas being renamed; they say, quite rightly, that they do not want to see a Christian festival downgraded. Here is the news: it has been already. Contrary to what we might think, Christmas does not begin the day after bonfire night, or whenever the commercial frenzy sets off. It begins on the 25th. The 26th is the second day of Christmas—St. Stephen’s day. Boxing day is originally when servants were given their presents and time off. It is coming to something when in 21st-century Britain, we cannot give people the rights that indentured servants had hundreds of years ago. The situation could be vastly improved by a simple amendment to legislation to put Boxing day on the same footing as Christmas day and Easter Sunday, when large stores cannot open. We could do that.

The Prime Minister says that she wants a country that works for everyone. I have to say that it is not working for the retail trade at the moment. She also said quite recently:

“our Christian heritage is something we can all be proud of.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 1515.]

I agree. That heritage has shaped our country and how it works. That is why I get Christmas cards from my Jewish colleagues, my Muslim colleagues and people of no faith at all. They recognise the importance of Christmas. If, as I have heard many people say, we want to preserve this country’s Christian heritage, we should preserve it and give people some time off at Christmas. Good King Wenceslas did not look out and see the queue for the next sale. As someone said in response to our consultation —forgive me for the language—“Christmas is about spending time with your family, not sodding shops!” I could not agree more.

It is about time we did something about this. In the end, a civilised society is judged by how it treats not the most powerful people in it, but those without power. Boxing day and bank holidays were introduced to ensure that workers got time off. We have moved away from that. We could at least move back a little bit by ensuring that large retail stores had to close on Boxing day.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, because she is making a brilliant speech. Who has less power in this world than children? It means everything to them to spend Christmas with their family. One retail worker said in testimony:

“I’ve got a little girl and these early years are such a magical time for her. I feel that I miss out on her enthusiasm and wonder by having to work over Christmas.”

That says it all.

[Helen Jones]

It does. We hear much from the Government about supporting families and the family being very important. We show how important it is by our deeds, not just by words. It is time we gave these lowest paid workers the right that we all take for granted—the right to have a day off on Boxing day.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Helen Jones

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in the debate not because I have an entirely unequivocal view on the issue or because I believe strongly that either side of the argument is absolutely right, but because I can see both sides. I have deliberated long and hard before deciding to speak and how to vote, both on the amendments and on Third Reading.

My views, like those of many people in the Chamber today, are inextricably bound with my experience, as is the case with any conscience vote. I come from a large Roman Catholic family and am the third child of eight. They say that the family that prays together stays together and that is very much the case with us. We are a close-knit unit, sometimes to the point of that being overbearing, but whenever there is a crisis or something to celebrate, we are all there in droves.

A big part of my childhood was spent with my brother, who is two years older than me and he shared with us the fact that he was gay in his early 20s. He was my best friend growing up—my playmate, my partner in crime and my defender when in trouble—and I found it challenging when the announcement came because of my Catholic faith. It has been a journey in which I have had to question my faith and understanding of the world, but I believe that the experience has not only kept my faith intact but renewed and enriched it.

My children have been growing up alongside their uncle and his partner, as just that: partners in life. My children do not put titles on it, or boundaries on its meaning. They do not put judgments on its worth. They see two people who love and care for each other, and who face the joys and trials of life together.

I appreciate the intention behind the amendments and new clauses that have been brought forward, and I have studied them at length. I have heard many representations from constituents who have concerns about marriage being redefined. I have not always agreed with the constituents who have contacted or come to see me, but I hope that they feel that they have been listened to with sincerity and respect. The Bill will not serve the cause of equality if it creates intolerance on either side of the debate.

I will always fight passionately for religious freedom. I believe that our society is richer for its diversity, and enhanced by the mutual tolerance that is, for the most part, shown. I therefore contemplated the scenarios in which that freedom might be compromised by the Bill. I have spoken to teachers on the front line, both those in faith schools and those in other schools. I understand the pressures; it is always a challenge to explain the world to children in a way that promotes their understanding without shattering unnecessarily soon any illusions that they may have. I also feel strongly that however they are taught about relationships, it should be done in an inclusive and tolerant way. Children should have the opportunity to learn, as I did, what their Church’s teaching is, and what the reality is for couples, individuals and families living together, up and down the country.

My religious education—in an all-girls convent school, I might add—was thorough but balanced. We were taught the Catholic Church’s view, the humanist view, the atheist view, and the views of other faiths, and we discussed and debated issues, from abortion to euthanasia, with a broad and balanced approach. That is what I want for my children, and I believe that that is entirely possible as a result of the Bill as drafted.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree—I speak as someone who supported the Bill on Second Reading—that there are concerns about some issues, including how the subject will be dealt with in schools? If the Minister cannot accept new clause 1, perhaps he can give us some assurances on the subject from the Dispatch Box, because Catholic schools in particular will want to teach what is legal, but will also want to ensure that the Church’s view is put to their pupils. None of us would want that not to happen.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She anticipated my next remark; I was about to say that I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarity on whether my understanding is correct.

I want to put on record that I will support the Bill, but I have taken on board the issue of receiving confirmation regarding faith education and having protections in place, so that people are free to learn of different views—views about Christian marriage and what the state teaches. Also, I seek clarification on protection from compulsion, which is dealt with in new clauses 7 and 8, and in Government amendment 23, which acknowledges that clarification is required in that regard.

I believe in a society and state that do not discriminate on the grounds of race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or religious belief. I appreciate that those rights must always be balanced, and the state has a role to play in ensuring that that balance is always struck, so I am otherwise reassured that the Bill provides for those with a religious view of marriage to practise and teach their understanding of marriage, where that is done in an open, inclusive and tolerant way. My greatest hope is that one day we will reach an understanding that we all share, and will no longer even have to engage in this debate.