Climate Protests in Cambridge: Police Response

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) to his place. I am delighted to see him in the House, as a much improved representative for South Cambridgeshire. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on the campaigning that he has already done, on this issue and others, in the few weeks since he was elected.

I entirely understand and appreciate that many Members are deeply concerned about the activities of Extinction Rebellion. Indeed, I seem to recall that in the previous Session, Extinction Rebellion protestors glued themselves to the glass screen in the Public Gallery while not wearing any clothes, which was an extremely disconcerting sight. I am glad that the House’s business proceeded uninterrupted and unimpeded during that episode.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said in his excellent speech, many of us—all of us, I am sure—understand and sympathise with the environmental issues being raised. No Government are doing more than this one to make sure that environmental concerns are being met. The United Kingdom has significantly reduced its CO₂ emissions, and I am proud that under this Government coal-fired power generation is now almost at zero, unlike in many other countries around the world, including Germany.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Strong points have been made about the law needing to be enforced, but the Government are continually dragged through the courts for failing to meet their air quality responsibilities, so when are we going to see Ministers pursued by the police to tackle the climate emergency? There cannot be one law for one set of people; surely it has to be the same law for everybody.

[Chris Philp]

The Government have an extremely proud record on climate change. As I have just said, we have been reducing our CO₂ emissions and have virtually eliminated coal-fired power stations. There is scope to do more, though, and the Environment Bill will again be before the House shortly, and it contains further measures, including on clean air, which I am extremely interested in as a London MP.

The country can be proud of its record on climate change and the Government will continue to do more. Moreover, the Government fully recognise, respect and embrace the right to peaceful protest. A free society is built on the foundations of free speech and free protest, and the Government will never do anything to impede the public’s right to express their views. Indeed, we have seen that outside, in Parliament Square, on quite a frequent basis over the past year—sometimes quite noisily.

The Government are also clear that although we fully respect the right to peaceful protest, that does not extend, under any circumstances, to criminal behaviour. Some of the remarks that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made during his intervention a little earlier this afternoon seemed to come dangerously close to excusing criminal behaviour just because an issue is important. Let me reiterate: there is no excuse for criminal behaviour. It does not persuade the public of anything. In fact, it has the reverse effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon) said that, in fact, it risks vigilante behaviour by the public, which simply inflames the situation further. There is no excuse, under any circumstances, for this kind of criminal behaviour. The Government have an expectation that the police will always take action where criminal activity is under way. There would need to be an extremely good reason for them not to do so.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am flabbergasted. Frankly, the Minister should know that crime has been taking place across the country, with criminals walking into shops and stealing goods, and it has been reported to the police on a daily basis and nothing has been done under this Government. Why is it not the same law for everybody?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Clearly, a crime happening in front of the police is different from a crime being reported to the police. Obviously, every crime is investigated. Speaking from memory, some tens of thousands of people are prosecuted for theft and burglary every year. Of course, one reason why we are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers is to make sure that crimes can be even more thoroughly investigated than they are already. None the less, there is an expectation that the police will take action in relation to all crimes that they are aware of, particularly when the police have direct evidence in front of them that a crime is taking place.

In relation to the Trinity College incident, although arrests were not made immediately, subsequently, as one Member said, three protesters were arrested and charged with criminal damage. They have been released on bail and will appear at Cambridge magistrates court on 30 March. In relation to the incident at the Schlumberger oil service facility, a total of five people were arrested and charged with offences, including criminal damage, and again they will appear at Cambridge magistrates court on 30 March. In relation to the episode at the Shell petrol station, five arrests were made and four people were subsequently charged. The fact that people were arrested and charged is something that we can be pleased about.

[Tom Hunt]

Does the Minister agree that there appears to be an issue with the College of Policing? On many occasions, including on this one and also in the case of Harry Miller, the advice that it gives to the police is leading to skewed priorities for police forces.

[Chris Philp]

That is something that is always kept under careful review. My colleague, the Minister for Crime, Police and the Fire Service, is, unfortunately, at a conference this afternoon so cannot attend this debate, but I will ask him to write to my hon. Friend on that question. Perhaps the best thing is for him to write to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on this College of Policing question, just to explore it a little further.

In relation to police powers, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, we have listened to police concerns regarding the challenges that they face managing protests. They have indicated that existing protest legislation can, in some places, be cumbersome, so Home Office officials have been working closely with senior Met officers, and also national policing leads to understand how we can make the existing public order legislation more effective if needed. That is ongoing at the moment.

In conclusion, we fully respect the right to peaceful protest. It is the foundation of our democracy, but that right does not include committing criminal acts, and we do expect the police to uphold the law. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for bringing this matter to the House’s attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Sir David.

The purpose of the draft instrument is to enable the Secretary of State to make alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements available across England and Wales. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 required that pilots be run before these measures were introduced across England and Wales. Those pilots have now been run in London and Humberside, so this statutory instrument provides for the roll-out across the country by bringing into force section 76 of the LASPO Act, which itself inserts section 212A into the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

This legislation will give courts a new tool to directly address alcohol-related offending. As part of a community sentence, judges and magistrates will be able to impose a ban on drinking alcohol for up to 120 days, using continuous electronic monitoring.

Alcohol-related crime places a huge strain on our society. The most recent figures published in the crime survey for England and Wales of 2018 estimated that 39% of violent incidents were connected with the influence of alcohol, so it is a serious issue. Through enforcing abstinence, AAMRs are designed to mitigate the offending behaviour driven by alcohol and to interrupt the consumption of alcohol that has caused a particular offender to behave as they have done.

As I mentioned, there have been two pilots, as required by the 2012 Act. The first was in London, initiated by the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London, and the second took place in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire. Those pilots have been subject to five separate evaluations. It is worth saying that AAMRs are imposed on offenders who do not have treatment requirements imposed on them. Where someone has an alcohol problem that requires medical treatment, we do not use an AAMR—it is one or the other.

During the course of the pilot, about 1,500 AAMRs were—[Interruption.] We welcome support from all corners of the House. The hon. Member is extremely welcome; we are a very broad church these days. During the pilots, compliance with those 1,500 AAMRs was extremely high. There was a 94% compliance rate in terms of the process being completed, and the compliance rate with alcohol abstinence was 98% in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime area—the London area—and 97% in Humberside and North Yorkshire. The evidence suggests that AAMRs are extremely effective at persuading the offender to abstain from drinking alcohol.

On the kinds of offences for which AAMRs were imposed, in London 45% of the orders were used for violent offenders, and in the Humberside pilot 31% were for offenders where there was a domestic abuse offence.

Sentencers have welcomed the use of these measures. It so happens that one of my parliamentary caseworkers is a magistrate at Croydon magistrates court in London, and anecdotally she has reported that she feels the orders work well. That has been reflected in the more formal feedback via the five studies.

The police also welcome these measures. The Humberside police and crime commissioner, Keith Hunter, said:

“The period in which the offender is tagged will give rehabilitation agencies a real opportunity to work with the individual and get them to recognise and change their behaviour, hopefully for good. I would like to see these orders available nationally as a standard feature of the Criminal Justice System.”

That is precisely what we are doing this afternoon. Moreover, Julia Mulligan, the North Yorkshire police, fire and crime commissioner, said:

“This has proved to be a successful pilot, with many lessons learned along the way. We know alcohol can play a key part in offending for some people, and this appears to have been a positive intervention—reducing offending markedly among those wearing tags.”

It is clear, Sir David, that this has been a successful pilot, and it is right that we activate section 76 of the LASPO Act and get on with making this provision available to magistrates and Crown courts across the entire jurisdiction. In the roll-out, we intend to follow a similar process to that used during the pilot, in that we will do it region by region, starting this year. We expect the full national roll-out to take about 12 months. Once fully rolled out nationally, we estimate that about 2,300 offenders per year will be subject to the orders, although that is a matter for judges, magistrates and the Crown court to decide when passing sentence.

We intend to publish a White Paper on sentencing later this year, which will look at toughening community sentences more generally. I am keen, as is the Lord Chancellor, to make sure that where someone has a substance or alcohol addiction problem, or a mental health problem, we do more to treat the underlying health causes rather than giving a short custodial sentence, which can be ineffective. We are not proposing to abolish short custodial sentences, but where treatment is appropriate we would like to make sure that people receive it to address the underlying causes of their behaviour. That is consistent with our general direction of travel.

In conclusion, the pilots have been successful, and judges and the police welcome the measure. I commend the statutory instrument to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I will respond briefly to some of the points raised by the shadow Minister. I thank him for his intention not to divide the Committee and for the constructive and thoughtful tone of his remarks.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the domestic abuse Bill. It is not my policy area, but I believe that it is the intention to introduce it in the House in the extremely near future, so it will be taken forward. We have clearly had a somewhat disrupted 12 months or so, with various things impeding the passage of legislation, but the Bill is important, as he rightly says, and we are moving on with it at pace now that we have a more stable political environment.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the pilots took so long. When we are piloting a new criminal justice intervention, it is right that we do it thoughtfully, rather than in a hurry. There are examples of interventions that were rushed and not properly thought through. It is reasonable that, before we change the law, as we are doing today, we pilot a measure in a considered and thorough way. As I said, five evaluations have been conducted. He asked about the roll-out programme and, again, we do not want to rush it. We want to make sure that it is done properly in each region in turn. Getting it done in the space of 12 months or so is not an unreasonably long time.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the release of the evaluations. The evaluations are independent, and we believe that those done on behalf of MOPAC and on behalf of Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire will be published publicly. He will be able to read them in due course.

There have in the past been serious problems with the tagging contracts, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. Of course, any private sector contract, particularly in the area in question, will be monitored carefully for all the reasons he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman asked about breach. Clearly, if someone who is given an AAMR breaches the requirement by taking the tag off or drinking when they are not supposed to, that will in the first instance be a matter for the probation service. It could escalate the matter to, for example, a magistrate who would be able to take appropriate follow-up action. The magistrate’s range of options would include another community order, a fine or, in extreme cases, imprisonment.

I completely agree, on the question of treatment, that it is critical that if someone has a serious health problem—whether that is drug or alcohol addiction or a mental health problem—we seek to treat it. AAMRs are not about treating people with serious addiction. Alcohol treatment requirements are designed to do that. However, AAMRs have a role to play with people whose drinking is problematic but falls short of addiction meeting the medical threshold requiring treatment, for which separate ATRs are in place.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

The Minister makes a distinction between the AAMR and medical treatment. Is he happy that that is a robust distinction that can be upheld in practice?

[Chris Philp]

Of course, it is always for the magistrate or Crown court to decide on which side of the line a particular patient falls, but, as I have said, we shall be returning to this area in the sentencing White Paper to be published later in the year. A critical part of that will look at ways to deepen and widen treatment for people who have addiction and mental health problems. The question that my hon. Friend raised will be addressed in the White Paper and I strongly encourage him, and others with expertise of the kind he has, to contribute to the thinking about that. It is exactly the sort of question that we shall address.

I hope that I have been able to respond, briefly, to some of the questions that were raised. I once again commend the instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Migrant Crossings

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

As I am sure the hon. Lady will know, we do a great deal. This Government, and successive previous Governments, have done much to help refugees across the world. We have the vulnerable children’s and the vulnerable persons resettlement schemes, and we will work actively with our European partners to reunite families, particularly children. One of my first acts as Home Secretary last summer was to ensure that a new right to stay would be established for unaccompanied refugee children brought into the UK from Calais, to make it easier for them to do that. We will continue to meet our obligations on family reunion under the Dublin regulation.

Just a couple of months ago, alongside Canada and unlike many other countries, we were the first to help the former White Helmets who were facing certain death under Assad in Syria. We took more than 25 of them, along with their families—nearly 100 people—and gave them our protection, because that is in accordance with our values and the kind of country that we are.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decisive action. Under the European Union’s Dublin regulation, asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. I think Members on both sides of the House agree that we want to deter people from making this dangerous journey. Is not the best way of doing that to ensure that people who are intercepted in the English channel return to the French shoreline where they embarked? That would remove the incentive to attempt the crossing in the first place.

[Sajid Javid]

We are working closely with our French friends in disrupting more of the boats to prevent them from setting out in the first place. When they are detected in French waters, they are returned to France. We are also working with France—using our own detection systems, which reach out into French waters—to establish whether we can return more. However, the safest option is not just to return boats but to concentrate on the criminal gangs that are feeding on these vulnerable people, and to ensure that no one sets out on this journey in the first place.

Stalking Protection Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

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

[Alex Chalk]

It is an extremely important point, and it does build on the point that I was making just now. There is no doubt that if this is not handled correctly—if it is not arranged correctly—there is a danger that it becomes more onerous than it needs to be. The example that I want to develop is the one on which I have just briefly touched. Principally, the old analogue techniques are that if somebody is robbed in the street, the police officer will say, “You are making a complaint, I understand that. Please come to the police station on a certain date and we will sit down and prepare a statement. You, the complainant, will make the allegation of what happened to you in the street. I, the police officer, will write it down. It will be in longhand, running to various sides of paper. You will then sign each page and so on.” That process could easily take an hour and a half. It then gets logged onto a system and so on.

That might be perfectly appropriate where the allegation relates to an incident that took five minutes in, say, a high street, but where the allegation relates to a cumulative total of ongoing events, innocuous in isolation but insidious in combination—to coin a phrase—we need to have a more digital approach. That is why I invite the Home Office to consider digital techniques to allow the police to work as effectively—and to take up my hon. Friend’s point—and efficiently as possible, otherwise there is, of course, the danger of resources being mopped up. The only point that I would say on this resource issue is that there can be few more compelling priorities in circumstances where the evidence suggests, compellingly, that if we do not address this behaviour early it can have very serious consequences. In other words, this is a worthy candidate, I respectfully suggest, for the prioritisation to which my hon. Friend refers.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, and this is a very good Bill. May I just come back to a point that he made earlier? I know that he had extensive legal experience at the Bar before coming here, so can he confirm his view that there is no adequate provision in existing law for this sort of thing to be brought forward by a victim or by the police—for example a restraining order—and that this effectively fills a gap that currently exists?

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is true to say that there are measures that could be imposed to say to a would-be defendant, “Don’t do this.” The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about injunctions. It is true that there could be bail conditions further down the line, or indeed restraining orders. What this Bill does is provide for much earlier intervention. That is the critical point. It would mean that a chief police officer, under clause 1(1), could apply to the magistrates court for an order in respect of the defendant if it appears that the defendant has carried out acts associated with stalking and so on and so forth. I respectfully completely agree with the points that were made about the amendments. The reason why it is important is that a person then gets a hearing before the court in short order and it is a judicial process.

By the way, this is the other point that we need to be crystal clear about: just because we think that these allegations are serious, and just because we know that they can lead to very harmful consequences, it does not mean that we should jettison a proper judicial process. People should be made subject to these orders only if evidence is called—cogent, compelling and admissible evidence—to ensure that individuals are properly subject to these orders. We should make no mistake about this: they are deliberately onerous and deliberately restrictive, because they are designed to protect the individual, but also, and importantly, they are designed to provide the courts with the tools they need to seek that early intervention and rehabilitation of the complainant. I am pleased to note also that duration of orders comes under clause 3, which provides that the stalking protection order has effect until a further order. In other words, if things have changed, and if as we all, I am sure, hope get to the point where an individual defendant finds themselves rehabilitated, they can come back to the court and apply to have the order discharged if that would be the appropriate thing to do.

The point that was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) is about providing a new tool in the armoury. The reason why it is in the armoury, so to speak, is that there are serious consequences in the event that someone breaches it. Clause 8, which covers the offence of breaching a stalking protection order, provides a power of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, a fine or both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

On the question raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill a few moments ago—[Hon. Members: “And Battle.”] Let us not forget Battle. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) asked about funding. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government intend to increase funding to combat violence against women by £100 million between now and 2020? That may go some way to addressing the concern that our hon. Friend has raised.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my hon. Friend for yet another very well thought through and incisive intervention. I am obviously encouraged to hear that news, as I am sure Members from across the House will be. We probably should be clear that this law is gender-blind—the victim of stalking could be male or female. I remember a case in Coventry, where a male vicar was targeted by a female stalker. I absolutely welcome the funding, which is a sign of the intention to tackle a problem from which, sadly, too many women suffer. When a relationship is breaking down, or even when it is still going, it can go from love and affection to aggression, control and domination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). Let me join other hon. and right hon. Members in extending my warm congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who has conceived the Bill and steered it so expertly through the various stages of the legislative process. She does the whole country a great service in the work that she has done, and I am sure that all Members across the House are grateful to her for her hard work and for the expertise and dexterity that she has brought to bear in bringing this legislation almost to its final stage.

[Luciana Berger]

I was not going to make my own contribution today, but I should like to echo what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the cross-party spirit in which the Bill has been brought forward. It is also no mean feat to get a private Member’s Bill passed. We all know colleagues on both sides of the House who have secured their place through the ballot and presented a Bill to the House but who have not secured cross-party or Government support. I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on the fact that we are here today supporting this Bill, and I look forward to its making progress and being passed.

[Chris Philp]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s comments. The House of Commons is at its best when we come together and find cross-party consensus on these issues. This is often evident only on a Friday when private Members’ Bills such as this are being debated. Perhaps it would be better if we could find similar common ground on other days of the week. Who knows, maybe we will do so in due course.

My hon. Friend’s Bill fills a lacuna in the current legislative framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) laid this out with his characteristic forensic attention to detail during his speech on Report a short while ago. He made it clear, very powerfully, that the tools available are not adequate to deal with this particular category of emerging stalking that we are addressing today. For example, the measure of taking out an injunction in the civil court is extremely complicated and expensive, so it is unreasonable to expect a victim of stalking to have to take out their own injunction in the county court or the High Court. Restraining orders generally follow conviction, or at the very least they follow court proceedings, so that occurs only when the problem has become so serious that the threshold of criminality has clearly been crossed and, generally speaking, adjudicated on by a criminal court. Bail conditions only follow arrest. So the measures of restraining orders and bail conditions cannot be used at an early stage in the pattern of offending. That is why the measure that we are debating today is so welcome; it gives victims protection at a very early stage in the process of the offending behaviour.

In the consultation that the Government ran on this legislation, 69% of respondents felt that the current legislative arrangements were inadequate and that something more was required. There is no question but that these stalking protection orders will fill the gap identified by those respondents. The gap is powerfully illustrated by a conviction that was handed down yesterday by the Crown Court in Hove in Sussex. The defendant who was convicted was in fact a resident of my borough, Croydon, and unusually it was a female defendant. Most defendants in these cases are male. This defendant, Lina Tantash, aged 44, is a resident of Croydon and she was jailed yesterday for four years for stalking offences that had carried on over a period of 10 years. The conviction applied to three of those years. She had persistently harassed and stalked the victim by turning up unexpectedly at his place of work—even turning up at his office Christmas party—by making thousands of phone calls and by offering money to his colleagues to provide his personal mobile phone number. Eventually, the victim had to leave the country.

This was a serious pattern of behaviour that took place over many years. When the sentence was handed down yesterday, it was accompanied by a restraining order to prevent any repeat of the offence, but by then it was far too late. Had this legislation been in place some years ago, it would have been open to the victim to go to the police and ask them to seek a stalking protection order. That would have prevented the offending from getting to that serious stage and it would probably have prevented the need for a criminal conviction. It would have protected the victim, but in a sense it would also have protected the perpetrator, because they would never have reached the point of facing a four-year prison sentence. This legislation would have benefited both the victim and the stalker, because it would have prevented the stalker from ending up with a criminal conviction. One of the most powerful elements of this proposal is that it can prevent the offending from escalating in a way that is damaging to everyone.

[Mr Sheerman]

I have listened attentively to what the hon. Gentleman has said about that specific case. I served on the original stalking commission. Stalking is wrong, and it is women who are affected in a huge proportion of cases. Does he not think that this country should have some sort of universal Bill of Rights for women to be free of violence? We need to guarantee that women can be free from the fear of violence, whatever their ethnicity and whatever part of the country they come from.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the vast majority of victims of these terrible crimes are women. He is also right say that we should ensure that women from all backgrounds are protected. He made reference to a Bill of Rights that was gender-specific, but I believe that rights are universal and that they should be enjoyed by people regardless of their gender or race. However, his objective—that women should be completely protected—is one that I wholeheartedly agree with.

[Mr Sheerman]

I made a speech in Westminster Hall in 2009 about what I knew to be going on in the gangs working across our cities who were preying on women and on children in care. At that time, the police were saying to me, “Well, guv, it’s difficult. It’s expensive. And in their culture, certain things are acceptable.” No violence against women is acceptable in my book.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There can be no excuses, based on cultural background or anything else, for the mistreatment of women in any way, whether that is stalking, forced marriage or female genital mutilation. All those things, and others, are abhorrent. No woman of any age or of any ethnic background should experience them, and categorically cultural background is no excuse; it does not make it okay.

[Victoria Atkins]

Hear, hear.

[Chris Philp]

Members on both sides of the House— and I hear agreement coming from the Government Front Bench—should all make it clear that it is totally unacceptable. There can be no excuses, and there can be no tolerance for these kinds of offences on any grounds at all. I am at one with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the prevalence of these offences. Indeed, there were 1,000 reported cases of stalking in London in 2017, and there may, of course, be many more that were not reported. There were a further 12,000 cases of harassment. This clearly is a wide-scale problem, and the police need to focus on it.

I am pleased to hear that the Metropolitan police—I am a London MP, so I pay particular attention to the Met—have recently set up a stalking unit, but that unit has only eight officers. Clearly, if there are 1,000 stalking offences being reported, eight officers strikes me as quite a small number. I encourage the Metropolitan police to consider increasing the size of its stalking unit, bearing in mind the scale of the problem.

This is an excellent and welcome Bill. Its provisions should in no way deter the police or the Crown Prosecution Service from pursuing prosecutions where they find evidence of criminal behaviour. This does not replace criminal sanctions; it is an additional tool that should be used at a very early stage in the pattern of behaviour.

Clause 12 provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines suggesting to the police how and when these powers might be exercised. It is important that the police are proactive in this area and that, when a victim comes to the police, they respond energetically and proactively. Those guidelines are important to making sure that police forces across the country actually use these powers. This worries me sometimes. We pass legislation in this Chamber on all kinds of topics, but legislation is impotent and ineffective unless it is used and implemented by the public bodies it empowers. In this example, it is critical that the police actually use this legislation when they are approached by victims, and the House should keep a close eye on it to make sure that, once this legislation becomes active, it is used by police forces across the country.

[Mr Sheerman]

A chief constable told a group of us only two weeks ago that the Crown Prosecution Service is very restricted in resources at the moment in taking cases forward. That was the police saying, “We can’t get the action because the CPS is in that position.” The budgetary concerns are broader than just the police.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that concern on record. As we go through the comprehensive spending review next year, laying out departmental spending limits for the four or five years to come, it will be a good opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to make submissions to the Treasury on such issues to make sure that the resources are in place to enable the CPS and the police to prosecute people, as appropriate.

My last observation, in passing, is that I notice there is no formal definition of stalking in the Bill or in the interpretations at the end. When stalking is referred to, it is with a lower-case s. Stalking does not seem to be formally defined. I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who drew my attention to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which lists some examples of stalking behaviour, but again it does not provide a precise definition. I wonder whether at some point, in future legislation, it might be worth our creating a more formal definition of what constitutes stalking to help police forces and the CPS in their work.

This is an excellent Bill and, again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on her fantastic work, her legislative dexterity and her perseverance in getting this Bill to Third Reading. The Bill fills an important gap in our current legislative framework. I am delighted to give it my enthusiastic and vocal support and, if necessary, to support it in the Lobby.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am of course very sorry to hear that, as I am sure the entire House is. The hon. Lady will know that the Home Secretary has commissioned an independent review of drugs so that we may understand better how they are used in the 21st century, and I would of course be honoured to meet her and her constituent to discuss this.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

When we leave the European Union, we will of course have control of all aspects of immigration policy. Does the Home Secretary agree that we can then prioritise higher-skilled immigration as a way of boosting our nation’s productivity?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly what we will do, and we will set out the approach in the White Paper in a few weeks.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 26th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

There are many extremely good things in this Bill, the first being the righting of the wrong, which has been in existence since the Victorian era, of not being able to include mothers’ names on marriage certificates. When I got married in 2012 and was told I could not include my mother’s name, I thought that there had been a mistake and that they were using an old book. I had not realised that the law could still be so ridiculously out of date in the modern era. Members such as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) have reminded us that that is a really important change for some people.

Likewise, the opportunity for parents who have lost a baby before 24 weeks to register the life of their child is hugely important, as are the new powers for coroners. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) on all the work they have done on that hugely important subject.

I rise today, however, with more mixed emotions than ever before about any proposed legislation, because I do not agree with the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. To be clear, I support—and supported—equal marriage for gay people. I ran the think-tank Policy Exchange at the time—I was not in this House—and published a paper arguing in favour of it. I thought, and still think, that it was really important for everybody to be treated the same and for everybody to be able to get married, as a further step towards reducing prejudice against gay people in this country.

It is very easy for heterosexual people not to notice the high levels of prejudice that continue to exist in this country, even in this modern era, and not to see that suicide rates for gay people are still higher. I went to school in the 1990s, which was not that long ago, and remember a lad walking up four flights of stairs with kids all around him chanting, “Gay. Gay. Gay.” at him. I do not even know if he was gay, but I am sure he remembers that and will do so for the rest of his life. It is a reminder that prejudice is still out there and still very strong. So, for me, equal marriage was a really important and brilliant reform.

Civil partnerships, however, were, for me, only ever a stepping stone towards creating equal marriage. I thought that, rather than creating two types of marriage, we should have got rid of civil partnerships at the point when marriage was opened up to same-sex couples.

I respect and understand why other Members do not agree with that, and we have heard some of those arguments today. However, I do not accept in particular the argument that we should legislate in this House today because there has been a court case. I think that it is profoundly the business of elected politicians in this House to make such decisions, not unelected judges across the road.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a case as to why civil partnerships should not be equally available; indeed, he is suggesting that civil partnerships should not be available to anyone. However, does not the term “marriage” carry very long-established religious connotations? Some people may not want to sign up to that. Should not the individual have the liberty to make that choice themselves, rather than be prevented by this House from doing so?

[Neil O'Brien]

I hear my hon. Friend’s argument, but I do not agree with him. During the process of arguing the case for equal marriage, one of the important points made was that it did not affect religious institutions. It did not affect religious marriage; it affected civil marriage. In fact, that is all we have the power to do in this House; we do not and should not control people’s religious practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention. It has been brilliant to go to some of the equal marriages that have happened since the change in the law. One learns some wonderful things and hears people’s stories in a way that one would not have done had those marriages not existed. I am glad that they are also powering the marriage industry. I do not, though, buy the argument that people need to spend more to be married than to have a civil partnership. I think that is a canard. I hear the argument about not wanting to feel like what went before is invalidated, but I just do not think that that is true. Getting married does not invalidate the fact that a couple were together happily before it. I hear all these arguments, but ultimately I am not persuaded by them—

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Neil O’Brien]

Here comes another, more powerful one.

[Chris Philp]

A moment ago, my hon. Friend asked why we need to have civil partnerships when marriage exists and people are perfectly at liberty to choose marriage as an option. The answer is this: marriage has existed for thousands of years and has a profoundly religious connotation for most people, as a social practice dating back millennia. Some people, exercising their own choice, are not happy to enter into an institution that has that religious connotation and therefore want an alternative arrangement. That is why we need civil partnerships as an alternative.

[Neil O’Brien]

I almost always agree with my hon. Friend about almost all things, but on this issue we find ourselves in disagreement. Marriage in this country predates almost any religion that one can name. I am worried by the argument that is being made in the House today that if someone enters into a marriage—I had a civil marriage; I am an atheist—they are in some way being lured into a religious institution. I just do not think that is the case. I did not notice it. In fact, people who have a civil wedding are not even allowed to play something like Madonna’s “Like a Prayer”, because apparently it is a religious thing. There is a clear distinction in my mind between civil marriage and religious marriage.

I feel that I have made my points. I respect Members from all parties who have made arguments to the contrary, but I feel differently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I rise to add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on the tremendous work he has done to compile the Bill and steer it through its various stages.

I am happy to support all the clauses of the Bill, as it has been amended, not least clause 1, under which, as hon. Members have said, mothers will be recorded on the marriage certificate.

Of course I support the concept of the electronic register that will be set up under the Bill—it is a modern way of recording very important information—but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed from the Dispatch Box when she sums up the debate that there will still be some form of paper signing in the church or other venue where the marriage takes place. I ask that because my constituent Councillor Tim Pollard has made the good point to me that the traditional ceremony in which the piece of paper is signed is an important part of many people’s experience of marriage. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the signing ceremony will still be part of the process, even if the information is ultimately recorded electronically, rather than in the old bound books.

Clause 2 is about preparing a report on bringing in civil partnerships for people of all orientations. I strongly support that provision. I respectfully disagree with the comments my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) made in his speech a few moments ago. He criticised the proposal on the grounds that it would create a two-tier system of relationship recognition: civil partnerships and marriage. He referred to civil partnerships as a “halfway house”. I do not accept that they are a halfway house at all; in my view, they are entirely equal to the institution of marriage. I associate myself fully with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). On this issue, I am entirely at one with him—I mean that intellectually, rather than in the biblical sense. I think that people should have the choice. As a Conservative, I believe in personal liberty and personal choice. The individual should be able to choose which of the two institutions they subscribe to.

I do think there is a difference between the two institutions, because marriage carries religious connotations. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said that the institution of marriage predates religion, but even in times before Christianity and Judaism, the marriage ceremony always had religious overtones. Some people may decide, for their own reasons, that they do not want to associate with that. Indeed, my hon. Friend said that he had in the past been one of them. I therefore think that the choice should be available. Personal liberty and personal choice must sit at the heart of our philosophy in relation to these matters.

Clauses 3 and 4 introduce welcome measures. The report under clause 3 will look into how we might go about implementing the registration proposals. I suggest that parental choice should be the overriding consideration. Different parents will probably feel differently depending on their personal circumstances, and it should be up to the parent to choose whether the registration takes place. Perhaps that could be my early submission to any consultation that takes places on the matter.

Clause 4 is about investigations. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I think, raised a concern about providing only for parental choice, as there might be some circumstances where the parent—for reasons of domestic violence, for example—might not exercise their choice when properly they should. I wonder whether another way of handling this would be to say that an investigation should take place if either parent or one of the clinicians involved opted to trigger a coroner’s investigation. That is, if any of the interested parties felt that an investigation was appropriate, one would take place. That might guard against my hon. Friend’s concern, while also allowing an element of parental choice.

As parliamentarians, we should focus on trying to reduce—as far as we can—the awful tragedy of stillbirth and neonatal death. Of course, my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. I draw the attention of the House to the work of Tamba—the Twins and Multiple Births Association—which has run a pilot over the last couple of years, encouraging 30 maternity units to fully adopt National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in relation to multiple births. As a result, stillbirths in those units declined by 50% and neonatal deaths declined by 30%.

Tamba is campaigning to get these guidelines rolled out across all maternity units. I am a father of twins who were born very prematurely, at 25 weeks and one day. They were very fortunate in that they received excellent care from the NHS and survived, but that is not an experience that all parents have when their children are born as prematurely as 25 weeks and one day. I strongly support Tamba’s campaign and ask the Secretary of State for Health to adopt its recommendations and carry them forward.

Salisbury Incident

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

If I may just set the scene by pressing on a bit, I will happily give way later.

On 3 March, the two individuals travelled to Salisbury before returning to London after a few hours. We believe that the purpose of that was a recce. On 4 March, they returned to Salisbury by train, and they were in the immediate vicinity of the Skripals’ house between 11.58 and 13.00 on that day. We believe that it was at that time they sprayed the deadly Novichok nerve agent on to the handle of the front door. That same afternoon, Sergei and Yulia Skripal left the house and travelled by car to the centre of Salisbury. After a meal and a walk around, they were taken ill at the centre and slipped into unconsciousness at 4.15 pm on 4 March.

As hospital staff and paramedics worked to save the lives of the Skripals, the two suspects left London and travelled to Heathrow, flying back to Moscow at 10.30 pm on 4 March on flight SU2585, leaving behind them a deadly trail. We should not forget that only the brave actions of police and NHS staff on that day ensured that the damage to that community was minimal. Because of the actions of the GRU agents, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey fell gravely ill, and he ultimately bore the consequence of their reckless action. I am convinced that if it was not for the expertise in the hospital and the bravery of those in our blue-light services, who often acted with disregard for their own safety, we would have been reflecting today on a far worse situation.

Novichok is a deadly chemical nerve agent, and it was used in this attack. We believe that it was brought in in a counterfeit perfume bottle, in the packaging of a Nina Ricci bottle. That bottle was then recklessly discarded on the streets of Salisbury and had the potential to kill or injure dozens or hundreds of people. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has recently reported that, having tested it, it is confident that the liquid within the recovered perfume bottle had a very high level of purity.

Since the incident in March, some 250 detectives, led by SO15, have worked around the clock, trawling through 11,000 hours of CCTV and taking more than 1,400 statements. They have worked painstakingly and methodically to identify exactly which individuals are responsible and the methods they used to carry out the attack.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Minister, like the Prime Minister a few days ago, has today presented clear evidence linking this incident to the GRU and the Russian state. He has also pointed out how the attack was facilitated by the apparatus of the Russian state. Does he therefore agree that it would be appropriate to ask the Foreign Office to look again at expelling further Russian diplomats beyond those expelled already to degrade their ability to plan and execute such activities on our soil as well as the other espionage activities they conduct?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes a point in response to the horrific facts of this case. We of course seek to keep pressure on the malign activity of the Russian state—to push it back, as the Prime Minister has said—and we will keep all options on the table for doing that. For now, we are working on a number of measures, to which I shall come later, to push back Russia’s activities, and we are doing our best to degrade Russia’s intelligence services.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

It is telling that in the last decade every single security service counter-terrorism case involved communications data and 95% of serious and organised crime investigations in which the CPS was involved concerned locations data. Those facts speak for themselves. Opposition Front Benchers have been very constructive in dealing with this and in the amendments they have tabled, and those on the Government Front Bench have responded in the same way. For these reasons—I will not add to the very good reasons already given by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle—I support the Bill and the amendments that the Government have accepted.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I want to speak briefly about clause 68, Government amendment 51 and amendment 145. Clause 68 is welcome and delivers the manifesto commitment to introduce judicial oversight of these investigatory powers over journalists. As the noble Lord Falconer has pointed out, no such protections exist under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. These new requirements for judicial consent by the commissioner are very welcome.

I very much welcome Government amendment 51, which explicitly acknowledges the public interest in protecting a journalist’s sources and makes it clear that the commissioner must weigh that against any other public interest, which must be overriding. I hope that gives the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) at least some comfort. Were we to adopt her amendment 145, I think the implication would be that the judgment would have to be made in open court, and given the difficult and potentially wide definition of journalistic material that now exists, that might impose a rather onerous requirement. Were the Government so minded, they might at some later time fine tune clause 68 to say that if the judicial commissioner found the situation slightly ambiguous, they could go to the journalist to seek clarification; if there were cases in which they were finding it difficult to make that judgment, they could seek further and better particulars. However, I think that Government amendment 51 is extremely helpful in addressing many of the concerns expressed about that important issue.

[The Solicitor General]

It is a pleasure to speak at the end of a wide-ranging but important debate about the new power on internet connection records. It is right to remind ourselves of the context of the debate. Only last week, two individuals received significant prison sentences in Britain’s biggest known gun smuggling operation. It was analysis of communications data that provided vital evidence in that case. It allowed the investigative team to attribute telephone numbers and SIM cards to the defendants and to identify key locations.

However, communications data are changing. The world in which the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and I started out practising is no longer the world as it is today. Telephone calls are very often not the means by which criminals and terrorists conduct their activity. Much of that has moved on to the internet via WhatsApp, via internet chatrooms and via the electronic internet communications that have become the mainstay of many criminal enterprises. It is vital that the legislation that we pass in this House not only attempts to keep pace with this breathtaking change, but tries to get ahead of it as far as possible.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many internet service providers, for example, offer services here but they are predominantly based in other countries. That is why the Government have been progressing, and continue to progress, discussions with the United States’ authorities about the whole question of the circumstances under which warrants issued lawfully in the United Kingdom can be exercised in the United States. We have always asserted territorial jurisdiction of those warrants under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In fact, the previous Labour Government, who introduced RIPA, also established that territorial jurisdiction. It has never been tested, but we are putting that discussion with the United States into place.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Home Secretary recently met my constituent Barry Bednar, whose 14-year-old son Breck was groomed online and, tragically, murdered. Could she explain to the House how the provisions in the Bill will help to prevent a repetition of Breck’s tragic murder?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has represented his constituents very well in that matter, and it was an absolutely tragic case. I know the enormous distress that has been caused to Breck’s parents, not just by the initial grooming of their son and its sad consequences, but by other actions that have taken place since in relation to the case. What we are doing in this legislation is important, because it will ensure that the authorities, the agencies, law enforcement and the police will have the powers to enable them better to investigate incidents such as that which led to Breck’s sad death.

Part 1 of the Bill responds to recommendations by David Anderson and others by restricting the use of powers outside the legislation to undertake equipment interference. Where the police or the security and intelligence agencies wish to interfere with a computer or a smartphone to obtain vital evidence and intelligence, a warrant under the Bill will be required. As I have indicated, the Bill also responds to the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee and places a statutory bar on the making of requests, in the absence of a warrant, to other countries to intercept the communications of a person in the UK. There can be no suggestion that the security and intelligence agencies could use their international relationships to avoid the safeguards in the Bill. In answer to a couple of questions earlier I referred to the territorial jurisdiction of the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that I meant, of course, the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Bill.

The House will know that interception—the obtaining of the contents of a communication, by, for example, listening to a telephone call or reading the contents of an email—is one of the most sensitive and intrusive capabilities available to law enforcement and to the security and intelligence agencies. It is also one of the most valuable, and over the past decade, interception in some form has played a part in every top-priority MI5 investigation. The Bill restricts that power to only a handful of agencies and allows for warrants to be issued only where they are necessary and proportionate for the prevention or detection of serious crime, in the interests of national security or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, where that is linked to national security.

Authorising warrants is one of the most important means by which I, the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary hold law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to account for their actions. In turn, we are accountable to the House and, through its elected representatives, to the public.

Part 2 of the Bill will introduce an important new safeguard. As now, a Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that activity is necessary and proportionate before a warrant can be issued, but, in future, it will not be possible to issue a warrant until the decision to issue it has been formally approved by a judicial commissioner. That will place a double lock on the authorisation of warrants. It will preserve that vital element of democratic accountability, but it will, for the first time, introduce independent judicial authorisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Clearly, when we grant the Government powers to infringe on our privacy, such powers must be deemed absolutely necessary. No case better shines a light on what may be considered necessary than one that arose in my constituency a short time ago. Barry Bednar’s 14-year-old son was groomed online over the course of some months. He was lured to the flat of someone called Lewis Daynes, where he was brutally murdered. When speaking to Barry Bednar and the boy’s mother, Lorin LaFave, it is very clear that powers such as these are absolutely necessary to protect young people like Breck from being groomed online, to help the authorities to investigate such offences, and to prevent further offences from taking place.

We always face a choice in these matters, and I choose to stand with victims like Breck. I choose to stand with Breck’s mother and father in doing everything we can to prevent, to investigate, and to catch the perpetrators of crimes like these. If the price I have to pay for that is that my internet browsing history gets stored or the authorities have certain powers to intercept my communications, then I am very happy to pay it in order to protect young men and women like Breck Bednar. That is why I will support Second Reading of the Bill. I thank the Home Secretary for taking the time to meet Barry Bednar and Lorin LaFave about two weeks ago. They were very grateful for the time that she took to listen to their concerns, and I want to put on record my thanks to her for doing that.

Since the shadow Home Secretary is now in his place, I will take the opportunity to respond briefly to a point that he raised in his speech. He made great play of the question of economic wellbeing, which concerned him. He mentioned an example from 1972, and the fact that he had to go back as far as 1972 to find an example tells us something. I draw his attention to clause 18(4), which I believe addresses his concern. It states that the test of economic wellbeing can be applied only to interception requests that are not in the United Kingdom. The concerns that he raised about the conduct of trade unions and so on would not apply because the test relates only to matters outside the United Kingdom. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he requires.

I believe that the Bill is proportionate and reasonable. I am comforted by the judicial oversight that is in place, and I will most certainly support the Bill in the Division Lobby this evening.