Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the point I referred to earlier: there are different points in the judicial process at which a charge or arrest is made in the different legal systems of the United Kingdom. We have three different legal systems and charges can be brought at different times.

This is a balanced judgment—there is no right or wrong answer—on the basis of what is being proposed: to remove the right of a Member of Parliament to attend the Palace of Westminster, which is an ancient right we have held for hundreds of years. We are proposing to introduce something unique and different. Based on the evidence we heard and the advice we received from the Clerks and others, exclusion on charge feels like about the right point to make that decision.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Where this whole debate has gone completely wrong is by being obsessed with exclusion. It is actually about making a risk-based assessment of what needs to be done, in a certain set of circumstances, completely proportionate to the point and the severity of the crime being considered, to ensure that this place is safe. I really deprecate the fact that this is being called “risk-based exclusion”. I suspect we will be talking about very few people who might be excluded, but if there was a proper assessment of risk at arrest and proportionate measures were taken to ensure that everybody here was working safely, surely that would be the right way to move forward.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I can never resist the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I will always give way to him. He makes a very good point. There may be a role for another process that does that, but for the exclusion process it feels that the right point is at charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It is perfectly possible to do that. I can imagine many different circumstances where somebody was arrested for a violent or sexual offence and the panel decided that they would not go down the route of exclusion. The Member would still be able to be present and take part in debates; it is just that certain other factors would be considered, such as saying, “You can’t go on foreign travel on behalf of the House, you can’t go on travel in the UK paid for by the House, you can’t participate in IPU delegations, you can’t use the bars, and we’re going to rearrange your offices.” All of those things could happen entirely without disrupting the Member’s ability to represent their constituents to the fullest possible degree. As I say, this is always about assessing the risk in the specific set of circumstances and mitigating those risks only in a proportionate way. In most cases, my suspicion is that exclusion would be disproportionate and therefore not necessary. That is why it is unfortunate that the motion has been couched in this way.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points—they are all good things that we should consider—but the motion is specific in saying:

“The Panel will decide on appropriate measures to mitigate any risk, and such mitigation may include one or more of the following…exclusion from the Parliamentary estate…exclusion from domestic travel…and exclusion from foreign travel”.

It does not talk about exclusion from bars or changing offices. If it did and we were talking about how we might mitigate risk, we might all be in a different position.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The motion does not preclude those things, either. In fact, the first report produced by a Committee was by the Standards Committee when we took evidence. Interestingly, we said:

“First, we propose that the power to exclude Members from the precincts should form only one part of a wider, formalised risk mitigation process. The evidence we heard from comparable bodies, including the police, suggests that interim suspension is normally a last resort.”

Indeed, we went on to say:

“The House Service could, for example, if it were thought necessary and appropriate”—

I would add “proportionate” to that—

“move the MP’s member of staff to an office shared with other staff, or allocate the MP an office which has a higher degree of visibility.”

Of course, all those things could happen perfectly easily without the motion and could happen now.

I have just a couple more points. On arrest or charge, I find it problematic to land just on charge. That is very late—much later than in any other comparable body in the public sector or the private sector in this country. It is not comparable with the law of the land in terms of what most employers would have to do to be a reasonable employer.

It is important that it is proportionate—that is, first, to the crime itself. That is already met by the motion in one sense, as these measures are about sexual or violent offences. The panel might also want to consider whether we are talking about one instance or several allegations. Secondly, has there been one arrest or two arrests? Has the Member been arrested under caution? We get to various other stages long before charge, such as police bail. Are we saying that we should not even consider these measures when somebody is on police bail? That seems odd to me. I would think that is us falling short of our duty.

The panel should also consider the individual’s co-operation. If the individual Member is being very co-operative, that suggests that we would not need to consider taking major further measures. Then—this point was made earlier—we should think about who the person is that we are talking about. If they are a member of staff working in this building, presumably one would want to assess that the risk was higher and therefore one would need to consider further mitigatory measures.

I have two final points—

Virtual Participation in Debate

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I just want to make it absolutely clear that I would love the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) to be able to take part in debates fully. I have spoken to her several times this year and I know how painful she has found this. None of us is seeking to prevent that happening. All of us who have tabled the amendment and support the amendment simply want a few more people to be able to participate in exactly the same way as she is. If the Leader of the House would stand up now and say that he will accept the amendment, we could all go home and get on with more important business.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to listen to what is being said and to what was said in the urgent question last week and in the statement that the Backbench Committee graciously gave to my Committee last Thursday. He could be the hero if he were to accept this amendment. It would show compassion and generosity, and it would show his courtesy, because he is one of the most courteous Members of this Parliament, who, in all his time here, has always ensured that Parliament is sovereign—in fact, he has campaigned very hard to make sure that Parliament is sovereign—and that Members of this House are heard, from all Benches.

I thank the many hon. and right hon. Members who responded to the call for evidence from the Procedure Committee on this important matter and expressed a majority view on the exclusion from debates, not just in this place but in Westminster Hall. Let us be clear: the Government motion does not extend to Westminster Hall. The reason for this furore—the reason that we are here—is that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) was unable to take part in the debate in Westminster Hall on the disease that she is suffering from. Unless the Government are willing to look at extending the virtual proceedings to Westminster Hall, that will still be a problem. The Procedure Committee stands ready to work with the Government to find ways to allow more debates, perhaps more Adjournment debates in this Chamber, so that Members can take part—Members like my hon. Friend. Again, I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House please to think about how this will look to those of our hon. and right hon. Friends who are not here for other reasons.

The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) made a very important intervention when he said that there is a difference about the situation here. Nobody is asking to not be at work. We are all at work. The idea that Members of Parliament have not been working over the course of the past few months when they have not been able to be here, or we are not in the full Chamber, is ludicrous given the hours that are spent on Zoom calls and Teams meetings, and the many, many pieces of constituent correspondence that we are all dealing with. In those few weeks at the beginning of the lockdown when people had such confusion and there was no certainty, the Government did an enormous amount of good in terms of the financial support and the guidance that was issued, but right at the beginning, everything was unknown.This was, as everyone says, an unprecedented situation.

Members across the House were dealing with constituents who had the most difficult and heart-rending stories. We wanted to do our best for our constituents, and we were doing that from home because Parliament was in recess. We could not ask questions of Ministers in the way we normally would by being here in the Chamber. Again, I pay tribute to the Government for the amount of access that Ministers made available to Members, to allow us to ask questions on behalf of our constituents. We are all working incredibly hard, whether we are working here, working in our offices in the precincts of the Palace or working at home. Nobody is asking not to work; it is merely that Members who cannot be here for reasons other than being clinically extremely vulnerable, including self-isolating because they have been told to by the Government, should be able to take part in all our proceedings.

Proceedings during the Pandemic

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I should start by declaring an interest as the Member of Parliament for Alton Towers. I am delighted that the Leader of the House has both visited my constituency and seen the expertise with which queueing can be managed, as seen at Alton Towers—other theme parks are available.

[Chris Bryant]

On the way to Oblivion.

[Karen Bradley]

Oblivion and Nemesis.

I will address amendments (b) to (d), tabled in my name and those of several right hon. and hon. Members, including 15 other Select Committee Chairs. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will allow me to address my remarks not just to the Chamber but to those Members who cannot be present because of the limitations on space, which you are quite properly enforcing, and who, because of the conditions caused by the pandemic, are having to follow proceedings from elsewhere.

Since the 16th century, this Chamber and its predecessors have been the absolute focus of the House’s life. Our procedures are founded on the principle that everything is done in the Chamber. That is a sound principle. Members rely on face-to-face communication. The word “parliament” comes from the French “parler”. The idea that the Chamber is now not available to many of us is a massive dislocation. Let me be clear: I do not want the measures that we are debating to be in place for a second longer than they have to be to keep our colleagues, our staff and the staff of the House as safe as possible from coronavirus. I look forward to the time when the guidance is relaxed and we can all of us meet here again.

I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this is a very uncomfortable day for me. I do not like being badged as a rebel on House business. I am determined that we will get back to a fully physical Parliament as soon as possible. The Leader of the House will recall that I tabled an amendment to slow down the introduction of remote voting on 22 April, which the Government would not accept. I am very much in the traditionalist camp and am on the record as saying that the hybrid arrangements were sub-optimal, so let me be clear: the sooner we are back to normal, whatever that is, the better, for me, but the physical Parliament that we are in today is far from optimal itself. We can have no more than 50 Members in the Chamber and, in fact, 40 Members in the choir seats, as they are called; no bobbing; long queues to vote; very little spontaneity; and so many great parliamentarians absent.

Last night I had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and he said that I could discuss that conversation in the Chamber. He is a great parliamentarian, a great campaigner and a great champion for his constituents. He wanted to be present today, but his doctor has advised him that he must not be, for his own health. The idea that we decide today to disenfranchise him completely seems to me to be absurd. I very much welcome what the Leader of the House said about tabling a motion to allow virtual participation, but I would like to see a copy of that motion before I make a final decision not to push to a vote amendments (b) and (c), which I tabled and which relate to virtual participation.

Supreme Court Ruling: Abortion in Northern Ireland

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is right that the last time this matter was debated in Stormont—in 2016—the Bill was rejected. That is part of the reason why we have this case before us today. I have spoken to all the parties about this matter, and I will continue to do so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

A British Government in Westminster should not abrogate to themselves powers willy-nilly, but why are the Government adamantine about not intervening when human rights issues affect British citizens? It was the same in Bermuda: the Government refused to say anything about same-sex marriage being banned, but the Supreme Court in Bermuda decided yesterday that the British Government were wrong and that same-sex marriage should be reintroduced. What will happen here is that the Government will keep on losing legal battles. In the end, human rights are indivisible, so we do have to act and intervene.

[Karen Bradley]

We need to go through the judgment, which is detailed, and consider it carefully. The way to resolve this issue has to be with Stormont; that has to be the place in which to resolve this.

Sky/Fox Merger

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). Those emails have filled up inboxes and distracted colleagues from important constituency casework. I have made this decision in spite of the lobbying, not because of it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Good corporate governance in a construction company means that the directors of the company make sure that its building sites, for instance, are safe to work on. Good corporate governance in a supermarket company means that the directors make sure, for instance, that their staff do not sell alcohol to underage kids. One would think that good corporate governance in a broadcasting organisation would mean that the directors of the company would make sure that their organisation abides by good broadcasting standards, which is why I wholeheartedly support what the Secretary is State is doing today. Rupert Murdoch’s defence over phone hacking was, in the end, that his company was far too big for him to possibly know what was going on across the whole of it. That was not good corporate governance, and it could not possibly lead to good broadcasting standards.

[Karen Bradley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments on corporate governance that I made in my statement: “I have outstanding non-fanciful concerns about these matters, and I am of the view that they should be considered further by the CMA.”

21st Century Fox/Sky Merger

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State had sat in the High Court day after day, as I had to do as one of the victims of phone hacking, she would have heard endless examples and evidence—yes, real evidence heard in court before a judge—of the corruption that the Murdochs deliberately perpetuated in the British political system. The truth of the matter is that she cannot possibly now make a proper final judgment on whether the Murdochs are proper people to have any broadcasting licence in this country unless she hears more evidence in court in Leveson 2.

[Karen Bradley]

The point is that that evidence was heard in court and Ofcom has looked at it as part of all the work it has been doing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes up his points on fit and proper people with Ofcom.

Sky/21st Century Fox: Merger

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but Ofcom has reassured me that it has the time and resources required to produce a report in 40 working days. It is important to remember that we want to make sure that there is sufficient time and scrutiny, and that we provide certainty within a reasonable timeframe, so that all parties can get on with business as usual, whatever that might be.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on her decision. She should bear in mind, however, that historically successive Governments —and Prime Ministers, in particular since Mrs Thatcher—have decided that Rupert and now James Murdoch are fit and proper persons because they own newspapers that support them in general elections. The concentration of ownership is the problem. Sky now has nearly four times as much money to spend every year as the BBC. I hope that we end up in a position in which we maintain diversity in the British ecology, with a strong BBC not being bullied by Murdoch and Sky.

[Karen Bradley]

I am getting slightly worried, because this is the second time this morning the hon. Gentleman has worked consensually with the Government, but I take note of his comments.

Sky/21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I note my hon. Friend’s comments and will bear them in mind when making my decisions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The thing is, we already know that under James and Rupert Murdoch’s leadership, the companies they controlled bribed and bullied their way around British politics. They poisoned the well of British political engagement, used anti-competitive practices at every possible turn to try to destroy competitors, and made it impossible for media diversity to flourish in this country. Why on earth would anybody think that they were fit and proper people to take over now? Their only excuse, when they lied their way through their evidence to Parliament, was that their company was far too big for them possibly to know what was going on in some small outpost in the United Kingdom. That does not suggest that they would be any good at running things now, does it?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman has put his views on these matters on the record on several occasions. I am sure his points will have been heard.

Press Matters

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the role that he has played in developing the cross-party agreement. Those are exactly the kind of comments that we want to hear through the consultation.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rather agree with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that that is precisely what IPSO could do, but this is now a matter of keeping faith. David Foulkes was killed in the 7 July bombings in Edgware Road. His father, Graham, said:

“We were in a very dark place. You think that it is as dark as it can get, and then you realise that there’s someone out there who can make it darker.”

The right hon. Gentleman made promises to Mr Foulkes, as did the Prime Minister at the time and the present Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) also made promises to Mr Foulkes and to so many others that, first, the commencement would start immediately, and secondly—no ifs, no buts—that there would be Leveson 2. Why on earth is the right hon. Lady reneging on all those promises made to the victims?

[Karen Bradley]

Nobody is reneging on any promises. We are having a consultation. We want to hear from all sides, and we will make a decision after that.

Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but he will accept that it is beyond the convention and, therefore, the Bill.

The first protocol requires parties to seize cultural property that has been illegally exported from an occupied territory and to return it at the end of hostilities. The second protocol sets out violations that are to be made criminal offences and provides an enhanced protection regime for cultural property.

The UK signed the convention in 1954, but decided not to ratify because its terminology was considered to be insufficiently clear and it did not provide an effective regime for the protection of cultural property. The 1999 second protocol removed those concerns, and in 2004 the Government of the day announced their intention to ratify.

The ways in which we will implement the specific obligations of the convention and its protocols generated a great deal of interest in the other place. We have been looking carefully at implementation, particularly considering what categories of cultural property should be afforded general protection under the convention in the UK.

A previous Administration undertook a consultation on implementation of the convention and its protocols in 2005. Although the majority of the findings set out in the 2006 response to the consultation remain relevant, we will also hold discussions with key stakeholders, including from the devolved Administrations and from agencies, to ensure that those conclusions are up to date.

The Bill will introduce the domestic legislation necessary for the UK to meet the obligations contained in the convention and its two protocols. Part 2 makes it an offence to commit a serious violation of the second protocol to the convention either in the UK or abroad. The Bill also makes provision to ensure that ancillary offences committed abroad can be prosecuted and that commanders and superiors can be held responsible in appropriate circumstances.

Following debate in the other place, we made a minor and technical change to ensure that the Bill’s provisions relating to ancillary offences have the intended effect in Scotland. That amendment was tabled by the Government following consultation with the Crown Office and the Scottish Government.

We have also changed the headings of part 2 and clause 3 by replacing the word “breach” with “violation”. Concern was expressed in the other place that there was a lack of consistency between the language of the Bill and the second protocol, and we made that change to address that. I am grateful to Professor Roger O’Keefe of University College London for his work on that particular point and on the Bill as a whole. I appreciate all the advice and feedback that we have received from experts in the field, which has been invaluable in shaping the Bill.

The maximum penalty for those offences is 30 years. It is important to emphasise that that is a maximum penalty, and it will be for the courts to decide the appropriate penalty in any particular case. It is critical that the penalty reflects the seriousness of the violations of the second protocol and that it is consistent with other penalties for related offences.

Part 3 recognises in UK law the blue shield—the distinctive blue and white emblem created by the convention, which is viewed by many as the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross. The emblem will be used to identify cultural property that is protected under the convention, as well as the people tasked with protecting it. The blue shield will be protected from misuse by making its unauthorised use an offence.

Part 4 implements measures to deal with cultural property that has been unlawfully exported from occupied territory.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Clause 17 states:

“It is an offence for a person to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property, knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported.”

There could be an unreasonable reason. Will the Government be open to suggestions to improve the Bill so that people are not unwittingly caught by the law?

[Karen Bradley]

That concern has been raised with me outside this place by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the previous Secretary of State, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). The issue was not raised substantively in the other place but I understand that there are concerns, so the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and I will meet concerned parliamentarians, with officials, to make sure that we have comfort in this regard. It is important that we are clear that the Bill will not hamper the way in which the art market operates.

It is important to note that part 4 applies only to cultural property that has been unlawfully exported from an occupied territory after 1956, when the convention and first protocol came into force. Clause 17, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has mentioned, creates a new offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. That offence applies only to unlawfully exported cultural property that is imported into the UK after the commencement of the Bill, which ensures that the Bill will have no retrospective application.

Scrupulous dealers have no reason to fear prosecution or increased business costs under the Bill.

Broadcasting

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The former arts Minister, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), does not think so, as he told us last time we debated the matter. Many of us in this House think that the idea of suddenly forcing the BBC to pay for free television licences is a complete disgrace.

[Karen Bradley]

The BBC has agreed to this through negotiations and discussions, and I am confident that the funding settlement puts the BBC on a sustainable long-term footing.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are already looking at this and trialling it. The more we can do to use data and digital to enable people to transact more quickly, the better. Clearly, we have the challenges of data protection; we must ensure that people’s data are protected. There is a tension, but it is one that we are acutely aware of and working on.

We can be proud of our successes, but the Government’s ambitions are greater than that. Although 19 in 20 premises will be able to access superfast broadband, one in 20 will not. For that significant minority, the Bill brings good news. Implementation of the new broadband universal service obligation will require the designated communications provider to connect customers on demand at an affordable price. Eventually, technological developments will allow everyone to have a superfast connection, but until then the Bill will provide a safety net, so that by 2020 a minimum broadband speed of 10 megabits per second should be available. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) murmurs from a sedentary position, but that is the absolute minimum safety net.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

I can never resist the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Bryant]

The Secretary of State forced me—she virtually begged me—to stand up. I hear all the self-congratulation, and as much as I admire the former Minister with responsibility for the digital economy, the truth of the matter is that the original target was to get all the superfast broadband done by May 2015. That target has not been met, and the new target is December 2017. The Secretary of State is talking about a superfast speed that would not be recognised as superfast anywhere else in Europe, and 10 megabits per second is simply not enough to deliver for this country.

[Karen Bradley]

I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) will be delighted to be admired by the hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Gentleman is simply misrepresenting the position. Is he saying he is opposed to that position? Is he saying he is opposed to the Bill? Is he saying he is opposed to the measures in the Bill, which will make sure we have the maximum roll-out so everybody has access to broadband?

[Chris Bryant]

The Secretary of State is asking me questions now. It is normally the other around. If she is going to keep on stimulating me in this way, let me say that, no, I think the Bill should be far more ambitious. We should be making sure that 4G is available to everybody, not have 70% of people in rural areas not getting any 4G at all, and we should have a universal service obligation of 15 megabits per second.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman should listen to the rest of my speech and then support the measures the Government are introducing. We want to make sure that we deliver—to ensure that there is access to broadband, that there is access to 4G and that everybody is connected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that some cases are pending, and until they have been completed there can be no progress on Leveson 2. I assure him that this is not being kicked into the long grass. We are looking very carefully at all the arguments from all sides to make sure we have a free press that protects the citizen.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the whole of the new ministerial team. I am particularly delighted at the survival of the Sports Minister, whom I daily want to hug—[Interruption.]—still want to hug. However, as one of those whose phone was hacked back in 2003, I would just say to the Secretary of State that the victims of phone hacking—many of them were not politicians, but were other victims of crime, including members of the armed forces—are desperate for the Government to stand by the promises they made to them. First, they promised there would be Leveson 2. Can she say today that there will be? There is no reason why she should not do so, because every previous Secretary of State has done so. Secondly, why on earth have they not implemented section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013? It was a cross-party agreement. We would love her to death—I would hug her, too—if only she implemented it.

[Karen Bradley]

Oh my goodness—the promise of a hug from the hon. Gentleman is difficult to resist. He will know from my previous time in government that I always listen to victims of crime, make sure that their voices are heard and take note of everything they say, and I would very much welcome the chance to sit down with him and discuss his point of view. I want to make sure that we do this based on the evidence, and that we do it properly.

Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Thursday 4th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

May I start by saying what an honour it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and what an honour it was to serve under the chairship of your predecessor, Mrs Gillan? I congratulate the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate all Members on the thoughtful and constructive points raised.

I want to start by saying that any form of violence against women or girls is absolutely unacceptable. The physical, psychological and emotional impact of domestic and sexual violence on victims cannot be overestimated. As the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime, I have the ambition to end those terrible crimes. We owe it to victims of domestic and sexual violence to do everything we can to afford them the protection and support they need. I will work closely with victim support services and police and criminal justice agencies to ensure that we are doing just that.

Many points have been raised today and I will do my best to address as many as possible, but if I fail to address any I will endeavour to respond in writing, as the shadow Minister invited me to do, and particularly as some of her questions were about technical criminal justice matters and are probably better addressed in correspondence.

It is important to reflect that—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North started with this—both women and men may be victims of domestic or sexual violence, forced marriage or stalking. It is also important that the response for all victims is as good as it can be. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) talked about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships. We realise that there is abuse in all forms of relationship and the measures we have in place are available in all forms of abuse in all relationships. However, we need to say that women and girls are far more likely to be victims of such crimes and we recognise that inequality and gender play fundamental roles in violence against women and girls. We all have important roles to play in challenging the cultural norms and stereotypes that underpin violence against women and girls.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talked about women being used as chattels. When I was training to be a chartered accountant and filling in tax returns, women’s earnings were her husband’s. There was an extra column on the tax return. Only in 1990 did women have their own taxation system. It is unbelievable that I am standing here having filled in tax returns when a woman’s income was her husband’s. She was her husband’s chattel and that was how she was treated in law.

Gender inequality manifests itself in ways that can limit women’s and girl’s aspirations and life chances, and put pressure on men to act in certain ways, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said: to be physically powerful, emotionally detached and in control. The relationship between gender and violence is complex, but we must never forget that in the most extreme cases we are working to save people’s lives. It is a sad fact that over 80 women a year still lose their lives to domestic homicide. We must never think about the matter just in terms of numbers, as the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for Rhondda both said. We need men, women, girls and boys to work together to end violence against women and girls in all its forms.

Before responding to the contributions to this debate, particularly those on the role of men in ending violence against women and girls, it is important to address some of the concerns about increases in domestic abuse and sexual violence. We all want the prevalence of these terrible crimes to fall and ultimately to end, but we know that they are hidden and under-reported.

At least in the short to medium term, we want increased police recording of crimes of violence against women and girls. The Office for National Statistics clearly states that increases in police recorded rape, sexual offences and domestic abuse are due to greater victim confidence and better recording by the police. We should all welcome that. That these increases are a positive development is reinforced by our best measure of the prevalence of all crimes or how many people experience domestic and sexual violence, which comes from the self-completion module of the crime survey of England and Wales. That data show both the general downward trend in sexual assaults since 2005-06 and the fact that 8.2% of women were the victim of any domestic abuse in the last year. That is the lowest estimate since these questions were first asked in the 2004-05 survey.

We need more of the increased number of reports leading to effective police and criminal justice action. Again, while there is undoubtedly more work to do to bring perpetrators to justice, it is important to reflect that the number of police referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service, the number of prosecutions and the number of convictions for all crimes were all higher in 2014-15 than ever before. For example, prosecutions for domestic abuse have increased from just over 30,000 in 2004-05 to over 90,000 in 2014-15. That is the highest level ever. However, let me make it clear that 1.4 million women experiencing domestic abuse every year is still unacceptably high. Over 300,000 victims of sexual assault is unacceptably high. We need collectively to do more to prevent these terrible crimes from happening, and the role of men is critical.

I met the white ribbon campaign—many of us are wearing our white ribbons—with my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice. We heard about its inspiring work with boys and its programme of actions to challenge abusive and violent behaviour by men and boys, as well as its continuing work to increase the number of organisations accredited with white ribbon status. The Government will continue to promote the campaign’s work and to support greater co-ordination between existing groups of men and boys who act as change agents, develop evidence of what works to engage men in challenging violence against women and ensure full understanding of appropriate, safe and effective action to give men the confidence to speak out and challenge unacceptable behaviour.

When I was on the Select Committee on Procedure, we looked at introducing iPads in the Chamber. I am pleased to have my iPad in the Chamber because it has given me the chance to look at the white ribbon campaign’s latest figures; 24,377 pledges have been made and I hope that that will start to go up as people watch this debate. I want to make a few points about the website. The hon. Member for Rhondda and others talked about the importance of sport to young boys and men. I know from my two young sons that if a footballer says something, they tend to listen, so it is great to see that Juan Mata has signed up. A comment on the website states:

“Most men are not violent towards women, but many of us ignore the problem, or see it as something which doesn’t have anything to do with us.”

That sums up what we have been talking about in this debate. I congratulate the white ribbon campaign. We will continue to work with it. It is great to see so many women wearing the white ribbon, but I want to see more men wearing it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, as great champions of the campaign, will make sure more of their colleagues wear it and make the point.

I want to touch on the Return of Kings group, which was raised by a number of Members and was the subject of an urgent question today. I repeat that we condemn in the strongest terms anyone who condones rape and sexual violence or suggests that responsibility rests with victims. Responsibility for such crimes always, unequivocally rests with the perpetrator. The shadow Minister and many others have made the point that the vast majority of men do not share the views of the group, which are laughable. If the individual concerned did not take them seriously, we would laugh at him because they are utterly ridiculous.

The point has been made that we need to engage with young men. Our “This is Abuse” campaign was talked about during discussion of the urgent question and included specific messages to boys about abusive behaviour. It is an approach informed by research into what works in changing boys’ behaviour, like the Boys to Men project of Professor Gadd at Manchester University. It is vital that those of us in a position to speak out about violence and abuse do so, but we also need to realise that, sad as it may seem, teenagers may not listen to politicians. We must engage credible voices that young people will listen to.

Our previous campaigns accordingly used vloggers—video bloggers—to produce online video blogs to reach thousands of young people through social media and online platforms, and to help young men to understand what constitutes abusive behaviour. I will talk later about some of the other work we have been doing to deal with perpetrators and to change that behaviour. We have also worked through the campaigning partnership with MTV to develop adverts with a wide range of high-profile celebrities to act as a counter narrative within the sometimes highly sexualised environment of music TV.

Evaluation of the campaign’s impact showed that 67% of boys who saw its adverts were more likely to seek consent as a result, 70% said they felt more likely to recognise if someone does not want to have sex and 80% agreed that the videos made them understand that abuse is not always physical. We have invested £3.85 million in the next phase of the campaign, which will continue to build teenagers’ awareness of key issues, such as consent and healthy relationships, including engaging with boys and young men.

I also want to make the point about young women. One thing that we have been working on through our ending gang violence and exploitation programme—that is the new stage of our original ending gang and youth violence programme—is about the exploitation, including sexual exploitation, of young women by gangs. It is incredibly important that we educate young women that they should not expect to be treated in that way. Being part of a line-up is not acceptable. They should not be made to perform sex acts on boys. That is something they should say no to.

It is also important that we treat the young men and make them understand that. Last year, I had a powerful visit to one of the London gang charities. A young man who had been in a gang said that until he was spoken to by that charity, he had never understood that such behaviour was wrong. No one had ever told him that it was not the way to treat women. No one had ever said to him, “Women need to be respected.” That was because unfortunately he had grown up in a household where domestic abuse was the norm. It was what he had seen all his family and friends do. He thought that it was normal. Only when there was an intervention did he understand that it was not the way to behave. It is so important that we do all we can to educate both young girls and young boys, and I will say more about education shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who I know cannot be here now because she is taking part in the debate in the main Chamber, talked about prostitution. We debated that topic at length during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill last year—we are approaching the 12-month anniversary of that becoming an Act—and of course we now have new measures to protect victims of trafficking and criminalise those who traffic them. We are looking at the evidence that is available. My hon. Friend referred to, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is a supporter of, the Nordic model. There is no unequivocal view on that; there are different views on it, and we need to understand how it works. Northern Ireland is a Province that we will be looking at carefully—because it has a very similar legal system to the UK—to see how it works, but there are conflicting views on the Nordic model. I will also be taking a great interest in the inquiry by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on this topic, because I know that many hon. Members are very interested in it.

How can we effect change? How can we change people’s views? In every area of life, we need to see everyone, including men, playing their part in challenging violence and abuse. I am encouraged by the many promising initiatives to engage professionals, friends, family and the wider public in tackling what is unacceptable and criminal behaviour.

These are just a few examples of what is happening. Citizens Advice has trained front-line staff to ask about violence and abuse. I visited Citizens Advice in Harlow recently. The volunteers are asking questions of people who have come in to talk about debt problems, because the debt problem could be the result of domestic abuse. It is very powerful to be able to see the training that volunteers at Citizens Advice have had to enable them to recognise what might be a domestic abuse situation.

Public Health England and the University of the West of England have been working on a bystander programme to help to challenge sexual abuse on campus. Housing providers can play a critical role in identifying those carrying out domestic abuse and those at risk, including children, and a nationwide alliance is working to improve the housing sector’s response. The alliance is arming professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to support residents to live safely and free of abuse.

I am pleased that, as this debate has definitely demonstrated, our understanding of what constitutes abuse is becoming more sophisticated. For example, the new offence of domestic abuse, which was commenced on 29 December 2015, not only addresses a gap in the law to tackle controlling or coercive behaviour but can be used as a vehicle to build wider public awareness that domestic abuse extends beyond episodes of physical violence, and that patterns of psychological manipulation and control can be just as harmful. I am interested to hear that the Scottish Government are looking at introducing a similar measure.

Refuge, in partnership with the Co-operative bank, has launched a powerful new campaign called “My money, my life” to raise awareness of financial abuse in intimate relationships. Its research found that one in five people in the UK report that they have experienced financial abuse within an intimate relationship. That campaign is informing those experiencing financial abuse about their rights and empowering them to make positive choices about their own financial future.

A number of hon. Members raised the Istanbul convention, and we also discussed it during the urgent question today. The UK Government signed the Istanbul convention in 2012 and have since been putting in place all the measures that are required in order that we can comply in full. There is one article—article 44—that we are not yet in compliance with. That is the extraterritoriality measure, which basically means that the criminal law in the UK would extend to conduct abroad. I hope that hon. Members from Scotland and other devolved Administrations will understand why there may be some problems in ensuring that the two jurisdictions’ legal systems work with that particular issue. We will need to introduce primary legislation in the UK to put that in place, but when we have done that we will be able to ratify the Istanbul convention. We do not wish to ratify a convention until we are absolutely confident that we comply with it 100%.

A number of contributors raised the topic of PSHE, and it is fair to say that there were slightly different views about whether it should be on a statutory basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole perhaps disagreed with the hon. Member for Rhondda as to whether—

[Chris Bryant]

Well, he was wrong, and he left.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole is a teacher with great experience of such things.

We do need there to be education. The Government have made it clear in the introduction to the framework for the national curriculum that all schools should teach PSHE, and we are committed to working with schools and other experts to ensure that young people receive age-appropriate information that allows them to make informed choices and stay safe, but the point is that it must be good-quality PSHE across the board and not, as my hon. Friend said, the add-on that no teacher wants to do.

It is probably worth mentioning the tools that we have introduced for prevention and protection, which, as I have said, apply to all relationships—LGBT, men to women and women to men. Domestic violence protection orders and the domestic violence disclosure scheme were rolled out across England and Wales from March 2014, and those tools put the responsibility for violence and abuse squarely with the perpetrator.

DVPOs can prevent the perpetrator from returning to a residence and from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days. Latest figures show that magistrates have granted more than 2,500 DVPOs. The domestic violence disclosure scheme, also known as Clare’s law, which a number of hon. Members have referred to, enables the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner where that may help to protect them from further violent offending. The latest figures show that more than 1,300 disclosures have been made. The Government will build on those achievements by evaluating Clare’s law and DVPOs to identify how we can strengthen those important tools.

We have also strengthened significantly the law on female genital mutilation, including through FGM protection orders, and last year we introduced two new measures—the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order—to make it easier for the police and courts further to restrict and monitor the activities of individuals who pose a risk, including when they have not been convicted of a previous offence.

I want to touch on the issue of stalking. Being stalked by a stranger can have terrifying consequences, so we are consulting on the introduction of a stalking protection order. That will explore whether positive requirements can be placed on perpetrators at an early stage, to help to stop their behaviour. By that we mean a perpetrator being forced, for example, to attend mental health sessions so that we can try to stop the behaviour before it becomes criminal. We are ensuring that new measures include a focus on the perpetrator—disrupting their activity, removing them from the home where necessary and ensuring that they engage with appropriate interventions to help to stop their offending before it escalates.

Hon. Members have made a number of points about the right approach to take. The question is, what is justice for a victim of domestic abuse? What will help that person to get control of their own life, and what is the right outcome for that individual? There are many different ways to tackle the problem, and it is clear that one size does not fit all.

Refuge provision has been discussed at length. The Government are committed to refuge provision. We have announced £40 million between 2016 and 2020 for domestic abuse services including refuges, and a £2 million grant to Women’s Aid and SafeLives to support early intervention, but refuge is not the answer for every victim. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about victims being turned away from refuges. I have spent time with refuge providers, who have told me that often a victim has such complex needs and so many difficulties that the refuge they go to is not the right place for them, and they may need different provisions and support.

I am committed to ensuring that refuges provide the appropriate safety net for people. However, for some families a better outcome might be achieved if a woman can stay in her home with her family, and if the perpetrator is removed from that home and is not just allowed to move in with the next partner to start the cycle of abuse all over again. I do not pretend that that will always be possible, but it is a better outcome for some victims. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows better than anybody that there are many different needs, and I have enjoyed our conversations on the matter. We need to think about how we can tackle the problem and break the cycle, and that means dealing with perpetrators.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Karen Bradley

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No, it’s not.

[Karen Bradley]

I apologise; I meant migration. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to break the link between coming here temporarily and settling here permanently?