Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend highlights a current and pressing issue: child refugees in Syria. I know that other colleagues in the House, including the Foreign Secretary, have spoken about this issue recently. We review on a case-by-case basis. I should just say for the benefit of the House that every case has to be looked at individually. They are difficult cases and we have to look at all the backgrounds behind all the children.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever course of action we take, we must do everything possible to discourage people from sending vulnerable young children on unaccompanied journeys through Africa, Asia and Europe?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All hon. Members will recognise that we see far too much tragedy in relation to children fleeing war-torn parts of the world. We need to do more in-country and we have to work upstream with our international partners.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I am more than happy to sit down with the hon. Lady and to talk through the specifics of that. Based on what I have heard, I am sure that we will be happy to work together on that.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to divert young people away from violent crime.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to divert young people away from violent crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)]

Diverting young people from crime is at the heart of my approach to tackling serious violence. Factors such as domestic abuse and substance abuse can make an individual vulnerable to becoming a victim or a perpetrator. I understand these communities; I was raised alongside kids like these and I will not leave them behind. That is why we are investing record amounts in early intervention schemes to steer even more children and young people away from serious violence.

[David T. C. Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he also investigate changing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow a recent conviction for carrying a knife or gun to be used as grounds by the police for carrying out a stop and search? Does he agree that this could divert larger numbers of people from crime?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue, which has also been raised by the police. I have asked officials for further advice on the matter. He might also be interested to know that just yesterday we announced changes to stop and search that would make it easier for police to deploy “no suspicion” stop and search powers to combat serious violence.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we did increase the immigration health surcharge. That was an important manifesto commitment that the Conservative party made to make sure that those who are using NHS services are also contributing to the NHS. The settled status scheme has deliberately been designed to be simple, not complicated. It is really important that EU citizens only have to prove their identity, prove their residence, and confirm that they do not have criminality. In the second phase of private beta testing, it has been very plain that the vast majority of people going through the scheme—in the region of 80% or so, I believe—have been able to confirm their residence of five years without any reference to additional information other than their records with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or their DWP records.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

As somebody who is married to an EU citizen, I think that these proposals are entirely fair and proportionate, and are in marked contrast to the outrageous scare stories that were put about by some people, in and out of this House, who are fanatical about remaining in the European Union.

[Caroline Nokes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that his wife will be going through the process very soon indeed. In fact, some of the best advocates for the simplicity of the EU settled status scheme have been those who have already gone through it, and we have had very positive feedback on the first two phases of testing.

Self-identification of Gender

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered proposals to allow self-identification of gender.

I thank you in advance for your chairmanship and guidance, Mr Hosie. Following our conversation earlier this morning, I am fully aware that this is a sensitive issue. I have concerns about self-identification of gender, but they are not in any way directed at anyone who is unfortunate enough to suffer from some form of gender dysphoria. I have met many trans women who share my concerns about this and want nothing to do with the kind of activism that seems to be going on and shutting down debate. The criticisms I have are of Government, Ministers and politically motivated organisations, many of which have access to public funds.

The law at the moment is that anyone who wishes to change their legal gender has to apply to the Gender Recognition Panel. They have to show a number of things, including that they have lived as their preferred gender for two years and have been diagnosed with some form of gender dysphoria. They also have to commit to living as their new gender for the rest of their life. One thing that they do not have to do is undergo any form of medical treatment or surgery. They do not even have to be taking any hormone pills. The vast majority of people who change gender maintain the body in which they are born. As far as I can find from the statistics, only one in five people who have changed gender have had any form of surgery. This is the cause of concern for many people.

Self-definition of gender is already happening. Organisations seem to be ahead of the law, which the Government may or may not be about to change. There is a particular concern about what is going on in schools with children. Guidance is being given to schools by publicly funded organisations such as Mermaids and others encouraging children to question their gender and redefine it if they wish. They can do so without their parents even being told about it. That can quickly set off a chain of events that can begin with children as young as 12 being given puberty blockers, about which there are many medical concerns. At least one doctor in my constituency has been giving these drugs out to children as young as 12. That can then progress on to hormone blockers, which have powerful and irreversible side effects. Once people start on that road, there is a danger that they may end up having more drastic and irreversible surgery, because once one is on that pathway, it becomes difficult to get off it.

Teachers who have tried to question what is going on or who have fallen foul of the activist groups are liable to find themselves being disciplined. A teacher called Joshua Sutcliffe was disciplined by a school in Oxford for committing the offence—a new one on me—of misgendering a group of pupils. He had apparently said, “Well done, girls”, after a maths exam, although one of the girls identified as a boy. For that, the teacher was disciplined.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

That incident happened in my community. I would like to point out that how the hon. Gentleman is portraying the incident is far simpler than the bigger issues surrounding it. It was not just a single incident; there were a number of incidents with that teacher, not only in that specific case but in other parts of the school. I remind him that these things are sometimes over-simplified. Does he agree that over-simplification of such a sensitive and complex issue sometimes is not helpful?

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Lady is right, but if I over-simplify, it is partly so that she can have a chance to speak. We have only 90 minutes, and this is the first time we have debated the issue properly in the House of Commons. I look forward to hearing her longer explanation.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to Parliament. It is such an important issue, and this is a great opportunity for us to have a respectful debate and discussion, but does he agree that as parliamentarians we have a duty not to over-simplify and to ensure that we properly educate ourselves to have an informed debate and discussion?

[David T. C. Davies]

Absolutely. That is why I have spent quite a lot of time talking to women who have concerns about the issue. Very few Members of Parliament have been willing to educate themselves and come along and meet people who have those concerns. It is notable that when we have had meetings in the House of Commons, very few people have turned up to listen to the concerns of activist feminist groups who feel that the potential change to the law will have a huge impact on their lives. I look forward to the hon. Lady’s support at future meetings we may have—we look forward to seeing her.

The Government are now considering legislation that would do away with the checks that are currently made and allow people to redefine themselves as any gender they wish. As far as I can see, that would mean that once the consultation has ended, if the Government do what the equal opportunities committee is recommending, people will be able to change their gender at any time. There would be no need to live outwardly as that gender, let alone to take hormones or have surgery. A 15-stone bearded man could simply define themselves as female and there would be nothing anyone could do to object. One might think that that does not matter—in fact, it does not, if that is what people want to do. I am a libertarian. I am a believer in freedom of choice. As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely fine, until it becomes an issue for other people and other people’s rights.

People who might outwardly appear to be male and possess a male body would, if they legally redefined their gender, suddenly gain access to women’s toilets, hospital wards, changing rooms, refuges and prisons. They would have the right to undertake roles that people would normally expect to be done by someone of the same sex as those the service is being offered to, such as nurses or carers conducting intimate procedures, prison or police officers carrying out searches or staff working in refuges for victims of domestic violence.

We saw an obvious example a few weeks ago of what can happen, and will happen more regularly, when a convicted male sex offender who had redefined himself as female was able to insist on his right to be put into a women’s prison. Within a matter of days, he had carried out four sexual assaults on women. Another example was given to me by someone who was the victim of long-term sexual abuse as a young person.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has cited a case and claimed that it proves that the Government should not change the law on gender recognition, yet that case, of which I do not know the detail, has happened under the current arrangements. Does that not actually point to a failure of risk assessment procedures, rather than a problem with the law?

[David T. C. Davies]

No, because as I said at the start, organisations such as prisons and schools are ahead of the law. They are already allowing self-identification of gender. There was certainly a failure of risk assessment with the case I mentioned. Shortly after it happened and the court case concluded, I asked the head of probation and prisons in Wales whether there had been any change to the guidance given to prison authorities about housing transgender prisoners, and I was told that there had not. I subsequently sought an urgent question about that, because, as I hope the hon. Lady would agree, it is appalling that vulnerable female prisoners, many of whom have been victims of male violence, are being put at risk in this fashion. It was not deemed important enough to be discussed in Parliament.

[Layla Moran]

The hon. Gentleman is gracious to give way to me for a second time. May I clarify whether his assertion is that prisons and schools are doing something illegal under the current Gender Recognition Act 2004?

[David T. C. Davies]

No, I have not asserted that at all. I have said that prisons and schools are allowing self-identification of gender at the moment. The law may well change shortly following the consultation, to give that a legal footing and to allow people to legally register their gender as being different from the one they are born with. The practicality is that that is already happening. I have made that point several times.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

Yes, but I am conscious that others may want to speak, and I do not want to use up all their time.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it seems strange to cite an example of a failure in the current system as a reason not to make improvements to the system? He mentioned women’s refuges. Linda Rodgers of Edinburgh Women’s Aid noted:

“The reality is that any service has the potential to be abused, and we would deal with that, whatever direction it came from on a case by case basis…I don’t think this should be used as a reason to restrict the rights of a particular group.”

Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that we should not make policy on the basis of the incidents he mentions or of some individuals who may abuse the system. It should be about equality and fairness for everybody.

[David T. C. Davies]

Absolutely, but the point I am making is reasonable: if people are legally able to redefine their gender, the prison authorities, for example, will not be able to prevent a male who has redefined their gender from going to a female prison. That is already happening and is bound to become a lot easier.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

Perhaps one last time. I will be guided by you, Mr Hosie.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

There is plenty of time.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman appears to argue that women prisoners need protection only from trans women. In fact, we need to protect all prisoners from a range of potential hazards, and such things should be applied on the basis of individual cases, not on the basis of someone’s gender identification. How can he argue that a risk assessment should not apply equally? It could apply to other women, not only to trans women.

[David T. C. Davies]

It could, but the reality is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by males against females. I am told that the figure is higher than 90%, and I believe that. On extraordinarily rare occasions, women assault males, but let us be honest, it is very unusual. If we allow people who have been convicted of sexual offences as males to redefine their gender and insist on their right to go into female prisons, we will clearly put women at risk. I do not see how anyone can fault the logic of that. We have already seen what can happen when that goes on.

The other example I want to give is of somebody who has been involved in speaking out on this issue. She has been a victim of long-term sexual abuse and was helped by a women’s organisation in the south of England. I will not go into the detail of what went on, but it was horrendous. She told me that there is absolutely no way she would have been able to access that service from anyone who was male, or have anything to do with that organisation if anyone male was there. She has subsequently been told that anyone who defines themselves as female will be able to use the service and be part of the group that helps women who have been victims of sexual abuse. Because of that, she would not have accessed that service today. There are many other women in the same situation.

My point is that even before any legislation has been passed, we are already seeing organisations such as schools, hospitals and prisons allowing people to define themselves as a different gender from the one that they were born with, and to which in the majority of cases their body corresponds. That has an impact on others, and particularly on the right of women to privacy and to sex-segregated spaces.

One issue that particularly concerns me is the lack of debate that has gone on. I am grateful for the fact that we are able to have this debate here today. Although groups in receipt of public funds, such as Mermaids, seem to have an open door to Government and Select Committees, anyone who expresses concern about this matter is ignored. PinkNews seems to have abandoned any pretence at objective reporting and vilifies women’s and lesbian groups that want to save sex-segregated spaces. Women’s rights activists who have met to discuss the impact of the changes have faced verbal and physical harassment. Those who have resisted, such as Venice Allan, have been subject to ludicrous, vexatious legal action and dragged into court to defend themselves for speaking freely about their concerns.

I arranged a meeting in Parliament for a women’s group after a venue in London, at Millwall football club, had been cancelled. Numerous complaints were made to the House of Commons authorities before the meeting, and I was called into a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms. As the Minister knows, I have been an MP for 13 years and, like most MPs, I have organised numerous meetings for numerous groups. I have never before had to go and spend an hour with the Serjeant at Arms explaining myself. I have no problem with the conversation that we had, but it is very unusual for that to happen.

I tried to organise another meeting afterwards. Again, I was contacted by the Serjeant at Arms’ office. After the meeting took place, numerous complaints were made, mostly vexatious, but they resulted in a three-month investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Again, I have no problem with that and with the conclusion that she reached, but such investigations are very unusual. I was even told by another Member of Parliament that I could face police action because of what had taken place, because of the potential that a public order offence had been committed. This matter is one for debate, such as the one we are having now. We have a right to discuss these issues. If people know that meetings will result in investigations and legal action against them, even if it amounts to nothing, they will obviously be far less inclined to hold them.

The Government, whom I support by and large, are proposing fundamental changes that will have a huge impact on people. That is being done without proper consideration and in an atmosphere of menace. Many people are deeply concerned by what is going on. I urge Ministers and members of the relevant Select Committees to listen to the concerns and to meet some of the groups that are concerned about what is going on, rather than ignoring them, which I am afraid is what happens at the moment. Some organisations seem to have an open door into the offices of Ministers of Government, but others—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head, but perhaps she can tell me how many times Ministers have met Transgender Trend or Woman’s Place and how many times they have met Mermaids or other pro-trans activist groups.

People should not face dismissal from their jobs for suggesting that a woman cannot have a penis. It may be an issue about which we can have different opinions, but it is certainly a debatable point at the very least. Nor should they face dismissal for the so-called offence of “misgendering”.

Women who want safe same-sex spaces are not transphobic and are not committing hate crimes. They are simply reflecting a concern for their own safety, which, as a man, I have to say is based on a valid fear for far too many. I hope the Government will stop listening to some of the activist organisations and start listening to people, very often outside the M25, who have a different opinion. I say to the Minister, with all due respect, that I have supported the Government through thick and thin, as she knows, often in difficult circumstances, but I will not support the Government on this issue. Not only will I not support them if they go ahead with what I think they are planning, but I will do my utmost, in so far as I can, to stop any changes in legislation going ahead that will undermine the safety of women and change our society in ways that are very concerning.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on securing this debate. Although we are perhaps on opposite sides on some of the issues, I agree absolutely that not enough debate has been had in this House on this matter.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate today, especially because it is Trans Awareness Week. Yesterday was the Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day when we are meant to remember the huge inequalities and the number of transgender people who have died over the years because of the oppression that they faced. I hope the Minister will join me today in solidarity with the community that over the past few months has had inordinate amounts of abuse hurled at it from all quarters. However, today is an opportunity to shed some light rather than heat on this debate, particularly on the issues that underpin some of that heat.

I want to place on the record my thanks to my Liberal Democrat colleague and friend, Helen Belcher, whom I have worked with closely on this matter. I also want to place it on the record that I am wholeheartedly behind the Government’s proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I believe that they are proportionate and well thought through. It is time that Britain caught up with many other countries around the world—a point I will come to later.

That said, I absolutely appreciate the sincerely held concerns of not just the hon. Gentleman but many other people, including constituents who have contacted me to say that they are worried about aspects of the proposals. My constituent Juliette said:

“I am frightened by the fact that women’s voices are being dismissed and silenced”.

My constituent Nicola wrote:

“It’s taken me several days to build up the courage to email you for fear of being labelled transphobic or hateful and believe me, I am not—I fully support the rights of the trans community to live their life without discrimination”.

It is a damning indictment on not just us, although we politicians need to take responsibility for shying away from what is a controversial and sensitive issue, but on the media, which I do not believe have treated the issue with fairness on either side. In today’s debate and moving forward, we need to try to bring the two sides together, because I do not think there is a conflict between being a feminist and believing in trans rights.

Since my election in 2017, I have ensured that Ministers are aware of my constituents’ views on both sides of the debate. I particularly thank the Minister’s colleague in the other place, Baroness Williams of Trafford, for taking the time to meet me to discuss the issues. I have not attended the meetings organised by the hon. Member for Monmouth simply because I have been listening to my constituents and working on the issue in other ways. I take slight offence at the insinuation that because I have not attended his meetings I do not care deeply about the issue and have not been engaging in the debate.

I appreciate that Ministers are considering responses to the public consultation, but it would be encouraging to hear from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking to reassure people who are worried about the reform, and what active myth-busting is occurring, or is planned, regarding the misconceptions. That will be the crux of my speech.

It is important to put self-identification and self-declaration in the context of the Equality Act 2010. If we understand what that legislation allows, we can then talk about how the law might be reformed or changed. The Act protects people from discrimination on the basis of sex and gender reassignment, and describes the exemptions that allow single-sex spaces. Under the Act, it is a legitimate aim to provide safe spaces for women, but it is not proportionate to exclude all trans women from those spaces simply because they are trans, which is an incredibly important point. Furthermore, the Act protects those who have undergone, are undergoing, or are proposing to undergo a process, or part of a process, of reassigning their gender.

It is probably worth mentioning the sorts of interventions and operations that some trans people choose not to have. First, that is their medical choice to make. Secondly, think for a moment of the extensive operations that would need to happen. Many trans people are put off simply because it is painful, and in some cases expensive. Sometimes they feel unable to have operations because only a certain number of licensed practitioners in the country are allowed to perform them. Some trans people prefer to go abroad to have them, but that is not recognised in this country. There are many complex reasons behind the 93% figure. The proposed reforms would go some way to removing some of those barriers.

[David T. C. Davies]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. May I bluntly ask her whether she would be happy sharing a changing room with somebody who was born male and had a male body?

[Layla Moran]

I believe that women are women, so if that person was a trans woman, I absolutely would. I just do not see the issue. As for whether they have a beard, which was one of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I dare say that some women have beards. There are all sorts of reasons why our bodies react differently to hormones. There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.

In essence, the Equality Act already works on the basis of self-declaration of gender, as it does for religion and sexuality. Coming back to the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about society being ahead of the Act, that is actually not the case; society is implementing the Act as it stands.

The concern voiced by some people that reforming the Gender Recognition Act to allow self-declaration would allow men into women’s spaces needs more discussion. Since my election, 12 constituents have contacted me on these issues, and that concern is a feature of all their correspondence. Other things come up, but that is the top concern. For example, Elizabeth says that she fears the

“risk of males choosing to change their legal gender in order to gain access to spaces and opportunities reserved for women”.

That is her main concern.

However, the Gender Recognition Act simply allows a trans person to change their birth certificate and have it reissued. It does not change what is in the Equality Act. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Monmouth did not want to take more interventions earlier, but my question to him would be: are we saying that we want to roll back the 2010 Act in the reforms? Allowing trans women into women-only spaces is provided for under that Act. If that is what is being questioned, it is a rolling back of the Act, and not a reform.

Let us think about what would happen if a man did self-declare as a woman using any of the gender recognition reform proposals, and then tried to enter a women-only space for nefarious purposes. This chap is so intent on doing that that he gets himself a new birth certificate. By the way, it is a fallacy that people can just say, “Oh, I’m going to decide this afternoon to change my gender.” Nothing in the reforms suggests that someone can just decide to do that on a whim one afternoon, or say, “In the morning I’m going to be a woman and in the afternoon I’m going to be a man,” or anything like that.

The proposed reforms are proportionate and considered. They are not knee-jerk and they understand that such decisions are some of the most personal that a human gets to make. It is about who they are and how they fundamentally identify. It is not something that people do lightly. However, let us say that someone did want to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

I absolutely agree. Our laws were groundbreaking when they were introduced in 2004, but our law on gender recognition now lags behind those of other countries. It disadvantages trans people on some very questionable grounds.

I am not sure on what basis the people who raise concerns about gender recognition feel that it is wrong. It is one of our values that there should be a level playing field in our society. Society is evolving and becoming more complex, and we are rightly recognising more intricate parts of it.

It is incumbent on us as British politicians to protect minority groups and understand the issues that they face. The reforms are a logical next step in our evolving understanding of a very small and vulnerable group of people in this country. Yes, many are children when they first start to discover the situation, but as a former teacher and as the Lib Dem education spokesperson, I believe that schools are doing their utmost to make children feel that it is okay to be different and have a space in which they can discuss the issues. To suggest that that extends to encouraging them to change their gender is a step too far for the role of schools.

I am pleased to support the reforms of the Gender Recognition Act, as well as maintaining my support for women-only services, which remain vital for many. The points made about violence against women and about the need to protect women from men who sexually abuse them are absolutely right, but being a feminist and being a supporter of trans rights are not in conflict; the two can absolutely sit together. We need to look at the evidence, not just about what the law currently says, but—

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Lady says that she supports women-only services. By “women-only”, does she mean anyone who defines themselves as a woman?

[Layla Moran]

The hon. Gentleman brings me on to my next sentence. I was about to say that trans women are women. Moreover, trans rights are human rights.

I am very grateful for today’s debate, because it has allowed some of us to broaden and deepen the debate and to start to set the record straight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for bringing the debate to the House. It is absolutely right to say that we need to have this discussion. It should have happened sooner—if it had, maybe the void that was created would not have been filled with such hostility.

As many Members have recognised, yesterday was the Transgender Day of Remembrance. I want to reflect on the 369 reported killings of trans and gender-diverse people—one was in the UK—between 1 October 2017 and September this year. I also want to reflect on the number of trans people who, as we have heard, have considered taking their own life, especially students.

It is important that what is discussed in the House is accurate and sensitive. I feel that some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Monmouth were not as sensitive as they could have been. We have to remember that people who are transitioning will be watching this debate, and that we are decision makers and lawmakers. They will be looking at how we address this issue.

[David T. C. Davies]

It certainly was not my intention to cause any offence to anyone who is trans or otherwise. Perhaps the hon. Lady will educate me a little by explaining which of my comments she thought was insensitive.

[Dawn Butler]

You made a comment about people who are “unfortunate enough” to suffer from gender dysphoria. That has very negative connotations, just as it used to be said that people were “unfortunate enough” to be gay, to be a woman or to be black. The way you speak was picked up in your talking about simplifying—

[Dawn Butler]

Sorry, Mr Hosie. The hon. Member for Monmouth simplified cases to sensationalise them, which is unnecessary for this kind of debate.

[David T. C. Davies]

It was not my intention to cause any offence to anyone who is trans; I have tried to make that clear throughout. My understanding is that gender dysphoria is a medical condition that must be diagnosed. I suggest that, if somebody has gender dysphoria and is unhappy with their gender, that might be an unfortunate situation to be in. By saying that, I am certainly not trying to undermine the rights of anyone who is transgender.

[Dawn Butler]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s comments will slightly reassure the transgender community. The UK’s legislation is so out of date that we are no longer considered a world leader on LGBT+ rights. We were once No. 1—right at the very top. We slipped to third, and we are fourth in this year’s rankings. The International Lesbian and Gay Association’s “Rainbow Europe index” report cites a surge in transphobic media coverage as the reason for our falling down that league table.

The Labour party has a proud record of championing equal rights, including LGBT+ rights. It was a Labour Government who brought in the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and who abolished section 28 and created civil partnerships. We need to recognise that LGBT+ people still face widespread discrimination, and it is clear that we must do more to enhance their rights and protections. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 is now out of date and needs amending. The issue is about changing sex and gender on birth certificates, and we should talk about the facts. Apart from birth certificates, it is already possible to change one’s name, title and gender marker on all UK identity documents. That has been working well for more than 40 years. In fact, most trans people do not want to go through the indignity of applying for a gender recognition certificate. The Government will have the support of Opposition Members to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

I will go through a few more facts. Deliberately making a false statutory declaration is a serious crime and is punishable by imprisonment. From the heartfelt contributions that we have heard, we know that changing one’s gender is not done lightly. Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not affect access to single-sex services and facilities, which has been made clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for securing this debate and enabling us to have this conversation about a very important area of our society in the 21st century. A lot of us are feeling our way in it.

I thank all hon. Members for the respectful tone in which they conducted the debate. I get asked about this issue regularly, and we all share a sense of sadness about the fact that this important debate sometimes gets taken over by loud and sometimes aggressive campaigning by activists. I am sure they hold their beliefs very strongly, but they perhaps lose sight of the fact that we have to be able to talk about this issue in a reasoned, respectful and caring fashion. The vast majority of the public—and, I am sure, parliamentarians—are in the middle. We want to talk about this issue in a caring and careful way so society gets to a position in which we are all comfortable with the consequences of the changes to legislation and so on.

There is perhaps a lack of understanding, so we need to help schools and the other organisations that have been mentioned to understand what the law is so they can apply it confidently in their services. I take that away not just from this debate but from the discussions we have more generally. We have tended to focus on trans women, but of course this debate also involves trans men, which I will deal with towards the end of my speech.

The consultation closed on 22 October. I hope that those who looked at it noted that the questions were very open. We deliberately tried not to lead people down a particular path because we wanted to ensure that we heard a range of views from as many people as possible to see how the current system is working. This debate is about self-identification, but no decisions have been made yet about what if any changes will be made to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The consultation was about seeking views, so people should not walk away with the idea that we have made up our mind. It is only a couple of weeks since the consultation closed, so no proposals have been put forward about self-identification or other ways in which we can deal with the Act.

The consultation ran for 16 weeks and received more than 100,000 responses, which shows the interest that this topic attracts. My hard-working civil servants are now analysing those responses. In response to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), we hope to have a Government response to the consultation ready in spring next year. She will appreciate that it takes a bit of time to work through 100,000 responses. We also want to ensure that we get the right response, in which we will set out the next steps.

The hon. Lady also asked about calls for evidence regarding intersex and non-binary people. We will publish the call for evidence shortly, and it will not cause delay to the response to the overall consultation. She also asked about the “Tell Us Once” service. Work is ongoing in the Government Equalities Office to deliver that commitment in the action plan.

The hon. Lady asked about trans people’s rights. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth for securing this debate, because it gives me the opportunity to say that there will be no loss of trans people’s rights. This is an open consultation to determine what the law should be and explore people’s thoughts about its application in the 21st century.

I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned that the views of women and women’s groups have not been heard in the consultation. I reassure him that the Government are committed to hearing from everyone, including the groups he mentioned. We do not want to close down the debate. We absolutely do not agree with those who seek to vilify the views of people who do not agree with them. I, for one, have been on the record for some time as having grave concerns about the development of things such as no-platforming in our universities. It seems to me that we should have the confidence to talk about this issue, to express our concerns, to ask questions and to do so in a way that is met with respect so our questions are answered.

[David T. C. Davies]

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), said that Labour fully supports debate. The Minister has just said the same. Do they both support local authorities—Conservative and Labour—in allowing groups such as Woman’s Place UK and Transgender Trend to hold meetings in local authority buildings?

[Victoria Atkins]

I take the view that we have the principle of freedom of speech. We should have a debate as long as it does not go beyond the legal markers delineating hate crime and so on. People are sometimes almost too scared to talk about things, which is not right. We do not want a climate of fear in the debate. We want people to be able to express their views respectfully and in a caring and careful manner, so that we ensure that questions are flushed out and answered.

The people whom my officials have met represent what I call the “rainbow full of views”—the spectrum of views on the topic. My officials have met women’s groups, those who run and administer refuges, domestic abuse charities, local government, LGBT groups, unions, service providers, transgender charities, Government Departments, European Governments, and organisations who campaign against reform of the Gender Recognition Act, including Fair Play For Women, Woman’s Place UK and Transgender Trend. They have also met feminist organisations that support reform of the GRA, because our priority with the consultation has been openness and listening.

As the Government consider the options, there are a couple of points I will make clear. Since the Gender Recognition Act came into force, transgender people have been able to acquire a new birth certificate matching the gender they live in. Experience has shown, however, that some do not use the process because they find it to be difficult and intrusive. They are therefore left with a birth certificate that does not reflect the gender in which they live their lives. Without a new birth certificate, transgender people are unable to marry in the gender in which they live their lives, and cannot claim their pensions at the age appropriate to that gender. Those who are a little older live with the worry that their death certificate might carry a name and a gender that have not applied to them for decades. That is one of many reasons for the consultation.

For a transgender person, changing their birth certificate requires them to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria; to obtain a second report from a medical professional detailing any medical treatment that they have had, such as hormone treatment or surgery; to sign a statutory declaration that they intend to live in their acquired gender until death; to provide proof of having lived for at least two years in their acquired gender; to pay a fee of £140; and, if they are married, to obtain the consent of their spouse. That documentation is sent to the Gender Recognition Panel, which is made up of legal and medical experts, and which makes a decision as to whether the person has fulfilled the requirements. If satisfied, the panel will issue a gender recognition certificate, which is used to obtain a new birth certificate. The transgender person never meets the panel that makes that decision about them.

When the UK Government introduced the 2004 Act, it was world leading, as the hon. Member for Brent Central mentioned. We feel that the time is right to ask whether it is still appropriate and whether it needs improving. We have head from 100,000 people and from colleagues across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

Of course, everyone who has concerns about this issue in any direction totally condemns any violence against anyone who is transsexual in any way. Those responsible for physical or verbal assaults, or any other kind of abuse, deserve to be punished with the full force of the law. I have never met anyone who disagrees with that proposition.

I say respectfully to the hon. Members for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that I have in fact tried to educate myself on the issue of violence against women over a number of years. In fact, I served on the Home Affairs Committee between about 2005 and 2010, when it brought out its reports on forced marriage and female genital mutilation, issues that I raised on many occasions in the House of Commons. I was glad when legislation was passed, especially on FGM, although I am disappointed that despite all the laws and fine words, there has still not been a single conviction for female genital mutilation—that probably wanders a little from the topic, but violence against women is an important issue.

On the consultation, I am not surprised that so many people seem to be in favour of changing the law. Mermaids, a publicly funded body, has published online a primer encouraging people to fill it out, which is not right.

The important thing—it comes down to this—is that if people believe a trans woman is a woman, then it is not possible to protect female sex-segregated spaces in the way that many campaigners would like. Many people do not accept the proposition that a trans woman is a woman. A trans woman is a trans woman, worthy of respect, absolutely deserving of protection under the law against discrimination, or physical or verbal assault, but not necessarily eligible to access single-sex areas.

Finally, I very much welcome the fact that on all sides at least lip service is given to the idea of debate. I hope the Minister sets an example by encouraging any local authorities that wish to in their areas to allow groups such as Woman’s Place to hold meetings, and by meeting with some of those groups. To the best of my knowledge, such meetings have not yet taken place, although I have certainly tried to facilitate them. I look forward to that happening in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered proposals to allow self-identification of gender.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Lady is right to talk about policing and the incredible work that the officers and staff do, but it is worth reminding the House that Labour planned to cut police spending by 5% to 10% had it won the 2015 election. Labour did promise an increase in 2017, but it was not enough, because we increased police funding by more than Labour promised—by £460 million. Labour went on to vote against that increase. Not a single Labour MP voted for an increase in police funding when they had the opportunity, so we will not take any lectures from Labour on policing.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to tackle knife crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

The Government are very concerned about increases in knife crime and its impact on victims, families and communities. The action we are taking is set out in our serious violence strategy and includes new legislation in the Offensive Weapons Bill; the community fund to support local initiatives; the #knifefree media campaign; and continuing police action under Operation Sceptre.

[David T. C. Davies]

The Minister knows that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 currently prevents the police from using past criminal convictions as grounds for determining whether a search is proportionate. Will she consider changing PACE so that people who are stopped for a legitimate reason and who are found to have a recent criminal conviction for carrying knives can actually be searched by a police officer?

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend brings his experience as a special constable to the Chamber, and I am grateful for his service. We are clear that stop and search is a vital policing tool, and we are committed to tackling knife crime. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act officers already have the power to search an individual they suspect to be carrying a knife. We therefore believe the current arrangements to be proportionate, but we will keep them under review and continue to work closely with the police to ensure they have the tools they need. I will be happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Backbench Business

David T C Davies Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the European Arrest Warrant.

Mr Evans, you will be aware that back in January this year, there was a debate on the issue of Brexit and security, and I was one of a number of Members of Parliament who raised concerns about the European arrest warrant. It is fair to say that people had widely different opinions, but I gleaned that a number shared my concerns, and I went before the Backbench Business Committee to ask if we could discuss the matter. The Committee was very kind and gave its approval, on the basis that quite a few people might want to speak.

Unfortunately, since then I have been rather overtaken by events, and there are not quite as many speakers here as I initially expected—it’s a strange old thing, politics. However, quite a few Members of the House have feelings one way or another about this issue. We have known each other a long time, Mr Evans, and frankly, I could string out what I have to say for an hour or so, but there are one or two other people here who want to speak, so I will not do that. As a result, I suspect this may be a shorter debate than we originally expected.

The European arrest warrant was brought in following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, to ensure the safety of the public by enabling countries to swiftly bring criminals to justice within the EAW area. I would be the first person to acknowledge that criminals cross borders and that we need a system that enables us to bring them to justice if they flee overseas. The principle of the European arrest warrant marked a huge step forward from the days when parts of Spain were known as the Costa del Crime, with serious criminals living quite openly in the sun and avoiding justice.

I spent nine years as a special constable in London. During that time, I arrested quite a number of people, mainly for less serious, low-level offences. A high proportion of those people were foreign nationals. In general, as a proponent of law and order, I am instinctively supportive of the principle of a European arrest warrant. It is very efficient, and I wonder whether it is sometimes too efficient. Once the arrest warrant has been submitted by a country that is part of the scheme, it is almost certain that the individual named on the warrant will be extradited to the country that has issued it.

That is fine, and it is what was intended, but there is one obvious problem: in order for the European arrest warrant to be seen as fair, it is imperative that the standards of justice in all the countries signed up to it are of an equally high level. If that is not the case, it is irrefutable that we pay a price for judicial convenience. The price will be paid through an erosion of our own legal protections. That is a key point that I want to make to the Minister, and I would like him to hold that thought for a moment and try to answer this question. Does he accept that for the EAW to be fair, we must have equitable standards of justice in all the nations that are taking part? I suggest that we cannot be confident that standards of justice in all member states meet the standards we would accept in the UK.

Over the last 10 years or so—including while I served on the Home Affairs Committee, chaired at the time by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—I have visited various countries in Europe, through the police scheme and more recently through the Council of Europe. Overall, I have no doubt that standards are very high indeed. I have been a couple of times to Germany and the Netherlands and have been out on patrol with the police officers there. I have been into their detention centres. I must admit that in some instances, I thought the standards were rather too high, considering the people involved, but that is a subject for another debate. I am not suggesting that there are low standards across Europe—far from it. However, it is a slightly mixed picture.

There was a very high-profile case that resulted in a book, which Members may have seen. It involved Andrew Symeou, who is from Wales. He was extradited to Greece and spent time in prison there, facing 20 years for a murder he did not commit, following a completely unacceptable investigation against him. I recommend the book for more details about that. He was unable to avoid extradition and spending time in a Greek prison because, as I said earlier, once the EAW is triggered against a British citizen, a British court has almost no choice but to carry it through.

About three years ago I visited Greece with the Council of Europe. Among other things, I went into a police station in Athens that was being used to house foreign nationals—essentially, people who had committed immigration offences. I entered an area that was little more than half the size of the hall we are in now, and there were about 20 people in there. They were housed in there with little chance to get out and have exercise and no natural light at all; the conditions were absolutely appalling. I was told that they were being kept in there for up to a year, for immigration offences.

I am not soft on these things. I have spoken out many times in favour and support of strong controls on immigration and ensuring that the rules are followed, but I thought those were completely unacceptable conditions in which to keep people. I said so to the police officers who were with me, and privately they said they absolutely agreed; that is why they were showing me and an official from the Council of Europe those horrendous conditions. They said, “We want you to tell people about this, because we don’t think it’s right either.” In fact, some of the people in that cell asked if I could help them to be moved into a Greek prison. When people are asking to be put into a Greek prison because the conditions they are in are so bad, something is very wrong indeed.

Those conditions would be totally unacceptable in any sort of British institution or a police station. However, as things stand, a Greek court could issue a European arrest warrant against a British citizen without any standard of evidence that would be acceptable in the UK, and that citizen could be thrown into the kind of facility that I visited. The case of Andrew Symeou proves that I am not making a hypothetical statement; that situation has already happened.

Greece is not the only country about which I and many others have concerns. In Portugal there was the case of Garry Mann, who was arrested, tried and convicted within 48 hours for allegedly taking part in a riot. He had not in fact been involved. He was released, but there was subsequently a demand, which I think came through a separate court, for him to return to Portugal and serve a two-year sentence. He was not even provided with the basic facilities that we would take for granted—for example, the interpretation facilities that are standard throughout Britain, or having a lawyer; he was given access to a lawyer five minutes before his trial began.

In Italy there was the case of Edmond Arapi, detailed on the Fair Trials website. He was convicted of murder in his absence in 2006, even though at the time of the murder, he was working in a restaurant in Staffordshire. There were numerous witnesses to say that, and the court seemed to accept that on the day he was nowhere near the country in question. The murder was supposed to have taken place in Italy, but he was working in the UK, and yet he went through years of hell and faced a strong possibility that he would be extradited to Italy to serve a 16-year sentence. Italy, of course, is one of the wealthier countries in the European Union and one where we might expect higher standards to apply.

It is, however, Bulgaria and Romania that I think deserve much greater scrutiny. On this, I am at one with the European Commission, which is scrutinising those countries and has put them on to a monitoring procedure. I have copies here of the most recent reports on Bulgaria and Romania, which are widely available online, and I will sum up some of what is in them. Bulgaria has been subject to the European Commission’s co-operation and verification mechanism, and the Commission has said that the country’s justice system is failing in a number of areas.

On judicial reform, Bulgaria’s Supreme Judicial Council, which is tasked with ensuring the independence of the judiciary, is mired in in-fighting over allegations of a lack of objectivity, political interference and undue external influence. The report says that there has been

“little progress in establishing fairness and transparency”

of the council’s decisions, and that there still needs to be a

“broader commitment of all state actors to judicial independence”.

The report goes on to say that

“criminal procedures in Bulgaria continue to present serious problems for the effective prosecution of complex cases”,

and that corruption remains a “significant challenge”, extending from the local level up to high-ranking officials. Those are the European Commission’s words, and one could read a lot into “significant challenge”.

There is a similar situation in Romania. The Commission stated that judicial reform and corruption are still a cause for concern. The process of selection of candidates for the employment of senior judges and prosecutors does not allow for a clear, open and transparent procedure, and there have been allegations of political appointees.

Romanian prison conditions are a persistent issue, with assurances that have been given to the British Government on the poor treatment of extradited prisoners being breached. I have not been into one of the prisons. Recently, there was the death in custody of an elderly Romanian newspaper owner, Dan Adamescu, who had been critical of the Government in his newspaper. He was denied medical treatment after falling ill, in a process that was described by the former President of Romania as judicial murder. That should be setting alarm bells ringing for the authorities here in the UK.

There are several ongoing cases at the moment, which I will not mention, that involve European arrest warrants being issued against people who are either British or living in Britain and facing extradition to Romania. I think people will watch those cases very carefully. We have a situation in which The Guardian, the New Statesman, the Freedom Association and the Henry Jackson Society all agree with each other that what is going on at the moment in Romania is unacceptable. When we get four bodies and publications such as those in agreement on something, it is time to take notice.

If it transpires that under the current scheme the British Government are unable to ensure that British residents who have not been found guilty of any crime cannot be guaranteed British standards of justice, I respectfully suggest to the Minister that we will have a moral imperative to use Brexit to draft a new European arrest warrant system that will continue to allow people to be extradited if we are confident that standards of justice in the countries they are being extradited to match ours, but will recognise the importance of protecting the legal rights of British citizens and ensure that such rights are upheld at all times wherever citizens face criminal charges. That is all I want to say; I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). We are taking part in a very important debate. He may have lamented the fact that there are so few Members here, but it is the quality of the debate that counts. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and I may be regarded as usual suspects at debates such as this, but the Minister and shadow Minister have to be here.

The hon. Member for Monmouth was missed on the Home Affairs Committee when I was chairing it. He went on to chair his own Committee with great distinction. I hope he will continue to do that in the next Parliament. He has raised an important subject. I fully support the concept behind the European arrest warrant. It was right that the previous Labour Government signed up to it. It was a mechanism by which those who had been responsible for criminal offences in one country could almost immediately be transported without question to another country, so the concept and the principle are right. The hon. Member for Monmouth gave examples of the Costa del Crime, as it was sometimes referred to in Spain, where people ran away to hide from the authorities in this country.

However, what I have seen in the operation of the European arrest warrant is that the current capacity of the warrant still causes concern, because in certain cases—the hon Gentleman has talked about some; I will refer to others—it tramples on the rights of individuals. I accept the important principle of the European arrest warrant, which is an integral part of our involvement in the European Union, which, as we know, will come to an end by 19 March 2019, if not sooner. It is a part of our being involved in the justice and home affairs agenda of the European Union.

The Minister has a task when he returns. I hope he will again return to the same post after the next election, because he has done the job extremely well in the time that he has been the Minister for Policing, although we still do not have a police funding formula, but we will leave that to another debate. The measures are complicated and they need to be dealt with carefully. We need the arrest warrant to be a critical part of our negotiations with the EU.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Monmouth, who is one of Parliament’s leading Brexiteers, did not put the issue at the forefront of his speech, because, if we come out of the European Union, as we will—the people have voted for us to come out—we will also have to come out of the European arrest warrant, unless a great deal is done by the Minister or the Home Secretary to ensure we remain a part of it. That is why this debate is so important. It sets a strategy as to what we expect Ministers to do. If they come to an arrangement whereby we remain part of the EAW—I do not know how they will do that under the current arrangements—and if we do a deal that gives us the benefits of the EAW, the problems with it, as eloquently set out by the hon. Gentleman, need to be addressed.

Of course there are benefits from the European arrest warrant. It enables us to track down criminals. In London, 28% of those arrested are foreign nationals, half of whom are EU nationals. We therefore commend the success of the European arrest warrant so far. When the shadow Minister for Policing comes to speak in this debate—I have heard her speak on this subject in the Chamber, and she made one of the best speeches that I have seen her give—I am sure she will tell us of all the successes, as will the Minister. However, the problem is that it is a disproportionate measure at the moment. The United Kingdom receives disproportionately more warrants than it issues. Not only does that undermine the credibility of the system, but it is extremely costly to the taxpayer.

In 2015—the Minister might have more accurate or up-to-date figures—the United Kingdom issued 228 requests for arrest to other EU member states. In that same year, 12,613 requests were sent by EU member states to the United Kingdom. Between 2009 and 2016, 55,838 requests were sent to the United Kingdom; 10,532 arrests were made in the United Kingdom; and 7,436 surrenders were made here. However, in that period 2009 to 2016, the United Kingdom sent only 1,424 requests; 916 arrests were made on our behalf; and only 800 surrenders were made to us. That therefore points to the disproportionate nature of the way in which the European arrest warrant has operated. That is why this is such a good opportunity for the Government to be able to negotiate a better deal with the European Union. I hope this will be very much a part of what is going to happen when we look at the justice and home affairs agenda.

The hon. Member for Monmouth gave us examples of individuals and miscarriages of justice. Deborah Dark, a British woman, was pursued across Europe because of an EAW issued by France, although she had been cleared of drug charges years previously. Other cases include that of Michael Turner and Jason McGoldrick, who were extradited under a European arrest warrant in 2009. These men were ably supported by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) after being imprisoned in Hungary without trial in a process that continued for eight years.

There are other examples, but my point is that, if we have reached a situation in which the warrant is used against citizens conducting their lawful business because of mistakes in other countries, that really affects them. It is no good the other country’s apologising at the end and saying “I am sorry; we got the wrong person,” or “We should never have arrested this individual.” The fact is that that damage remains with the individuals for years to come. Edmond Arapi, an Albanian chef, was arrested while arriving at Gatwick airport in June 2009. An EAW had been issued after he was tried and convicted in his absence by a court in Genoa for carrying out a murder in Italy. He was to face a sentence of 16 years in prison. He possessed documentary evidence to prove his innocence but he was held in Wandsworth prison for two weeks before being granted bail. He was subjected to 12 court appearances before the Italian court admitted that it had sought the arrest of the wrong person, following a brief check of Mr Arapi’s fingerprints. That is a classic example of where the EAW has gone wrong.

[David T. C. Davies]

I agree with the points the right hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that another problem is that British nationals who are extradited to countries in the EAW area cannot get bail because they do not habitually reside in those countries? They are denied a right that would be almost automatic in the UK.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Because of the different jurisdictions, legislation and applications of law in those countries, it is extremely difficult. The people who really benefit from the European arrest warrant are the highly paid lawyers—I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister, and I have never done an extradition case—who do well partly out of the uncertainty that people face. When they are told they are about to be arrested, obviously they seek legal advice. They may have to pay a huge amount of money and may in the end not even face charges.

What the issue boils down to is that the automatic transmission of people is the problem—the lack of a test allowing the courts in this country to look carefully at what is happening. I know, although I have not seen his speech, that in replying the Minister will definitely and correctly claim credit for the fact that, when she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister introduced a bar that had to be reached before people could be extradited. There is no doubt that a court test is now applied, but it is not high enough and it does not give the protection required.

The hon. Member for Monmouth does a terrific job in his official capacity as a special constable—it is one of my dreams that one day on the tube I will meet him in his full regalia. He has visited places in the EAW area and says that some of them have better detention facilities than ours. I cannot believe that, because we are the best in the world, and I am extremely jealous to think that any other country’s detention facilities are better.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I had better gently point out that I was asked to resign a year or so ago because the rules had changed and the British Transport police decided they did not want a serving Member of Parliament as a special constable, so we shall not be meeting on the tube in that capacity.

[Keith Vaz]

That is a huge loss to British policing. I will not say it is because of the cuts, because obviously there was an ethical issue, but the hon. Gentleman will be missed, and I hope there will be an opportunity for Parliament to acknowledge his great success. We must put up a plaque or something to recognise his great achievement. He will be sorely missed by British policing and we will look carefully at the next set of crime figures to see whether they have gone up as a result of his retirement.

I have one final point—I hope the Minister will cover it because there is time—about foreign national offenders, including some in our prisons and some subject to the European arrest warrant. I cannot understand why that great invention that allows people to be transferred immediately before they have been convicted of any offence has prevented the European Union from taking back its own nationals from our prisons. The latest figures show that there are 4,217 EU offenders in the UK, costing £169 million a year to the British taxpayer. The top three countries are Poland, with 983, Ireland with 764 and Romania with 635. The EAW is a device by which nationals can be removed immediately, without any restraint, subject to the limited bar that the Prime Minister introduced when she was Home Secretary, but all those foreign national offenders are sitting in our prisons and cannot be removed to other countries, although they cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will tell us what is happening, and that it will be that there is light at the end of the tunnel with respect to offenders and those who have been arrested.

Unlike other Members present for the debate—I know that the Chair is impartial, so we will not mention how he voted—I did not see many opportunities in Brexit, but in the present instance we have a big opportunity to go into the negotiations and iron out the problems. I am for keeping the principle of the European arrest warrant, but we should iron out the difficulties that obviously exist, so that we can reassure parliamentary colleagues, many of whom have raised the matter of the EAW in the past, that, post-March 2019, we will have a good system that recognises the need to arrest criminals, but that also recognises the rights of people who have committed no offence and who, under the present process are, in all innocence, being arrested. Let us keep the benefits and reduce the burdens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not have those figures with me, but I will get them and write to the right hon. Gentleman before Parliament dissolves. I will ensure we get those to him and the hon. Member for West Ham over the next few days, so that they have a record.

When extraditing people from the United Kingdom, it is important to ensure that the conditions in which they will be held respect their human rights. That touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in his reference to prisons—I am sure we would all like to see them and it sounded interesting. The UK works closely with member states to ensure that, when concerns arise, appropriate assurances are given to ensure that we are able to protect individuals’ rights. On occasion it is correct to say that evidence suggests that member states would not meet the standards expected of them. If a judge is not satisfied that extradition is compatible with human rights, whether because of prison conditions or other reasons, they must, and indeed do, refuse the application for extradition. That is an important protection afforded to individuals who would otherwise be extradited from the UK to EU member states or other countries.

A swift and fair extradition system is an important element of our UK law enforcement. It protects the UK by ensuring that potentially dangerous criminals are extradited, including those who are wanted for murder, rape, trafficking or child sex offences. It likewise enables us to have alleged UK offenders swiftly returned to face justice here at home, which is why police forces and law enforcement authorities throughout the country value the European arrest warrant. Respected law enforcement professionals have publicly highlighted that it is a cost-efficient and quick system compared with the available alternatives, and that it is seen as a vital crime-fighting tool.

When we think about co-operation tools such as the European arrest warrant, it is important to keep in mind the threats we face. The perpetrators of crime and terrorism do not respect borders. The threat they pose is becoming increasingly transnational—the borders and lines we draw mean nothing to them. We know that international organised crime groups exploit vulnerabilities such as inadequate law enforcement and criminal justice structures. Furthermore, in a technologically interconnected world, threats such as cybercrime and online child sexual exploitation are international by definition. When I have been with police forces looking at this work, I have seen at first hand how quickly and easily people can move around the world online. We need the ability to deal with crime globally.

In the face of these common threats, it is difficult to see how it would be in anyone’s interest for our departure from the EU to result in a reduction in the effectiveness of security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. In debates in the main Chamber over the last few months, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have been clear that we want, and believe it is right, to deliver what the British people voted for last year. We will leave the European Union, but nobody voted to be less safe. Our job as the British Government is to continue to ensure that our public, our residents and indeed our friends and partners around Europe remain safe.

[David T. C. Davies]

I do not disagree with anything the Minister says, but does he believe that the standards of justice applied in all countries that have the European arrest warrant match the standards that we would apply in the United Kingdom?

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not profess to be an expert on the justice system of every European state. That is why it is important, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East outlined, to have a high bar in this country to ensure that cases meet the standards that we would require and, more to the point, that our judges—our independent judiciary—would look for.

That leads me neatly to my next point, which is about what happens next for law enforcement and the European arrest warrant as we leave the European Union. Leaving the EU will of course mean that our relationship with it will have to change. We are now examining the mechanisms currently in place to support practical co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism, to help to identify potential options for working with our EU partners in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

May I add my thanks to you for how you have chaired this debate, Mr Evans? In closing, let me briefly say that there is a surprising amount of agreement in the Chamber, considering that we are on the verge of what I suspect will be a rather fiery election campaign. Representatives of various different political parties have spoken in agreement with the general principle, but with concern that human rights should be adhered to. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald)—my old friend, if I may put it that way—the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and the Minister. We have an opportunity to make some changes—if the right hon. Member for Leicester East is right, we have an obligation and will have no choice.

I absolutely support the principle that anyone who has committed a crime—whether they are a UK national who has committed a crime abroad or a foreign national who has committed a crime in the UK—has to face justice. I absolutely accept that we live in an age where terrorism is sadly an ever-present threat, and we need to be able to protect ourselves. I also think we have a duty to balance the protections we all need with protections for human rights. I am not absolutely convinced that we have the balance right at the moment.

I would press the Minister on this: I noticed that he was unable to say clearly whether he believed that the standards of justice in all the countries that are part of the European arrest warrant match the standards that apply in the UK. He may not be able to say what he thinks about that, but the European Commission has said that in two instances—Bulgaria and Romania—it is not satisfied with the standards of justice that apply there. Various MPs have given different examples and different cases, some involving those countries and some not, which back up that contention.

All I would say in closing is that it is important that we get the balance right. I very much hope that the Minister will be back. I hope he continues in some capacity to use his expertise of Home Office matters to develop a new partnership with the European Union that will protect the safety and the human rights of UK residents.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the European Arrest Warrant.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are three main issues on which the Opposition seek answers this afternoon: our ability to participate in the common arrest warrant; our future relationship with Europol; and our access to Europe-wide crime prevention databases, including the Schengen information system.

I will come to each of those things in turn, but first there is a general point to be made. As many in the House remember, our optimal relationship with the European Union in the field of security and justice was comprehensively debated during the previous Parliament. We opted out of all provisions relating to police and criminal justice so that we could have a fresh debate about which initiatives we wanted to be part of, and then opt into them again. That initiative was negotiated with European member states by the previous Labour Government and continued by the subsequent coalition. The process consisted of two years of negotiation and debate in this House, in government and in Brussels, and it culminated in Britain deciding to opt back in to 35 specific measures that we considered to be in our national interest.

Those measures included the European arrest warrant, Europol and access to the Schengen information system—the three things that I am concerned about today. I know that our Prime Minister is also concerned about them because it was she, as Home Secretary, who put it to the House on 7 April 2014 that we should opt back into the measures. It is so nice to have confidence that there will be unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon on this oft-contentious subject. However, the opt-in happened before the referendum, and now, in this post-referendum world, the Government need to tell us how they will ensure that we still have access to those measures, which we so recently decided that we needed to keep our citizens safe.

We do not have time today to rehearse the two years of debate that led to a decision to co-operate in each of the 35 areas that we decided to opt back into, so I will focus on our main concerns. There is no doubt that the European arrest warrant is a crucial tool in the fight against crime in the UK. Introduced in 2004, it provides a mechanism whereby crime suspects who have left the country—fugitives—can be surrendered back to the UK automatically by another European member state. It means that suspects who have fled can be returned in a matter of weeks or days. Crucially, it means that suspects can be returned to the UK even if the legal basis for the crime that they are suspected of committing is different from that under the law that applies in the country to which they have fled. That is because the European arrest warrant is underpinned by the principle that European Union countries agree to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems, even if they differ.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I think that the hon. Lady has just made the point that I wanted to raise, which is that that principle means that we have to accept that justice systems across the rest of the EU are as good as ours. Does she have confidence that that is the case?

[Lyn Brown]

I have confidence that the European arrest warrant is far more powerful than any other extradition process anywhere in the world, and we would be stupid if we let it go.

Since the European arrest warrant was introduced in 2004, the UK has used it to bring 2,500 individuals from outside the UK to face justice. Let us not forget that it was the mechanism that ensured that Hussain Osman was brought to justice after he fled to Italy after a failed suicide bombing in London in 2005. The problem that we face is that the European arrest warrant is available exclusively to EU members. We will have to overcome considerable hurdles if we are to maintain the current arrangements and we are not in the European Union. In fact, as a recent briefing from the Centre for European Reform think-tank states, if, having left the EU, the UK wanted to get a similar deal,

“it would need to convince its partners to change their constitutions. In some cases, this would trigger a referendum.”

Do we really think that countries would hold such a referendum because we have decided to leave the EU?

Some countries outside the European Union have attempted to negotiate access to the common arrest warrant system. Norway and Iceland, for example, have concluded a surrender agreement with the EU that represents an attempt to get the same benefits, although it has not yet come into force. That agreement is weaker in two ways. First, it requires the alleged offences to be the same in both countries, thus losing the flexibility that comes from the agreement of member states to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems. Secondly, it allows countries to refuse to surrender their own nationals, which would make things tricky if a national of an EU country were to commit an offence on UK soil, for example.

On top of that—as if that were not bad enough—the agreement took 15 years to negotiate, and that was for countries in both Schengen and the European economic area, but as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, there are no plans for us to be members of either. The alternative is that we fall back on previous extradition treaties that are far more cumbersome and will, in some cases, require EU countries to change their own laws in respect of the UK.

It is hard to see how any of those options are preferable to the current arrangements. I find it particularly hard to understand how this fits with the Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to “work together more” in response to threats to our common security. While it is not difficult for an individual who has broken the law in Britain to hop on a cheap flight to another European country, I fear that it will be very hard indeed, without the European arrest warrant, for us to get them back again. For that reason, Labour calls on the Government to ensure that the current arrangements are maintained.

I turn to our second concern. This House approved regulations confirming our opt-in to Europol only a few weeks ago, and we did that because it is vital to our national security. Europol—the European Police Office, to give it its proper title—exists to combat serious international organised crime by means of co-operation between the relevant authorities of member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, borders and financial policing. As we know, Europol is not able to mandate national forces to undertake investigations, but it provides information and resources that enable national investigations to take place.

In the words of the British director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, whose previous career was in UK security institutions, our decision to opt into Europol is:

“Good for Britain’s security, great for police cooperation in Europe.”

Indeed, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service confirmed on 12 December during a debate in a European Committee that Europol provides

“a vital tool in helping UK law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigations involving cross-border serious and organised crime”.

He also said:

“About 40% of everything that Europol does is linked to work that is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 12 December 2016; c. 5-7.]

However, when pushed about whether we can maintain our membership of Europol, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, speaking in this House last year, was able to say only that the Government will seek to:

“preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 45.]

When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked him the same question about Europol yesterday, we got no more information about how that could be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). She is a distinguished, practical lawyer, and I agree with her on some of the practical issues that arise, to which I shall return in a moment.

I endorse the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in relation to our mutual situation—we both fought to remain in the EU, but, having lost, we both accept the verdict of the people. I also endorse his comments commending the Prime Minister for her realistic, practical and determined approach to this issue and on the importance of our NATO relationships. He is much more of an expert on those than I, but I endorse what he said, although I add one thing: we must not only strengthen our NATO relationships but maintain the best possible relationships with our colleagues who happen to be members of both the EU and NATO, not least our nearest neighbour, France, the other great military power of Europe. It is a nuclear power, a significant military power and a member of the UN Security Council. I am sure the Minister, being the diligent Minister he is, will gently remind his ministerial colleagues that we have a long history with France and were actually on the same side in the second world war.

That said, let me return to the specific issue of law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. That has concerned me during my years at the criminal Bar and is also an issue on which the Justice Committee took evidence only in the last week or so—and we shall publish our report soon.

Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, I do not expect the Minister to reveal the mechanism by which we achieve our objectives, because we are at the beginning of a process. The Prime Minister was right to set out the plan, and I expect there will be a lot more detail that we will have to think about. In my short contribution I want to flag up some of the issues that I hope the Minister and his colleagues will bear in mind when we look at the negotiations and how we put the plan into reality.

The Minister of State at the Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), started by talking about the importance of the European arrest warrant. That is recognised by the Prime Minister. She is right that we must do all that is necessary to remain within the European arrest warrant, which involves some compromises. As for the purity of any break, I personally would be prepared to make some compromises, as I would in relation to other matters, to achieve the practical objective of keeping our country safe. They are critical. As I said to the Minister of State, many of these issues are not about our domestically determined criminal law being overweened or supervened by some international system. These are matters of practical co-operation, tracking down suspects and arresting them, the exchange of information and the enforcement of court judgments to everybody’s mutual advantage.

All member states of the European Union have varying degrees of approach to their criminal justice systems. Ours is particularly different because of our common law system, of which we are immensely proud, but that does not mean—I hope people would never suspect that it does—that the systems of other European member states should automatically be regarded as inferior to ours. Some of us in this country are occasionally a bit too sniffy about the quality of the justice systems of other European member states. I have no hesitation whatever in commending the integrity of the justice systems of France, Germany, Italy and many others, as I would in respect of Scotland, Ireland or Northern Ireland, for that matter.

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend is making some good points, but would he concur, given that we are fellow members of the Council of Europe, that some of the prison systems that he and I have probably both visited simply do not come up to British standards? I would mention Greece in particular.

[Robert Neill]

I thought that that issue might be raised, and I was going to say that that does not alter the importance of criminal justice co-operation and, secondly, that where this has been relevant as a criticism of the arrest warrant in the past—in the Symeou case, for example—that is essentially history. What is not often sufficiently recognised are the very important amendments made to the European arrest warrant in 2014. We heard evidence from both the criminal lawyers society and the Criminal Bar Association, who strongly concurred that the amendments of 2014 had removed the risks that had put the unfortunate Mr Symeou in his position.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I think that, in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, it was recognised that something had to be done to speed up extradition processes and reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved. That, in addition to the fact that some career criminals seemed to be using countries such as Spain—the so-called Costa del Crime—as a permanent home, meant that I was happy to give the then Government the benefit of the doubt. I have always supported the principle of a European arrest warrant, and we have heard many important speeches in support of it today. However, although I do not disagree with the principle of what has been said, it cannot be denied that there are cases that have given rise to concern.

The European extradition warrant makes the assumption that standards of justice are the same in all EU countries, that standards in prisons are the same, and that bail conditions will be the same as well. In short, it assumes that human rights are respected in exactly the same way throughout the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, said that he had no doubt that standards of justice in Germany and France were exactly the same as they are in the UK, and I do not really have any doubt about that either, but I do have concerns about the overall standards of justice in other parts of the European Union.

Some of the cases that concern me have already been mentioned briefly. There was the case of Andrew Symeou, who spent nearly a year in prison, having been denied bail, because he was not a Greek resident. In other words, he was extradited because he was a European, but was unable to get bail because he was not actually Greek. He served time in some pretty awful places. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I are members of the Council of Europe. I do not know what visits my hon. Friend has made, but I have certainly seen a Greek detention centre, and, having served as a special constable, I would say that the conditions were illegal under any European rules and regulations.

We were shown a room that was probably not much more than a quarter of the size of the Chamber. It contained 30 or 40 people who were being held in those conditions for up to a year for various immigration infractions, and who, as far as I could tell, were given very little time out. That was totally unacceptable. It would have been unacceptable to hold anyone in conditions like that for 48 hours in a UK police station. It comes to something when people are actually begging to be sent to a Greek prison because their existing conditions are so bad.

There was the case of Gary Mann, who was tried for and convicted of an affray-type offence within 48 hours of being arrested. He had not, in fact, been involved. He was released, but there was subsequently a demand for him to return to Portugal to serve a two-year sentence. He was not given access to facilities that we take for granted, such as translation facilities, which are extremely important.

There have been other such cases. There was, for instance, the case of Edmond Arapi, about which I read on the Fair Trials International website and of which I had not been aware before. Apparently he was convicted of murder in his absence, despite the fact that at the time the murder in question took place he was working, or studying, in the United Kingdom. There were numerous witnesses to say that he had been in the UK on the day and nowhere near the country in which the murder was supposed to have taken place, yet he went through years of hell because of the strong possibility that he would be extradited to Italy to serve, I think, a 19-year sentence.

It could at least be said that, in those instances, the motivation was to reduce crime and to deal with straightforward criminality, even if we think that the standards applied were simply not good enough. Other cases are now beginning to emerge that have a more worrying motivation, and I want to pay particular attention to what the Romanian Government are doing at the moment. They have indicated that they may serve an arrest warrant against an award-winning Sky journalist, Stuart Ramsay, and his team, who put together a documentary about gun-running in Romania which the Romanian Government did not like. I do not know whether the claims made were accurate, but he is an award-winning Sky journalist and I have no reason to doubt them. If Governments do not like journalists’ stories about them, they have the right to rebut them, but it is simply unacceptable for Governments to start issuing arrest and judicial proceedings against journalists who have upset them. That would never be acceptable in this country.

There is another ongoing case that I find particularly worrying: the extradition warrant served against Alexander Adamescu, also by the Romanian Government. He is becoming a bit of a cause célèbre at present. His father runs a newspaper in Romania which has been highly critical of the Romanian Government. The Romanian Prime Minister at the time said he was corrupt and had him arrested, and he was found guilty in a short space of time. There are all sorts of reasons why one might question the court case but it is not really for me to do so here. The point is that when his son, who is a UK resident and an aspiring playwright, filed charges against the Romanian Government, he was served with an EAW and was arrested on the streets of London on his way to speak to the Frontline Club about the importance of journalistic freedoms. There was also an attempt to kidnap his wife by masked men, which still has not properly been dealt with, and nobody has been found.

These are very worrying cases as they give rise to the concern that, rather than trying to have people arrested to resolve criminality, some Governments—on the basis of those two cases the Romanian Government are one that worries me—seem to be using the EAW to send out a message that anyone who questions them or tries to hold them to account will run the risk of being taken off the streets of the country in which they are resident, arrested and sent back to Romania or elsewhere for trial.

[Sir William Cash]

There is another problem that the European Scrutiny Committee has looked at in the past, when we had the Fair Trials team in to give us evidence: some of the judges are politically appointed.

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

I have listened with great interest to what has been said in this debate. I was of course a supporter of Brexit, but that in no way means I oppose the EAW or the principles behind it.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the EAW has benefited some of our constituents? Four days before Christmas a father in my constituency was reunited with his son who had been abducted and taken to Poland. He was recovered on the issuing of an EAW.

[David T. C. Davies]

I do not deny that for one moment; the EAW has led to some very important results for us, where we have had terrorists and other serious criminals either extradited out of or back to the UK. As my hon. Friend knows, I served as a special constable for eight or nine years, so there is no question but that I will always support any Government in wanting to bring about stricter measures against criminality. But the issue here is that there is a price to be paid, and we pay it in the human rights of citizens in our own country. If we are prepared to allow countries which apply a lower standard of justice, of fairness in court, or of access to bail to extradite our citizens or residents of this country in order to keep the bureaucracy running smoothly, everyone who is living in this country is paying a price in terms of their human rights in order to reduce bureaucracy and improve an extradition procedure. We need to think very carefully about that price.

Brexit offers us an opportunity. I have no problem with the countries my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned—Germany or France—or indeed many other European countries, but if it becomes the case that some countries are not giving people bail, are holding them in pre-trial detention for an unacceptable length of time, or are using the EAW as a means to silence criticism of them through the press, it is absolutely right that we use Brexit as an opportunity to renegotiate the whole system, and to work with countries that apply our systems of justice but to state with the utmost respect that we are unwilling to sacrifice the human rights of people such as Alexander Adamescu in order to maintain membership of the EAW. I hope that a Justice Minister will meet me to discuss this case on a subsequent occasion.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

David T C Davies Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I want to say a huge thank you to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) for introducing this Bill. Four years after the signing of the Istanbul convention we are here today to try to push the Government to ratify. That is long overdue,

I want to say, too—I intend to say a few uncharacteristic things—that I know how much the Government care about this issue. Long before I was elected to this place I worked very closely with Home Office officials, some of whom I know are here today. I worked with the Home Office under the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, for years, and I never saw anything that led me to believe they had anything but commitment to improving legislation in the area of domestic violence and sexual violence. In practical terms, when things had to be delivered—that costs money and falls under the Department for Communities and Local Government’s auspices—things did tend to break down. But in legislative terms, the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the measures against coercive control and other steps let me know that there was that commitment, regardless of all the things that divide us—and, my gosh, I could talk out a debate on how many things divide us, but I like to sleep at night and was raised properly.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

May I also put on record my support for this Bill, and for what the hon. Lady is saying? Does she agree that it is not enough just to pass legislation? We must also enforce it, which has been somewhat lacking over the last few years?

[Jess Phillips]

I entirely agree. What we tend to do in this building is pave the way with great intentions and great legislation—we have some of the best legislation on domestic violence in the world—but then open an enormous door into an empty room. It is very difficult for our police forces to enforce certain issues. That is not because they do not have the legislative framework; it because of a whole series of other reasons.

We all have to work together, a bit like yesterday in the social care statement, in every conversation in this place about the NHS. We need to work together to make this happen. I hope those on the Conservative Benches do not take offence at what I am about to say, but in a spirit of total pragmatism I would dance with the devil to make women and children safer; I will do anything.

I came to this place to bang my fists on this side of the table, because I got sick of banging them on the other side. I know the Government care about this, and I know that if they were perhaps not distracted by other things the ratification of the Istanbul convention would probably have easily passed. I say to those on the Conservative Benches that the stumbling blocks over compulsory personal, social, health and economic education and talking to young people about consent and the ratification of the Istanbul convention are a real threat to what is not a bad record in this area; it is a pretty good record. But the record on the allocation of funding needs a lot of work—all the refuges in my constituency are threatened at present.

If I was not here and had not won my seat, I would today be surrounded by piles and piles of presents given by the local community to the refuge. My desk used to become like a fort, and we would have to organise parties to get the presents wrapped, in order to give out thousands and thousands of gifts to the women and children who lived in the refuge every year. We would always throw a party. It might not seem like it to those who have never worked in the field, but it was one of the happiest times of the year. One of the reasons it was so happy was that everybody—the chief executive of the organisation, the commissioner from the council, the cleaner in the refuge, the children in the refuge—rolled up their sleeves to achieve something together. We would all make the sausage rolls, and the women would be running in and out of their flats with plates of different food, so that we could all spend Christmas together knowing that there is a huge amount of solidarity in the world for victims of domestic violence.

One of the main underpinnings of the Istanbul convention is the idea that we all work together—that we need multiple agencies genuinely working together across the world to improve things for victims of domestic violence.

Calais Children and Immigration Act

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman closely reads section 67, the Dubs amendment, as it makes it quite clear that it applies to refugee children? The reason why we are choosing these particular nationalities is that they are more likely to qualify for refugee status. He also talks about vulnerability. That is why we are addressing the issue of younger children. Indeed, we go further to make it clear that we must work with local authorities and, I am pleased to say, the devolved Governments around the country, to ensure that the capacity is there. This is all in the Dubs amendment, which is why we are discharging that amendment within not only the letter of the law, but the spirit as well.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

In order to ensure that we are helping the most vulnerable children, can the Minister tell us whether those 300 who are coming over or have come over have undergone a proper age assessment and, if so, whether the results of that will be made available to Members of this House?

[Mr Goodwill]

The more than 300 children who have arrived since 10 October include 60 girls. Two hundred of those children would qualify under Dublin, of whom half have been reunited with family members here in the UK, and the other 100 would be Dubs children. Of the further children being transferred, a greater proportion will be Dubs children. When the children arrive at the assessment centre in Croydon or elsewhere, they will be assessed for age. There will have been an initial assessment based on appearance and demeanour, but if necessary a further age assessment can be undertaken using a Merton compliant process, a well-established process that social workers are used to using. Two social workers would have to refer a child for that process.

Police Officer Safety

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman should check his facts and have a look at what I said earlier. What I said was I do not read The Mirror and I have not read it today. That is not quite what he was saying. He is right, however, that people who commit an offence of any description against an officer should be feeling the full force of the law. That is why I am working with colleagues across other Departments. We have sentencing guidelines, and an offence against a police officer is an aggravating factor. Even with the sentencing of youths, the fact that it is an offence against a police officer is taken into account. The difference in the sentencing systems does not mean that such issues are not taken into account.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all Members of Parliament who have any concerns about police being attacked have a responsibility not to address organisations that claim that there is a problem with police brutality, as some Members of the Opposition Front Bench have done?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has front-line experience of what police deal with every day, and I congratulate him and everybody who takes on these roles both in that capacity and any other. That goes to the heart of why the changes I announced earlier today are so important. I told the Police Federation what I would do when I first met it just a few months ago, and I am delighted that we will be able to deliver on that. It will give us the information and the certainty the police need and want.

I have been impressed by the speed at which policing has taken the lead in driving the police transformation fund, which provided £23 million for transformation work in August and £13.8 million in October. It is right that the sector takes ownership of law enforcement transformation, shaping the needs of the future. The fund provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform policing through direct investment into a wide range of projects from body-worn cameras to workforce diversity to increasing digitalisation and technology.

As I have said, the Home Office does not believe it runs policing—nor should it. It is for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, working together in the interests of policing as a whole, to lead and implement the next stage of police reform. The Government will continue to provide support to the police, doing what only we can, such as making the important change I have announced today. We will look to police leaders to play their full part in keeping the police, as well as the public whom we all serve, safe. That is why I ask the House to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin). I think I speak for the whole House when I say that that was a truly outstanding maiden speech, and done in the best traditions of the House. Thinking back to my maiden speech, I wish could have made it as well and as competently as that.

I also ought to say that the hon. Lady showed a massive amount of dignity in the election campaign she fought—not just in the campaign itself, but particularly at the count, when she faced some deeply unpleasant barracking during her speech, which she should not have had to experience. She should probably get used to that in this place, but she certainly should not have had to put up with it then.

Having listened to the hon. Lady’s speech, it is fair to say that Jo Cox could not have hoped for a better successor, and I am sure the people of Batley and Spen feel that they could not have hoped for a better successor to Jo Cox. She clearly is going to be a rising star on the Labour Benches, and somebody the Conservative party will have to watch out for in years to come. I commend her on an excellent first speech.

This is a very important subject for me. I asked for a debate on assaults on police officers in business questions a few months ago, and on the back of that I wrote an article on the issue for the Yorkshire Post. Therefore, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has done a fantastic amount of work on the issue—I commend her wholeheartedly—has persuaded her party to have a debate on it, and I commend the Labour party for that.

I have to say right from the outset that I am rather sad that the Government have tabled an amendment to the Labour party motion; it seems to be rather splitting hairs, if I may say so. This was an opportunity for the House to speak as one on police assaults. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed not to cut police funding any further, but I do not really see why they could not have supported the motion. Therefore, if we do divide on this issue, I will happily vote for the Labour party motion, because I cannot see anything in it with which I disagree.

I should also say at the start that I actually voted against any cuts to the police budget every year when cuts were proposed, because I believe that the first duty of the Government is to protect the public, and the police budget was not the budget the Government should have been cutting. I therefore endorse everything that the Labour party has said on this issue.

Like the hon. Member for Halifax, I have spent an awful lot of days going out with West Yorkshire police—about 60 or 70 since I first got elected. I have the greatest respect for the officers and the sacrifices they make on a daily basis keeping us safe. One of the most serious consequences of being a police officer is the threat of personal injury, or actual injury, and occasionally worse, in the line of duty.

As has been mentioned, the recording of assaults is not necessarily uniform, and is clearly a bit haphazard. The charging procedure also makes it difficult to follow through on the number of assaults that there actually are. An assault on a police officer will be charged as an assault on a police officer only if it meets certain criteria; otherwise, it could be charged as another violence against the person offence, even though the facts show that the victim was a police officer.

I put in a freedom of information request about two months ago to the Metropolitan police, which showed that there have been broadly 2,000 assaults on police officers in the Metropolitan police area every year for the last three years. When we take those in which injury occurred, there seems to have been an increase from 536 in 2013 to a worrying 869 in 2015, and that is just in London. The figures also show that the most serious incidents—wounding or grievous bodily harm—have increased from 81 in 2013 to 211 in 2015. I have been trying to establish the relevant number in West Yorkshire but have not had as much joy. I have also been wondering whether there should be a specific offence of assaulting a police officer that would cover all assaults and not just some. The name of the offence could encapsulate all offences against police officers. This would certainly make identifying the numbers involved easier, so at least we would know the true picture.

Crucial in this is sentencing. My biggest concern is that while we want to get the numbers right, it is also very important to make sure that the sentencing of such offenders matches the seriousness of the offence. I called for a debate on this not long ago. Again, having one offence could help, but whatever happens, we need tougher sentences. The sentencing guidelines relating to assaulting a police officer were amended a few years ago. We should all be concerned about those guidelines. At the time, I was told that someone who committed an assault on a police officer that involved a punch to the stomach that winded the officer, where there was an attempt to evade arrest, and where the individual had previous convictions, could in theory be punished only with a fine. I was concerned about that then and I am concerned about it now.

[David T. C. Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

Yes, briefly.

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend and I have spent probably 10 years calling for tougher sentences and often being rubbished and criticised by Members in various parts of this House. Is he surprised that so many people are now calling for tougher sentences and saying that prison works and offers a deterrent?

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted that people are calling for more people to be sent to prison. I have been arguing that case for an awfully long time, and I am delighted that I seem to be getting some traction on it.

The problem with the sentencing guidelines is just the tip of the iceberg. I have asked parliamentary questions about this for a while, and have been shocked to find out that only one in seven criminals convicted of an assault on a police constable in the execution of their duty received a prison sentence at all. In the latest year shown in the figures, 7,829 assaults on police officers were recorded as being dealt with in our courts where the offender pleaded guilty or was found guilty, and yet only 1,002 of the offenders were actually sent to prison. That is completely and utterly unacceptable.

Other parliamentary questions I have asked revealed that someone with an astonishing 36 previous convictions for assaulting a police officer managed to avoid being sent to prison for a further assault on a police officer.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate, and I am glad that the Opposition have secured it. I spent nine years as a special constable, during which time I was assaulted—once in a police station, of all places, although not by another police officer. I echo many of the comments that have been made by Members from all parts of the House.

I am particularly keen on sentencing. It is fantastic that Members from all parts of the House are saying firmly that they want stronger sentences for people who commit assaults on police officers. I have stood here many times over a decade or more, as a Government Member and an Opposition Member, and argued that prison works, prison is effective, prison keeps people safe and prison acts as a deterrent. Many times, I have been intervened on by Opposition Members—and, sometimes, by Government Members—who have told me otherwise. There seems to be a strong consensus here, however, and I thoroughly support that.

I thoroughly support the use of Tasers. At the moment, all police officers are equipped with pepper spray or CS gas, as was the case when I started, and a long, retractable stick of metal called an ASP, which is basically a long baton. The problem is that the baton has to be used quite close up, and there is a risk of causing a severe injury by striking somebody in any way with a baton. Police officers are trained to use a baton against the legs and arms, but that is difficult to do in the sorts of situations where those batons are pulled out. The advantage of Tasers is that people can stand 10 or 15 feet away and point it. The vast majority of times when a Taser is used, all the police officer has to do is to draw it and draw to the potential offender’s notice the fact that there is a red dot on their chest. The potential offender will very often desist from whatever they are doing and comply with the instructions they are given, without receiving any injury at all.

When I was a special, there was at one point a debate about the possibility of police officers being armed. I felt that I would never be able to do the job if I was armed with a firearm. I simply could not do that. I have the utmost respect for the highly trained officers who do, but the decision to use it is not something that I would ever want on my conscience. Using a Taser is something else. It is a far less offensive weapon than the retractable iron bar with which all police officers are equipped.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but he will be aware of a case earlier this year in Telford where the footballer Dalian Atkinson was killed in an incident. We do not know all the circumstances, and generally I support the use of Tasers, but does the hon. Gentleman not think that that case should give us pause for thought before we go for a major roll-out?

[David T. C. Davies]

It should. We could go into the details of why people sometimes die as a result of Taser use, and it is very rare for that to happen, but that should certainly give us pause for thought. If the alternative is a police officer waving around an iron bar, which could easily strike somebody on the head and similarly injure them very badly or kill them, we have to look at what is the lesser of two evils. For me, the use of Tasers is the lesser of two evils.

I want to go quickly through a couple of other points. I, too, support the use of body cameras. They will enable people to see the problems that police officers face and help to bring more people to justice. I worry, however, that some people may see them as another way of being able to criticise the police. It is very important that people understand two things. First, police officers are under stress when they are threatened by a large group telling them, “We’re going to kill you. We’re going to attack you now.” That has happened to me and, frankly, it creates a certain amount of fear. I could not have admitted that at the time, but it does. Police officers cannot get away from the threat in front of them, and one of the ways they deal with it is to become quite aggressive in their language, and certainly in their gestures and sometimes in their behaviour. People must understand that when they look at camera footage. Secondly, it is a fact that when police officers have finished dealing with such a situation, they sometimes go back into the station and make comments or use language that some people, taking that out of context, may feel is inappropriate. We will have to be grown up and understand that when we look at camera footage.

I worry that the use of cameras by protesters at demonstrations is quite often a means to criticise the police very unfairly. For example, I have seen pictures in national newspapers of police officers looking very fierce and holding up an ASP as though ready to strike somebody. They are doing that because that is what they are trained to do. By the time a police officer has to draw a retractable baton, they are expected to behave in an aggressive fashion. There is no point waving it gently around saying, “Excuse me, sir, would you mind going home now?” By the time that thing is out, people must realise that the police officer means business, and they very often do so. I am worried about the way in which such cameras are used.

I will not be able to sum it up in one minute and 20 seconds, but there is a wider issue, which is the need to consider the whole way in which the police force is structured. It seems to me that we take everyone and train them to be out on the streets, but we can give them only two days training a year in how to use handcuffs, restraints, batons and all the rest of it, which is not enough for those who are going to end up in conflict situations.

I can absolutely say from bitter and true experience—most officers would reflect this—that all the stuff taught during those two days in the gym soon goes out of the window. It all looks very good in training, but once it happens for real, there is just a mass of arms and legs and batons and heavens knows what flying around all over the place, and it does not look good. Yet many police officers frankly do not need to be put in such situations. Those who deal with cybercrime need to be IT experts; they do not need to be able to run after people and catch them. Those who deal with financial crimes need to be accountants. Even those dealing with and investigating serious crimes need to have a lawyer’s mind, rather than be able to run 100 metres in 10 seconds. I sometimes think that we could look at the different jobs being done in the police force and consider whether we need police officers to have all the skills that we currently require them to have. I will not have enough time to go into further details, but I want to say one more thing. It behoves us all as Members of Parliament to support the police, not to pander to groups or organisations that are there to criticise them.