Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill. I particularly welcome the balance it strikes on sentencing, with longer sentences for the most serious offenders but smarter justice, including more community punishments, for young offenders. Having worked for 10 years with prisoners and young offenders, I know that this is the right balance, and that the Bill will be welcomed by my constituents and across the country.

That is why I am so disappointed by the stance taken by the Labour party. It is understandable to object to aspects of the Bill, it is right for the Opposition to challenge the Government on civil liberties and police powers, and it is understandable to see whether this Bill can be amended to include more protections for women and girls, but for the Opposition to say that they will vote against the whole Bill at this early stage—to vote against the aims and principles of the Bill—is to try to make such amendments impossible. It is also blatantly opportunistic. They had no such in-principle objections last week; there was no sense that the clauses on protests or street safety, or the relative number of mentions of women and statues, were so bad that the whole Bill had to be rejected. Last week, the Opposition were just planning to abstain on Second Reading. That in itself was pretty craven and showed Labour’s weak commitment to law and order, but now they have been blown off the fence and blown into voting against the whole Bill. They faced a test this week: would the party, under its new leader, stand for law and order, or would it stand for gestures? It faced that test and failed it, and the public will notice.

Of course it is right that we use this occasion to discuss the abuse and misogyny that women suffer every day in this country. Some of this abuse is already illegal, but all of it must be deprecated in the strongest terms, because all of it has its root in male disrespect of women. This is not a modern phenomenon. I am afraid to say that it is as old as time and it is written on almost every page of human history. But something else is written in our history too: the attempts by society to contain male violence and male disrespect.

Our culture historically taught men that they had a duty to honour and protect women. It is a difficult thing to say, because it may appear that I want to turn back the clock to a time when men chivalrously protected the weaker sex, but of course, as I have said, that is not how it always was in the old days, and even if it had been, we do not accept the idea that women need protection by men; they just need men to behave themselves. So let me say emphatically that I do not want to turn back the clock; however, we do need to face the fact that our modern culture has not delivered all the progress it was supposed to. I wonder whether that is because our modern culture has a problem with telling people how to behave—it has a problem with society having a moral framework at all.

It is right that we are having this debate, and I hope we get to a better place because of it, because the key thing is that all the laws in the world will not stop violence against women and will not stop sexism if our culture is not right. We need boys to grow up secure in themselves, with good role models and an innate sense of respect for other people. That means stronger families and more supportive communities.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Could the last two speakers stick to four minutes?

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak quickly about new clauses 42 and 55, which concern the regulation of abortion.

New clause 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), proposes the creation of censorship zones around abortion clinics. The intention behind it is to stop the harassment of women seeking abortion.

We already have laws against harassment which can be, and are, applied. We also already have public order laws that allow councils to impose restrictions regarding specific clinics that are experiencing any real public order difficulties, so the activity that the new clause proposes to criminalise is peaceful, passive, non-obstructive activity—less disruptive than the sort of protests that Opposition Members are so busy trying to defend today. I recognise the good faith behind the new clause, but in practice it is an attempt to criminalise the expression of an opinion. I cite the campaigner Peter Tatchell, who said today that it is an

“unjustifiable restriction on the right to free expression.”

I urge the House to vote it down.

New clause 55, tabled by the right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), would not criminalise anything; it would decriminalise something, namely abortion itself up to term. It would effectively legalise abortion on demand up to birth. She is keen that we pay attention to the text of her new clause, so I shall quote from it:

“No offence is committed…by…a woman who terminates her own pregnancy or who assists in or consents to such termination”.

The effect would be to legalise or to decriminalise abortion up to birth.

I am not arguing that the new clause is an attempt to deregulate abortion, although I believe that that might be the effect; my objection is to the principle. It says a very, very terrible thing about the value that we place on an unborn life if we simply say that it should be determined by whether or not the mother would like to keep it—by whether that baby is wanted or not. Let us think of that in terms of other lives—a newborn child, a disabled person or a vulnerable elderly person: when their family is unable to look after them, the community and the state step in. We should apply that principle in the case of a child in the womb, especially one that is still viable and could live outside the womb. I urge the House not to support new clause 55.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I will speak to amendment 1, which has cross-party support, and amendments 2 to 7, which would remove the provisions in the Bill that affect the right to protest.

In passing, I point out that a number of other issues are in play today, and goodness only knows what such a debate must look like to those looking in from the outside, but that is the consequence of the inadequacy of the time that has been made available to us. I will therefore limit my remarks strictly to the amendments that stand in my name.

Essentially the objection that many of us have to the proposals is that, first, the Government have got the balance badly wrong, and, secondly, their language in trying to strike that balance is among the vaguest and most imprecise I have ever seen as either a legal practitioner or a parliamentarian.

To ban protest on the basis that it would be noisy or cause serious annoyance may appeal to many parents of teenagers up and down the country, but we have to do rather better when fundamental issues of free speech are in play. Many years ago, it was said—the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) may have heard the same thing—that in Scots law, a breach of the peace was almost anything that two cops did not quite like the look of. It seems to me that what the Government want to do here, in regulating not the conduct of a few drunks on the high street on a Saturday night but the fundamental right to protest, is to take the law back to that imprecise state of affairs. The risk is that that serves only to pit the police against the protesters. It will not be the Home Secretary who makes a decision about what is noisy and causes serious annoyance, but police officers, often those on the ground at the time. That risks undermining the fundamental principle of policing by consent, which has always underpinned the way in which we police protest and, indeed, all behaviour in this country.

I remain of the view that the provisions will be ineffective and have a chilling effect. I do not believe for one second that, if the Bill becomes law, Extinction Rebellion will look at it and say, “Oh well, we can’t possibly go out and protest on the streets of the capital. We’d maybe better just go home and email our Members of Parliament.” Although I have heard some in the House say that even that is seriously annoying sometimes. The Bill will not stop Extinction Rebellion protesting.

However, communities throughout the country who face a challenge to hospitals, schools, traffic management and so on will look at the Bill and think, “Actually, it’s not safe for us to use our voice and to protest against what is being done to our community.” For that reason, as in so many other cases, I believe that this is a fundamentally mistaken provision. The only amendments we can seek to introduce are those that would excise it from the Bill, where they should never have been in the first place.