HM Passport Office Backlog

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend. What an utterly absurd position to be in that somebody who lives and works in London has to go to Belfast to get their passport processed. What kind of crazy, upside-down world are we living in when that is happening?

It is not just about holidays, as I was saying. People have missed vital work interviews and assignments abroad, weddings and funerals. They have not been with crucial identification needed for renting accommodation and the like. I have been inundated with emails from Opposition Members about these very situations faced by their constituents—usually hard-working families who have had their dreams shattered or their nerves shredded. This morning, my Aberavon office is dealing with seven new cases that came through last night alone. I will talk through just a few examples of these nationwide cases so that the Minister can get a clearer picture.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The point that the hon. Member is making is the most significant one we should make here today. Yes, the Home Office has shown itself to be unfit for purpose at the moment, but these delays in passports and visas—we are also seeing it with driving licences—are having an enormous impact on the lives of ordinary people up and down this country. Every constituency is inundated with people whose lives have been turned upside down by Home Office incompetence. Does he agree that it is past time it did something about it?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The cost of this issue is not just in broken-hearted families who were not able to go on long-planned holidays, or to go to weddings and funerals; there is a direct cost to the British economy and to productivity, and the huge cost of people having to pay through the nose for fast-track applications. The cost, when it is finally calculated, will be eyewatering.

To give a few examples of the nationwide cases, one family in County Durham had to cancel a dream holiday of a lifetime just before Easter, at a cost of £6,000, because they had been waiting 10 weeks for their six-year-old’s passport to come through. The guidance at the time of application was that it would take a maximum of three weeks.

Two parents from north Wales had been living and working overseas in France for two years and were due to return home once the father’s visa had expired, with their rent agreement ending this month. They applied for a passport for their new-born baby in mid-February but, four months on, they have still not received that passport, meaning that they have been forced to pay for a hotel at huge personal cost because they are unable to travel back to the UK.

Another set of parents in the west midlands were desperate to get their two-year-old boy, who was having medical difficulties, away on holiday. Despite applying for a passport on 2 January, poor communication from the Passport Office meant they were still waiting several months later.

In my constituency of Aberavon, one individual applied for her first adult passport on 26 February, yet had to cancel her plans to attend a wedding on 4 June. Another of my constituents applied for a passport on 23 March, yet is still waiting 12 weeks on and does not know whether they will be able to travel on 21 June. What does the Minister have to say to those families? Will he apologise to them from the Dispatch Box today?

These failures date back further than the past few months and are about not just resources, but levels of Home Office competence. One man living in east London applied for his first adult passport in September 2021. He was told to send his old passport back. Then, after 12 weeks, he was told that the application had been cancelled. The Passport Office maintained that his old passport had never been received. The man was then advised to make another application free of charge. That application was rejected. Then, after several weeks of telephone and email exchanges, he finally received confirmation that the old passport had been received with his original application and that his original application should never have been cancelled. He was advised to make a third application, which he has done. You could not make it up.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

It gives me great pleasure, as it always does, to speak in this debate on behalf of the great people of Peterborough. This is the best job that I will ever have. Whether I have it for two more years or for 22 years, it will always be a pleasure to talk about the issues that concern the great people of Peterborough. One of their big concerns is about crime and disorder, and they would fully expect me to come to this place to talk about some of those issues.

I am very pleased to note that the number of police officers in Cambridgeshire is now at a record level. The recruitment target has actually been surpassed for the second year in a row. It is incredibly welcome that we now have more police than ever before. We have 145 new police officers this year. That is on top of the normal expected recruitment level and above the target. There are 1,671 police officers in Peterborough and Cambridgeshire. They are on the streets of Peterborough right now, patrolling, preventing crime and doing the things that the people of Peterborough would expect them to do. I think 13,570 extra police officers have been recruited so far. That is above our 12,000 target, which is obviously good news for the country.

I wish to speak about three measures included in the Queen’s Speech: the Public Order Bill; the British Bill of Rights; and the draft victims’ Bill. First, on the Public Order Bill, one of the most popular pieces of legislation from the previous Session was the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In a funny sort of way, I was delighted when I saw, as expected, Labour politicians opposing the Bill both nationally and locally in my constituency, because it showed them to be out of touch with the genuine concerns of the British people. Sometimes, Labour Members seem to think that Twitter is representative of public opinion. I have news for them: it is not. The people of Peterborough are hugely supportive of measures taken against those who glue themselves to roads, who disrupt ambulances and who disrupt hard-working people going about their ordinary business. Action against the mindless fools who do that is hugely popular in Peterborough, as are measures against unauthorised travel encampments, which currently blight the picturesque village of Thorney in my constituency, preventing people from using Thorney park for football games. The cubs were supposed to be using it this weekend for some activities. Unfortunately, the unauthorised encampment is preventing people from enjoying that public space, leaving rubbish, human waste and all sorts of other unspeakables in their way, and costing taxpayers thousands of pounds to clear it.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am enjoying the hon. Member’s speech. This summer we were all frustrated that roads were blocked, and that ambulances and fire engines were not able to get through. However, does not he agree that the police already have the powers to deal with those things and that they should be using the powers they have, rather than adding others, which will restrict the rights of people in reasonable, fair, peaceful protest?

[Paul Bristow]

The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful intervention and I agree with her: often, I want to see the police act much tougher on people blocking ambulances and gluing themselves to the sides of the road. However, what these measures will do is strengthen the powers that the police have in order to get rid of those nuisance issues that she quite rightly identifies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, I did not say that at all. What I am saying is I think the reason the Government are bringing forward that legislation is suspect and I am not convinced that the police need these powers. I ask the Government to prove as the Bill passes through the House that the police are calling for these powers, because they were not calling for the increased powers brought in under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill; they said they did not feel they were necessary. It is now down to the Government to prove that the injunction system does not work but, as I have said, some of the protests are ill-judged and inconsiderate to people going about their daily lives, and I think we would all speak as one on that point.

It appears at first sight that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is more about spin than substance. If it genuinely gives more powers to local communities rather than developers, that is good, although the Government’s past action on this front does not inspire confidence. I hope that as we consider the Bill we can look at what has been happening. I have a case in my constituency where land originally used as meadows was designated for housing by a previous administration. The update of the local plan has been delayed, partly because the West of England has not updated its planning strategy. I think the Government rejected it. Therefore, even though we have a one-city ecology strategy that says we want to protect 30% of the land as green space, we cannot oppose the planning application on those grounds because the previous local plan is still in place. The Minister may have some experience of this sort of issue from previous roles. I hope that, when we get a chance to discuss the Bill, we can talk about how we can ensure that planning rules take into account a city’s desire to address the ecological crisis.

I would like to have a conversation with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about architecture. His remarks on Poundbury, the village the Prince of Wales set up, were quoted at the weekend. On aesthetic grounds, I do not like Poundbury. I do not think it is brilliant architecture, so I disagree with the Prince of Wales and the Secretary of State on that. but in his comments, the Secretary of State set up a completely artificial argument, saying opposition to new housing development comes from

“a few modernist architects who sneer at what the rest of us actually like and people who dislike anything that seems small-c conservative.”

That is not the case. The opposition to new housing developments is about people wanting to protect green spaces, thinking that infrastructure is not available and being worried about the impact on road systems and local facilities. It is not about people saying, “We would accept this new housing if the architecture was more modern.” That is just made up. It does not make for good political debate if people are constructing such straw man arguments.

The privatisation of Channel 4 is an unnecessary and spiteful move. Channel 4 is not broken and does not need the Government to fix it. Public ownership is not a straitjacket; the Government are trying to say it is. The channel invests more in independent production companies outside London—including Bristol, where it has one of its regional hubs—than any other broadcaster. Privatising Channel 4 could mean £1 billion in investment lost from the UK’s nations and regions, with over 60 independent production companies at risk of going under.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. In my previous career I worked in an organisation which supported Channel 4 to encourage independent production companies across the country and help them enter the international market. It was clear from watching Sunday’s British Academy film awards that Channel 4 is an integral part of our culture; does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should do everything they can to protect it, rather than try to change it?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree: Channel 4 is doing a brilliant job and is financially viable, and there is absolutely no reason to seek to privatise it.

The long overdue Online Safety Bill received its Second Reading in the last Session. It is good that fraud is included; many of us will have had constituents who have fallen prey to scammers. It is disappointing, however, that, with so much of a delay in bringing forward this Bill and with its having gone through pre-legislative scrutiny, there is still so much room for improvement. The Government must focus on how harmful content can be amplified and spread, including through breadcrumbing, leading to there being more smaller sites, which often contain the worst content. As the Bill stands, such sites might slip through the net because the focus is all on the larger providers. I am also concerned that the definition of what is harmful to children will be left to secondary legislation rather than be set out in the Bill, that the Government have not accepted the Law Commission recommendations on self-harm, that misogyny is not a priority, that state disinformation from countries such as Russia will still be allowed to thrive, and about much more. I hope we can significantly improve the Bill during Committee and on Report.

I welcome the renters reform Bill and the scrapping of no-fault evictions, but, again, there has been such an inexcusable delay. The legislation was promised three years ago and in that time the number of people in Bristol evicted from private rented property through no fault of their own has more than doubled.

The Mental Health Act reform Bill is another measure that has long been promised, but it is still only being published in draft. There have been some terrible stories about people with autism and learning difficulties being detained long term without their consent and a disproportionate use of sectioning for people from the black community. But this is a piecemeal measure; it addresses only one part of the problem. We know that mental health services are not fit for purpose and that many people are waiting far too long for diagnosis and treatment or are not getting help at all. We know, too, that children who need residential services often face being sent a long way from home, as beds are not available, and that far too many people resort to turning up at A&E in mental health crisis. There is a balance to be struck between giving mental health patients control over their treatment and making sure that people who would be helped by a stay in hospital get the support they need.

It was recently reported that freedom of information requests from 22 NHS trusts reveal that between 2016 and 2021 over half the 5,403 prisoners assessed by prison day psychiatrists as requiring hospitalisation were not transferred from hospital to prison. That represents an 81% increase in the number of prisoners denied a transfer in the previous five years. There is a very high threshold for that transfer request being met, so prisoners with major psychotic illnesses or chronic personality disorders are being kept in prison rather than getting the help they need. I suspect Conservative Members will think I am being a wet liberal on this, but this is as much about preventing reoffending as supporting the prisoners themselves.

There are quite a few measures missing from the Queen’s Speech that I would have hoped would be included, including the animals abroad Bill and measures on trophy hunting. Given that we long ago accepted that the production of foie gras and fur in this country was inhumane and should be prohibited, there is no excuse now that we have left the EU for not acting to ban imports too. It just shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government that they would rather give in to the demands of the pro-hunting lobby on their Back Benches—and some in the Cabinet as well—than enact one of the few genuinely popular promises they have made. Senior figures in the Conservative party have spoken out about trophy hunting and they have got lots of good publicity time and again, but where is the legislation?

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

To the latter part, yes. I am happy to have the details. As I have said, in terms of processing times, between January and March, more than 90% of cases were completed within six weeks. Although we advise people to allow 10 weeks, the vast majority of people are getting their passports much more quickly.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I appreciate what the Minister says about understanding the problems, but I feel that saying to people, “Get your applications in on time,” does not really cover it. One of our main problems is that when our staff call, they are asked whether it is passports, Ukraine or other. Most of the cases that need to be expedited come under “other”, but when they go on to that line, the people there say, “Email us.” We are already doing that and emails are lying there unanswered for two months. At the moment, in every area, the Home Office seems to be high on rhetoric and low on delivery. Can the Minister take back to the Secretary of the State that this is simply not working anymore and that drastic action is needed to knock the system into shape?

[Kevin Foster]

Advising people to apply strikes me as good advice if people are planning a holiday. I am pleased to note that since that advice was given we have seen more applications coming in this week. In terms of being low on delivery, we delivered more than 1 million passport decisions last month—a record number. There is a significant amount of work being done by dedicated teams. We are bringing in more staff to be able to do more. We have even expanded our delivery network to cope with the output that we now have, as touched on in an answer to a previous question. We recognise those pressures and those issues, but that is why we have advised for some time to allow 10 weeks. If people are looking to go on holiday this summer, our advice is firmly, “Get your application in now.”

Asylum Seeker Accommodation: RAF Manston

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

As my hon. Friend knows, in the Nationality and Borders Bill we reserve the right to enter into an offshore processing arrangement. I hear the point that he makes on behalf of his constituents about how strongly they feel about this, and of course we want to operationalise the Bill as quickly as possible.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We have heard a great deal about the pressure on accommodation, but surely that pressure could be relieved if the Home Office were to act more quickly and fairly in processing claims. Will the Minister tell us what action has been taken to ensure that that can happen?

[Tom Pursglove]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could help us in Edinburgh: perhaps her assistance would enable the dispersal process to take place more readily. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), would be keen to have that conversation with her. Let me also reiterate that our firm objective is to increase and improve the processing of cases in the way that I have described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Question 1, I wish to inform the House that there is an error on the call list. Cat Smith’s Question 14 is listed as asking about the dismantling of county lines drug gangs. In fact, her tabled question was about steps taken to ensure that Border Force staff are trained on exemptions from requirements for covid-19 testing. I understand that Ministers have been informed and that the correct question will be answered when we reach that point.

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

If she will make it her policy to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission’s review of hate crime legislation.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

All forms of hate crime are completely unacceptable and the UK has a robust legislative framework to respond to it. We are absolutely clear that the cowards who commit these hateful acts should feel the full force of the law. We will of course work with the Law Commission on its review of hate crime legislation.

[Christine Jardine]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about the complete unacceptability of hate crimes. The dictionary defines misogyny as “dislike or contempt for”, or indeed, “prejudice against” women. Every year, tens of thousands of women in this country face emotional and physical violence, often prompted by exactly that sort of prejudice. Making racially and religiously motivated crimes aggravated offences has helped the police to tackle them, but the law does not provide the same protections against gender-based hate crimes, so does the Home Secretary agree that, if the Law Commission recommends improvements in those areas, they should be a matter of priority?

[Priti Patel]

First, let me acknowledge the points that the hon. Lady has made. She is absolutely right about hate crimes, misogyny and crimes against women in particular, and some of the most appalling and corrosive attitudes against women that we have seen across our society for too long. On the Law Commission report, we are waiting for its findings. I can give her and the House every assurance that we will work with the Law Commission. Alongside that important point, we will be publishing very soon—in the next few weeks, in fact—our strategy on violence against women and girls. I want to go on the record to emphasise that any form of violence, oppression, sexism or hatred against women and girls is thoroughly unacceptable and this Government are absolutely adamant in dealing with it.

EU Settlement Scheme

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for his comprehensive and detailed explanation of the problems, obstacles, and failings of the settled status scheme system. I agree with him wholeheartedly about those drawbacks and failings, but as much as I am impressed by his explanation, I am astonished that he cannot recognise that he is also reciting a litany of the problems that Scotland and England would face if the SNP were to have its way over independence.

However, just as this is not another rerun of a debate on Brexit—the damage to our trade, the obstacles in the way of small businesses, and the problems that Brexit will create as we recover from it—nor should it be a debate about independence, because it is about something far more important than either of those things. It is about people: people who have come here, contributed, paid their taxes and raised their family here and regard this place as home, like so many of my constituents—almost 3,000, in fact.

One particular letter I received sums up this issue for me: “Dear Christine, I am a French citizen, having lived and worked in Scotland for more than 20 years. My husband is also French, and we have two children aged 12 and 9, both born in Scotland, and we have serious worries.” Their worries are about the future, about settled status, whether they will face another Windrush-type scandal, and how much it will cost them for their son, who was born here, to have British citizenship and a passport.

While I accept Ministers’ assurances about the extended deadline and that we will not face another Windrush, I do not believe that the Government have addressed the fact that so many people like my constituents no longer feel welcome in the country that they made home and to which they have contributed.

There is also, frankly, panic among many people who live and work here, who perhaps married British citizens and are now confused about exactly what their future will hold. I do not blame them. We know that applications are taking longer to process than was promised and that the process is not as straightforward as was originally suggested. People have to make separate applications for children. We have heard all these promises today, but what the Government promised, as with so many things, has not materialised. We are not treating people with respect. What about all those still waiting for the decisions?

Much as I agree with the Scottish National party that the loss of freedom of movement is regrettable and about the situation that EU citizens now find themselves in, I am afraid that I cannot support the motion today because of that last sentence about immigration. Immigration should not, I believe, be the responsibility of one part of the United Kingdom. Yes, there are fruit pickers in Scotland who need staff and the NHS is calling out for migrants to come here and work—on that point, I feel that a great number of migrants in this country deserve indefinite leave to remain as a thank you for the contribution that they have made during covid.

But the need is not restricted to Scotland. Fruit pickers are needed in Cornwall as much as in Scotland; NHS staff are needed in Essex as much as in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out, if it took as long to set up an immigration system as it has a benefit system, we would wait a long time before we got the people we needed.

Although I sympathise with much of what the SNP has said today, I regret that yet again an issue has been used as an opportunity to promote independence—and not, I believe, the best interests of EU citizens in this country. They should not become another weapon in the independence battle.

Misuse of Drugs Act

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I am relieved to be able to speak in this powerful, emotive debate today but I am also very angry that, half a century on, this country is still somehow clinging to an Act that has signally failed in its intention. It has failed more than one generation and it is time that we listened to the voices raised against it, including the families appealing for help.

I am sure beyond any possible doubt that when the Misuse of Drugs Act was originally debated in this place, the genuine belief was that it was needed to tackle a problem that had already taken lives, destroyed families and promoted crime and antisocial behaviour across the country. However, can anyone now be in any doubt that the Act and the war on drugs that it epitomises have failed? If criminal convictions were the measure, we might be able to argue for its success. There have been more than 1.8 million convictions under the Act since 1971, but those convictions are actually also another indication of failure—failure to change the fact that the illegal drugs trade has been a driving force in crime in this country.

If we look at the real impact in terms of lives destroyed and lost, it is clear that the belief in the Act was, although well intentioned, misplaced. If we look just at Scotland, in 1969, there were 244 drug deaths. In 2019, that figure was almost 1,300, but those are just numbers, and there are so many more. Heroin misuse has risen twenty-fivefold. The UK drug-related death rate is five times the EU average. Scotland’s drug-related death rate is more than 15 times the EU average. However, this is about so much more than statistics. It is about every life lost and family left desolate by the death of a loved one. It is about lives stamped out amidst an epidemic that is destroying and has destroyed futures every day for the past 50 years, and yet, somehow seems to go unnoticed.

My constituency is not immune from the problem. None of our constituencies, none of our communities and no family can be sure that they are safe from it. In response to the point that was made about the role of families, I know parents who have worked hard to educate their children, spend time with them, talk about drugs, provide for them and create a good, stable family life for them, but that could not protect them. Yes, drug problems can be more prevalent in areas of deprivation—we know that—but not exclusively. We are all vulnerable. Recently, a mother in Scotland allowed the BBC to film the funeral of her son who died of an overdose of street Valium. The heartbreak was difficult to watch. His mother wanted his story to serve as a warning to others, to remind politicians of the grief caused by our common failure to tackle successfully the problem of drugs on our streets. She let us witness it.

What makes that failure worse is that there are examples close at hand of how it can be tackled. Portugal, for example, had one of the worst problems in Europe. In 1999, one in every 100 people there had a problematic drug addiction, and the country’s HIV rate was the highest in the EU. Then, in 2001, it completely changed tack from criminalisation to decriminalisation. Now, if someone is caught with a personal supply, they receive a warning or a fine, or they are referred to a multidisciplinary team of doctors, lawyers and social workers. Rates of overdose deaths and drug-related crime have plummeted, as has the HIV rate.

It is clear what we need to do. Where prohibition has failed for 50 years, control and regulation can work. We need education, social action, health spending and projects designed to help, and I firmly believe we need to look at where the decriminalisation and regulation of drugs, specifically cannabis, have worked. More than 25 countries have decriminalised possession of some or all drugs. Cannabis has already been legalised and regulated for adult non-medical use in Canada, Uruguay and 15 US states. Decriminalisation is supported by the World Health Organisation.

To take away the power that control of drugs has given the criminal world, and to break the stranglehold of the gangs, we should reform, regulate and license; we should offer medical treatment to those found in possession rather than criminalise them; and we should recognise that this is a public health and economic problem. We have tried one way for 50 years, but it has failed. It has failed families up and down this country, and it is time we tried another way, a better way.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It seems like an age since I spoke on Second Reading, and I commend those involved in the massive amount of work that has been done on both sides of the House and in the Lords. I spoke at that time because, unfortunately, the rates in Bristol South are double the national average and the highest in the city. It is no coincidence that it also contains some of the most deprived areas of the country. That link between poverty and abuse, and particularly the impact on children, must be addressed. Although the Bill is welcome, it does not go far enough in some of those areas.

I shall speak briefly about Lords amendments 42D, 42E and 42F. As we have heard, we all agree on the outcome, but I defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who all, while recognising the Minister’s personal commitment and intent, eloquently expressed concerns about how we will hold the Government to account on behalf of the women we all know and represent if legislation is not brought forward on these things.

I know from speaking to women who are expecting a more defined register and legislation that they do not really understand why serial abusers and perpetrators are not more easily registered and tracked. Those are stories that we all know come before us repeatedly. If those amendments are not accepted, I know that the Minister will continue to do this work, but it will be incumbent on her and her Government to prove to those women that these measures are remotely enough.

We all know that we need better action across a range of service providers. Again, that needs much greater support from the Government. Finally—I am conscious of time—I touched last year on the nature of domestic abuse among older women. That is often a much-neglected area, and it would be good to see changes to the Bill that reversed some of the perceptions about the abuse that older women face and made them feel more empowered to come forward, safe in the knowledge that their experiences will be justly dealt with too.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I share what I believe was possibly the frustration of many other speakers tonight that we are so close to achieving what we want the Bill to achieve, yet we seem unable to cross that final line. I appreciate the efforts made by the Government and everyone else, and by the Minister in particular, but I still have reservations about the Bill—particularly about the vulnerability of migrant women, and specifically about amendment 40B. The amendment in lieu laid down by the Minister is a start, but it still does not go far enough and it fails to capture the one key thing that all our amendments and speeches have said, and everything we have heard this evening: waiting for a stalker or serial domestic abuser to get a conviction for 12 months before considering them for this is way too late.

We know that most stalking victims do not go to the police. This is about cumulative obsessive behaviour. Well-intentioned though the legislation is, we simply do not feel it is going far enough. Between 15 March and 19 April, another 16 women have been murdered—that is between the Report stage in the Lords and ping-pong last week. The Government’s inaction has to end. We have to address this issue now. We have to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill that so many people in this place have worked so hard for over the past four years is achieved by the end of this week.

The same recommendations have been made over the years and the same reviews have been repeated over and over, yet nothing is changing. Rarely are the recommendations put into place and we have seen systemic failures over many years, with widespread misogyny, institutionalised sexism and a gender bias. No amount of guidance or training has changed that across the past two decades. In fact, matters are getting worse. That is why we need this to be in the legislation.

Many Members have mentioned the overwhelmingly depressing statistics about one woman being murdered every three days by a man, and a woman being murdered every four days by an ex or a current partner. It is simply not acceptable. We are all agreed, but we must find a solution. I appreciate the steps that the Government have taken so far to compromise to meet people halfway, but I still think that this will take another step. That is why I, like the Liberal Democrats, will be rejecting the Government’s amendment in lieu this evening.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Briefly, I wish to highlight my concerns on the issue of the identification, monitoring and management of serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators, and the provisions that refer to that. I base most of the comments I make in this Chamber on personal experience—on the people I meet in my constituency office and have helped and tried to help over the years.

I recall sitting in my office looking at the face of a victim, sometimes sitting beside the perpetrator, and feeling helpless and hopeless. I could see what was going on. I could also understand that my words could make the situation more difficult for the victim. So I found myself on some occasions just being silent and listening, when everything within me cried out to speak, act and help. That is what I wanted to do, but I felt that sensitivity was more important. All too often, I have tried to distract a partner while the staff attempted to assure the victim that they were here to help wherever they needed and in confidence. All too often, I have offered help, only to hear a victim say, “No one would believe me because he is a pillar of society.” That proves that, irrespective of position, those in the highest positions and the lowest positions of the land can abuse ladies.

The Lords amendment on this brings clarity on repeated offences, broadening things to include serious harm, sexual violence and stalking, among other specifications. It makes it crystal clear and a little easier to help those victims. It offers them greater scope and, with that, greater support. It makes it clear that the offences clearly listed will never be acceptable. It makes it clear that all those listed offences are taken seriously and that a strategy to deal with this must be a Government priority.

This clarity is welcome. This House must send a unified message on this Bill today. I believe that the Minister is very much committed to making the changes that are necessary to pull all of the concerns and thoughts of Members together, and provide reassurance that when we pass the Bill it is not simply the best we can do, but the best possible—not that we offer help, support and recognition to as many victims as possible, but that we have left no victim alone without legislation to protect them.

It is my desire, when I am faced with cases of domestic abuse—unfortunately, my staff and I have been faced with such cases—to have the confidence to be able to tell the victim, “All the elements, from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the courts, are designed with your needs in mind. You do not have to do this alone. The police and the courts will walk alongside you, and give you the protection you want.” I long to send that message. I look again to the Minister for clarity that this is what we are saying tonight in this Chamber.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]]

I am delighted to speak in this debate. Some excellent additions have been made to what was already a very strong Bill. In particular, I am delighted to speak to Lords amendment 35, which makes threatening to share sexual photographs or videos of someone without their consent an offence punishable by up to two years in prison.

Let me put on the record my thanks to both Bill Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I know that they have long supported these measures and worked hard to include them in the Bill, and they have put up with my badgering them on this issue with good grace. I also thank Baroness Morgan of Cotes, whose expert—and indeed noble—badgering was successful in getting the amendment over the line in the other place.

Most of all, however, I thank my constituent Natasha Saunders. I should say “my former constituent” because I have lost her to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—although she assures me that that is no reflection on her former Member of Parliament. Brave women such as Natasha, and brave men, have stood up and told their stories. It is one thing to campaign for changes to the law; it is much harder for someone to speak publicly about the darkest moments—the most personal and private moments—of their life.

When we last debated the Bill in this House, I shared some of Natasha’s story. She said, in her own words:

“The threat of those photos being shared was my worst nightmare—I had no choice but to comply with his continued abuse or face potential humiliation… The threat was always there and as the years went on, it was like I ceased to exist. He made me feel invisible to everyone and if I displeased him in any way, I knew he could use those pictures to ruin my reputation.”

Natasha has been working with Refuge. I thank it, too, for its excellent research on this issue, which gave us the evidence base we needed. Refuge’s “The Naked Threat” report found that one in 14 people in England and Wales, and one in seven young women, has been a victim of threats to share. Almost four in five women changed the way they behaved as a result of the threats, proving how much this law is needed.

Threatening to expose someone at their most vulnerable because they have done or want to do something you do not like is a deeply sinister crime. It has already resulted in tragedy, and I know it has contributed to trapping people in dangerous, abusive relationships. Now survivors will have a route to justice.

I am proud to vote for Lords amendment 35. I am even prouder of Natasha. She has decided to start on the journey from campaigner to Member of Parliament, to do more to protect others from the horror she suffered, and I very much hope that she will join us on the iconic green Benches before long.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and the tributes to both His Royal Highness Prince Philip and Dame Cheryl Gillan?

It is, as others have said, a privilege to take part in this debate. When the Bill was first introduced, we were already aware of the need for protection for so many in our society. Roughly 2 million people a year in the UK, most of them women, are subject to some form of domestic abuse. In the subsequent debates, we have heard some incredibly brave and moving stories.

Throughout the covid-19 crisis, we have seen domestic abuse figures increase exponentially. In the past month, we have become, if anything, even more aware of the need for this landmark legislation. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) expressed, it is our duty here to reflect the demand for change that we have seen and heard from so many in our society.

The Bill has certainly changed and developed over the past four years. It has been supported and shaped positively from both sides of the Chamber, and I believe it has become stronger as a result. We have made progress and strengthened the Bill in areas such as including children in the definition, introducing protections for survivors of abuse in court, and taking our first steps towards making misogyny a hate crime.

However, the Bill could still be stronger. There are important, significant areas in which there is more work that we need to do. They include migrant women, who should have the same consideration as every other woman in our society. Getting out of a violent or abusive situation should not be dependent on where someone comes from. For me, this is a critical point. As has already been mentioned, this country has signed the Istanbul convention, but the Government have yet to ratify it. Under that convention, a person could not be denied support on the basis of their immigration status.

There is a specific amendment that I would ask the Government to reconsider: Lords amendment 42, on monitoring serious and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking. In the other place, my colleague Baroness Brinton spoke powerfully from her own awful experience about the clear need to strengthen MAPPA and introduce a register for serious and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking. That is why Lords amendment 42 is so important, and we should oppose the Government’s attempt to replace it with a much weaker amendment.

Tackling domestic abuse must include ensuring that the criminal justice system deals with obsessed serial perpetrators properly. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation, and the fact that she sympathises with the objective of the Lords amendment, but I cannot agree that there are not sufficient benefits to justify complications. There is no complication I can see that is ever too great to justify not increasing protection for any of us at any time from anyone. We have already heard numerous moving examples today of the damage done to lives by repeat offenders, and Liberal Democrats do not believe that the Government’s amendment in lieu goes far enough. We will therefore not support it.

This Bill speaks to a problem that infects our society and threatens people, mostly women, in every part of the country every day of the year. We are sending a message today from this place. Let us make it the strongest it can possibly be, so that when the Bill reaches the statute book, this landmark legislation is the strongest it can possibly be.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]]

I am privileged to speak in this debate today, and I would like to start by joining in the tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan. She was an incredibly kind individual and she will be sorely missed in the House.

This really is a landmark piece of legislation. It shows what the House is truly capable of when it works together, and I commend all those who have been involved in bringing the Bill to where it is.

Over the past year, we have experienced life in a very different way, often not being able to leave our homes. For most of us it has been incredibly difficult, but for victims of domestic abuse the reality has been much harsher. Over the past year, victims of domestic abuse have often found themselves trapped by their abuser without any space, physical or emotional, between them. There has been a worrying increase in the demand for domestic abuse support, and this has been seen across the country. In fact, just last night I was contacted about someone who is a victim of domestic abuse and who needs my support. This just happens way too often.

There are two parts of the Bill to which I will refer today: Lords amendment 42 and the now-included provision in Lords amendment 35 on the threat to disclose intimate images. On the latter, I will say this. In 2015, we recognised the manipulative and psychological power that abusers had over victims when laws were introduced in relation to revenge porn, and we have seen more than 900 abusers convicted as a result. I am relieved to see that the threat to disclose intimate images is now being addressed in this legislation, because the harm caused by these threats is immeasurable and can have an extremely deep and lasting psychological impact on the victims. It is a sinister and cowardly crime.

I have heard anecdotal stories of communities in which honour plays a big role, and where abusive husbands have threatened to disclose intimate images of their wives or partners in an attempt to dishonour them in order to coercively control and manipulate them. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards letting those women know that this is not okay and that they are not alone. I thank Baroness Morgan for all the hard work she has done in getting this legislation amended. I also believe that social media companies need to play their part in fulfilling their responsibility to take down any distressing or manipulative images that may be classed as revenge porn—and swiftly, so that victims are protected.

I empathise with the intention and spirit of Lords amendment 42. However, I accept the Government’s position on this. There is, of course, still more that can be done through existing systems and better use of the MAPPA framework. As long as that is possible, the objective is the same, and if a way forward can be found through non-legislative means, that is certainly worth exploring. Of course, as has been said, domestic abuse does not just end when two partners—two individuals—stop living with each other.

By improving MAPPA, by improving the information-sharing processes with different agencies and individuals, the message to those who commit these cowardly acts of violence, stalking or domestic abuse is very clear: through this legislation, this Government and this House are determined that you will feel the full force of the law. We will come for you and we will not let you get away with it. And for the victims of these heinous crimes, the message is simple: you are not alone and we will not let you suffer alone.

New Plan for Immigration

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is absolutely the point: France and other countries across the EU member states are safe countries. People are not fleeing persecution in those countries and they should and could claim asylum in those countries. That is effectively what we need to work harder to achieve.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State said:

“We celebrate those who have come to the UK lawfully and have helped to build Britain.”

Will she assure us that while those people are awaiting the Home Office processing their claims, they are enabled to contribute to the economy of the United Kingdom by working and paying income tax and national insurance, rather than having to subsist on the meagre handouts that barely allow them to eat?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady will be well aware of the rules in place for asylum seekers currently in the UK. If I may say so, I remind the House that we are in a pandemic, so there are restrictions in terms of accommodation, movements and things of that nature. If the hon. Lady would like to be refreshed on those rules, I would be more than happy to drop her a line.