Immigration Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend the Minister set out how many individuals had been deprived of their citizenship on non-conducive grounds, so not using this power, since 2006, and it was 27. It is not possible to know in advance, but we are talking about very small numbers. We are talking about people who conduct themselves in a way that is seriously prejudicial to our national interests. It is a small number of people, but it is a small number of people who mean to do us serious harm, but whom we are not able to prosecute.

This is a proportionate use of the Home Secretary’s power. It is reviewable by the independent judiciary, so there is a check and balance in place. We have to ask ourselves whether we want to leave ourselves open to this vulnerability, exposed by the Supreme Court. We are, as I said, only putting the law back to what it was before 2002. I do not think that any of the scenarios set out by Members happened before 2002. I urge Members to disagree with the Lords in their amendment and to put amendments (a) and (b) on the statute book when we vote this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call anyone else to speak, let me say that we have a very short time in this part of the debate, so I urge Members to be brief in consideration of their colleagues.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I will be brief. I spoke in 1997 in the debate on the formation of SIAC, and I was wrong. I thought that the changes that were being made from the previous system were sufficient to protect people who are accused of terrorism. I reminded the House then that the previous arrangements had been used against not just people who wanted to blow up our country but journalists and others such as Mark Hosenball. One reason why we need to have a publicly accountable system, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), is that, without it, there cannot be a guarantee that a Home Secretary will not end up doing the same again.

I said in the debate about the formation of SIAC that transparency is the most effective protection against terrorism. I am really concerned that this arrangement not only risks creating statelessness but depends on a grossly untransparent system. I think that we should adopt the route that the Lords has offered us: yes, it is kicking the can down the road, but it is stopping and thinking so that the can is not mashed, thus destroying the reputation of our country.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 18.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014. The Ayes were 313 and the Noes were 205, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Before Clause 60

Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking in human beings

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 1 to 5.

Lords amendment 6, and manuscript amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 7, and manuscript amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 8, and manuscript amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 9 to 15 and 17.

Lords amendment 19, and manuscript amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 20 to 23 and 25 to 36.

[James Brokenshire]

This group covers the remaining aspects of the Bill. I will focus on Lords amendments 16 and 24 at the outset, which, as has been highlighted, infringe financial privilege.

Lords amendments 16 and 24 require the appointment of a guardian to represent the interests of children when there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are the victims of cross-border trafficking. The Government wholeheartedly share the noble Lords’ intention to protect and support that incredibly vulnerable group of children. Supporting victims, including children, is at the heart of everything that we are seeking to achieve through the draft Modern Slavery Bill. That Bill aims to tackle the appalling crimes of human trafficking, slavery, forced labour and domestic servitude. Those crimes are quite separate from the matters that are dealt with in the Immigration Bill. In our judgment, it would be wrong and unhelpful to conflate the two.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the Attorney-General wishes to speak, he will find the right time to do so. It is not up to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to decide when that should be, and it should certainly not be in the middle of a speech by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

[Mr Straw]

I am sure that the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton have had discussions about this, but for the avoidance of doubt, it does not lie in my mouth to suggest that the Attorney-General’s advice to Ministers should be made public. [Interruption.] And I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that I do not think there are good reasons to make that advice public. We are all entitled to legal professional privilege, including Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

I have a number of amendments in this string. I wish to speak to amendments 56 and 57, which relate to immigration detention. Amendments 2 to 5 and 58 are around the best interests of children. Amendment 61 is a sunset clause, which relates to legal aid. Amendment 60 relates to the use of force. I want to make a couple of remarks relating to Opposition amendment 1 and to speak against new clause 15 and Government new clause 18. I can hear Members groaning that I will be speaking for absolutely ages. They will be amazed because I can be remarkably quick.

Amendments 56 and 57 seek to impose some kind of challenge and limit on detention. The UK detains more people under immigration powers than almost any other country in Europe. Only Greece detains more, but it tends to detain people only for very short periods of time as they come to the border. In fact, we are unique in detaining people indefinitely. That experience of indefinite detention causes profound stress to the individuals concerned, many of whom suffer from mental health difficulties as a result of the journey that they made to get here, and many exhibit profound mental health difficulties during their period in detention.

Furthermore, in many cases, we have no chance of removing the people whom we have in detention to a third country. Often, people are left languishing in detention for extended periods because we are unable to move them to the country of their origin either because it is not safe to do so or because we cannot obtain travel papers. We have been repeatedly criticised for the number of people we detain and for the length of the period for which we detain them. Indeed, the detained fast track system seems to be largely used for administrative purposes. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Chamber has suddenly got very noisy. The hon. Lady is making important points, and other Members should do her and the House the courtesy of listening. If conversations have to take place, there are plenty of places outwith the Chamber in which those conversations can occur.

[Sarah Teather]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The detained fast-track scheme seems to be a process largely of detaining people for administrative ease, often for extended periods, despite its name. It is as if we file people until we want to move them somewhere else and they end up being treated like blocks of paper rather than individual human beings.

--- Later in debate ---

We had a great deal of debate earlier about foreign national prisoners, but clause 14 applies to all article 8 claims and not just to the deportation of foreign national prisoners—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady is not talking about new clause 14 at this stage, because it comes in the next but one group of amendments. She may refer to it, but she must stick to this group of amendments.

[Sarah Teather]

I am trying to explain why I have tabled my amendments to the clause, as amendments 2 to 5 relate directly to clause 14, as do my other amendments. I cannot explain them without referring to clause 14 to clarify, I am afraid.

A lot of people might be under a misapprehension, as regards the redrafting of what is in the public interest, that the measure will only apply to a very small group of foreign national prisoners. My point is that it will apply to anybody who attempts to make an article 8 appeal.

Let me make a point about new clause 15 that follows on directly from those points. It seeks to move things in the opposite direction from the proposals I have been trying to make. I find it slightly astonishing that any hon. Member would put their name to something that states that it is okay to cause serious harm to children, to cause manifest harm to children and to cause overwhelming harm to children, and that it is only not okay to cause manifest and overwhelming harm to children. Indeed, it has to be the child of the particular individual concerned and it is otherwise fine to cause manifest and overwhelming harm to any child. I am absolutely astonished that hon. Members think that that is okay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

That is exactly the point. The Bill effectively gives all immigration officers retrospective freedom against any Act that has previously come into force, any power that immigration officers have and any future power that they have to use force to do what they want to do. Given the problems that we have already seen in making sure that contractors and immigration officers follow best practice, know what they are doing and are properly trained, how on earth the Home Office will be able to devise a training programme to cover every possible power that immigration officers have is beyond me.

I dare say that in most things that immigration officers can do, the reasonable force that is appropriate will be zero. Will the Home Office issue guidance for every possible power that an immigration officer has? I go back to the point I made earlier. The Bill goes against the agreement that we made in relation to treatment of children and families that we would end child detention. The agreement was much wider, I hasten to add, than families being kept in Yarl’s Wood. It was about working with children and families and the extent to which force would be used throughout the process. The power in schedule 1 is very worrying, and there has been no press scrutiny of it.

Labour amendment 1 would remove the provisions in the Bill that limit the right of appeal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Lady comes on to her next point, the House appreciates that she has many important points to make and that this is a large group of amendments and new clauses. Her speech is perfectly in order, but now that she has spoken for more than 20 minutes, she might consider drawing her remarks to a conclusion. She might not be aware that I have had notice that at least 14 other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and time is limited.

[Sarah Teather]

I do not have many other points to make.

I want to make a point about amendment 1 that has not been made. There has been a great deal of guff about the Bill being focused on restricting the rights of appeal of people who do play by the rules. It is important to stress that the restrictions on appeal in the Bill are exactly for those who do play by the rules. They are for people who come here to work and for family purposes. When taken together with the changes that make it more difficult to get a spousal visa, it is hard not to see this as an attack on family life. An administrative review is simply not equivalent to an appeal. An organisation such as the Home Office cannot be expected to challenge itself. I would be grateful if the Home Secretary addressed the point that I made in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) about the anomaly with respect to administrative review and appeal when applying for variation in leave.

--- Later in debate ---

I am, frankly, aghast that my party has been willing to sign up to new clause 18. If a Division is called on it, I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in the No Lobby. It is difficult for any Liberal Democrat to support such a measure, especially as the safeguards that the Home Secretary talked about will be set out nowhere in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting that, but I am delighted to be called so early in the debate.

This is a rotten Bill made all the more rotten by some of these appalling amendments. We are in this position because the Government are in an appalling race to the bottom with the UK Independence party—this is all about seeing who can be toughest on immigration. I have to say to the Home Secretary, “You’re not gonnae win that one—forget about it. You cannot out-UKIP UKIP. They are the masters of nasty, pernicious populism, and you’ll never beat them.” It is a credit to the Government that they will not be able to beat UKIP on such issues but, by God, with this Bill and their amendments, they are having a good stab at it. I expect the right hon. Lady to lose that particular battle.

The Government’s stated aim through the Bill is to make the UK a more hostile environment for illegal immigrants. Well done Home Secretary; you have certainly achieved that with fantastic aplomb. The job of these right-wing immigration Bills is to do two simple, straightforward things: stop people coming in; and kick out as many people we do not like as we can at the same time. The Bill manages to achieve both those objectives, and the addition of the Government’s amendments and new clauses means that it will be done even more thoroughly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a great interest in these matters—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am going to give the hon. Gentleman the protection of the Chair on that question, which he does not have to answer, because we are beginning to stray a little—not far—from the point in question.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I do not need your protection when it comes to these issues. All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should turn up to next week’s debate on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom so that can discuss them further.

I will bring my remarks to a close. What we are seeing today is a dreadful Bill being made even worse. We will vote against it on Third Reading, although I do not think that we will get much of a debate on Third Reading. It is a terrible Bill, and this has been an awful process. It makes me ashamed that we are still part of all this. I just long for the day when we will have a Government in Scotland who do not spend all this time exercising themselves, as this Government do, over immigration, EU exit and all the nasty and pernicious things they are doing because of UKIP. It might as well be Nigel Farage standing at the Dispatch Box. Why do we not just get him in, because he has the whole House dancing to a UKIP jig? That is what we will see right up to the end of this Parliament: Nigel Farage pulling all the strings of Conservative Front Benchers. They might as well have him at the Dispatch Box, because this is nothing other than a UKIP Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my notice that my name is on the list of those supporting the new clause and amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I would like to make it clear that I have not spoken to my hon. Friend, nor given him my written consent to be named on his amendments. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get my name excised from the record, and will you look into tightening up the rules, such as by requiring a Member’s written consent before names are added to amendments in future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which he made with his usual eloquence. It is now on the record that his name should not have been on the amendment paper today as a supporter of that new clause and amendment. I should tell him that it is quite normal for the Table Office to accept a list of names as supporters of an amendment, but it would appear that a mistake was made in this case. I will ensure that the House authorities take all steps that they can to amend the record, so that his name does not appear as a supporter of the new clause and amendment. He has been most effective in making his point of order in front of the whole House so that it is obvious that he is not a supporter of them.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not aware of whether my name is attached to that new clause, but it was certainly not my intention or instruction to put my name down. Is there any way of clarifying the names attached to the new clause to see whether there have been any additional mistakes?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the simple method of clarification is to look at the list, which is on the amendment paper. I will not take up the time of the House by checking whether his name is on it, but he might wish to do so himself.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to help the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), may I point out that he is not on the list? However, there are amendment papers all around the building, and to be honest, he could do his own homework.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

My point was that I did not know about my name at that point, although I could check. However, how can I check to see whether all the names on the amendment paper are correct?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will not take up the time of the House in this important and short debate by discussing the composition of the amendment paper. It is in order and not a point of debate.

[Chris Bryant]

It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) although I would like to correct him on a few details. Although Palmerston thought that Don Pacifico was undoubtedly a British citizen, merely because of his birth in Gibraltar, that would not necessarily apply today in the same way because he was actually a Portuguese Jew who therefore had more than one nationality at the time. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point applies reliably to the debate.

I entirely agree with everything the Home Secretary said about sham marriages. They are a real problem and in certain places in the country—most notably around London and the west midlands—there is a real issue to be tackled. I warmly commend Ministers who have taken the right actions in the Bill to deal with that. I am concerned, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said earlier, about the business of removing people’s citizenship, not least because the way the proposal has been drafted gives a phenomenal degree of Executive power to the Secretary of State. I worry about that, as do several other Members, including the hon. Members for North East Somerset and for Brent Central (Sarah Teather).

Two years ago I remember going to the deportation centre at Heathrow and seeing a young man whose state we do not know. He refuses to say where he is from because he thinks he will be deported to that place. He had then been in that deportation centre for four years because for him, that half life in a sort of prison was better than the danger of being deported back somewhere. Some think the best way of dealing with the problem of deporting foreign criminals involves measures to change the rules on article 8. The biggest problem lies not with that, however, but with an awful lot of people who get to this country and instantly abandon their paperwork, either because that is what they intended to do from the beginning, or because they are from countries to which we simply cannot deport people. Again, I commend those Ministers who have worked—as Labour Ministers did in the previous Government—to try to ensure that people will not be subject to torture if they are returned to their country of origin, and that they will have a fair trial and so on There are, however, many countries around the world where such things still do not apply, and those cases make up the largest number of people, let alone those whose paperwork has been lost by the Home Office—also a substantial number. Of course I want foreign criminals to be deported and sent back to their country of origin, but I also want their human rights to be protected. I still believe in the right to a fair trial and am opposed to torture. I believe in all the things we have signed up to as a country. Let us not pretend that the Bill will sort out the bigger problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give guidance to the House on whether there is any prospect of the next group of amendments, including those on European immigration and access to services, being discussed, debated and voted on today?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a point of order. The way in which the debate progresses is up to the Members present in the Chamber and how long they speak for, as long as they speak in order. I will allow them to speak as long as they speak to the point in question and as long as they are in order. If hon. Members wish to speak for a very long time and deprive their colleagues of the opportunity to speak likewise, that is up to them. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that some Members of this House have a tendency to keep the floor when they have it.

[Mr Brazier]

I shall be mindful of your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I intend to follow the comments on the rule of law made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in a moment, but may I first say that a number of Members have used the opportunity of the Report stage to attack the principles behind the Bill? This is an excellent Bill that addresses very real public concerns. I understand and share the concern that the amendments on deprivation of citizenship were tabled at the very last moment. Nevertheless, we must address the crisis of hundreds—some responsible sources suggest it might extend to thousands—of young men going abroad to be trained in terrorist activities. There is a tradition, which goes back to the dawn of time, of countries depriving people of citizenship where they engage in actively hostile military acts. Clearly, the wording needs tightening up, but it would require considerable discretion by the Executive—albeit exercised within a narrow definition of “hostile acts”—because it might not be possible to put some of the material before a court.

Mostly, I want to address new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). Time is short and others want to speak, so I will not produce any more of the heartrending cases, some of which he touched on. I noticed, looking around, that Members in all parts of the House found some of those cases intensely difficult to listen to. The characteristically thoughtful speech by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) touched on another such case—one that I have heard him mention in the House before.

UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As will be obvious to the House, a large number of Members wish to contribute in this short debate. I have therefore imposed a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have very little time remaining. Members who have not been here for the whole debate have sought to intervene, and the time given to each Member who speaks is increased with each intervention, so those who have waited all afternoon to speak will not have a chance to do so. The hon. Gentleman may make his intervention, but the hon. Lady will not get extra time because of it.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Given that the UK Government have already committed £600 million in humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees, which is 12 times more than France has donated, and indeed more than the rest of the European Union put together, does the hon. Lady agree that what we really want is for more countries to make the commitment to the Syrian refugees that the UK has made?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As Members who have spoken have taken interventions, and because some Members who have not been here for the whole debate have intervened, I have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There are Members now in the Chamber who have not sat through this sombre debate, but who are making so much noise that I cannot hear the Secretary of State. Everyone else has been heard. Members ought to show courtesy to other Members.

[Justine Greening]

The thing that parents worry about most is what the crisis is doing to their children and the experiences their children are going through. I have met children who have clearly been traumatised by these events. Many, on the outside, seem to be coping with the crisis, but when talking to them, one realises that their heartbreaking experiences will mark them for the rest of their lives. When they draw pictures in school, they draw pictures of planes bombing their homes, and when they talk, they talk about chemical weapons attacks and their concerns about what they have done to Syria.

As highlighted today, the big challenge is that Syria’s children are in danger of becoming a lost generation. They will grow up and become adults, and we all have a choice about what kind of adults we would like them to become and the kind of opportunities we would like them to have. That is one reason why the UK has worked hard with UNICEF—we are now its biggest bilateral donor—to focus international attention on the No Lost Generation campaign, which is about ensuring that children, in particular, are taken care of.

The thing about UN appeals that are only half funded is that while many life-saving measures, such as those mentioned today, are taken, those extra things that children in particular often need, such as education and psycho-social trauma counselling, tend to get left out. That is why it is important that these UN appeals be funded, and why the UK has provided so much funding and why the rest of the international community needs to work harder to ensure the appeal is fully funded.

It was particularly interesting to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who have seen refugees in Turkey for themselves and who eloquently set out their views on how it was affecting children. I can assure the House that the £30 million that we have invested in UNICEF to provide protection, trauma care and education, particularly for children, will not be the final word in our investment to help those children.

Some 4.2 million children are in need inside Syria, and 2 million of them are school-aged but not in school. We know that many schools in Syria have been bombed. About 500,000 child-registered refugees are not enrolled in school, and as we have heard, some are sent out to work, but some have parents too scared to take them out of the tent and into school, because they do not want to let them out of their sight in camps as big as Zaatari. One of the most important things to do, working with the NGO community and UNICEF, is to ensure that parents feel secure in sending their children to school, often in alien environments.

I have met teachers in Lebanon in schools running two shifts, and they are amazing professionals. They sat down with me and talked about how they and head teachers had work as teams to ensure schools could operate double shifts—in the morning for Lebanese children, and in the afternoon for Syrian children. It is remarkable to see how these children rub along together and have come to understand more about each other’s experiences as the term has gone by.

Clearly, the international community needs to do more. Countries such as Lebanon and Jordan in particular, but also many others, have been incredibly generous in opening up their borders and allowing refugees in, and it is absolutely right that today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the UK Government would continue to evolve our support for those affected by the Syrian crisis by extending that support and providing sanctuary to the most at-risk refugees from this war. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) talked about Ugandan-Asian refugees coming here. One of them is now the leader of Wandsworth council, which shows the contribution that many refugees make to Britain.

I can assure the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that we will work hand in hand with the UNHCR. I had a good talk with Antonia Guterres in Switzerland last week about how we could ensure the programme worked effectively.

I think that, ultimately, we all recognise that Syria needs a political solution to end the fighting. That point was made very eloquently by someone for whom I have a huge amount of respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

In the meantime, as we all have hopes for the Geneva II process but retain a heavy sense of the level of the challenges that remain, the British people can be proud of the role that Britain is playing in conveying humanitarian assistance to those who need it. As we have already heard today, not only is that the right thing to do, but ending the conflict and bringing stability to the region is in Britain’s national interest.

Britain is on the side of the people in Syria about whom we have talked today. We will do everything that we can to achieve a political solution, but during that process we will continue to be at the forefront of the humanitarian response.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.

Stalking

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am at a disadvantage as I do not have the Welsh experience of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and I have great difficulty pronouncing the constituency of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), but I want to add my thanks to him for the leadership he has provided on this issue in the House, and to express my sadness that he does not intend to stand at the next election. He will be greatly missed in this place.

I wish to record my thanks to Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, who have achieved such rapid results both in legislation and in the difficult task of attracting funding for Paladin—the national stalking advocacy service which, as we know, was launched in July this year. They have, as the right hon. Lady said, also been a great support to the all-party group.

It will not surprise Members that in my contribution I shall briefly compare the situation in Scotland and in England and Wales, and look at the behaviour and treatment of perpetrators and the work and experience of the national stalking helpline, if time permits. I pay tribute to my constituent Ann Moulds, who endured years of torment from a stalker. She has been at the heart of campaigns to raise awareness of stalking at both national and local level and founded Action Scotland Against Stalking. This is a voluntary organisation which was set up to campaign for victims of stalking to be protected through the introduction of specific anti-stalking legislation and to help progress the rights of victims within the criminal justice process. It is obviously a sign of progress that we now have legislation across the UK to deal with stalking, and Ann Moulds has played an important part in helping to bring these laws about.

As we heard, in Scotland in the first 30 months of the legislation more than 1,400 charges were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, of which 1,046 resulted in the commencement of a prosecution, with around 460 convictions. I am informed by the Crown Office that 315 cases are still in process. Given that the legislation is relatively new, I give it two cheers. The numbers are positive, as we have heard, compared with the situation in England and Wales, where the population is much bigger. It is useful to look at how the legislation is being implemented in both places to see what lessons can be learned.

As hon. Members have said, the reported detection rates for England and Wales suggest a clear lack of effective implementation of the stalking legislation. One of the biggest issues is the lack of statistical data to establish a base-line reference for a true measurement of the problem. Training completion rates for police services suggest that a higher level of detection rates could be anticipated, but police recording of the crime lacks transparency and practices are not being systematically monitored. Whatever the precise stalking rate, it is clear that it is dramatically higher than the number of persons identified by the police would suggest. In other words, the low detection rates supported by anecdotal evidence provide enough information to suggest that there is a severe lack of expertise in stalking cases throughout the police, prosecution agencies and the courts, not a lack of stalking cases.

The legislation is either not being enforced or is being deliberately ignored by the very people charged with the responsibility to enforce it. Legislation in itself is worthless if it does not lead to a change in attitude to one that does not tolerate violence against women in all its forms. The reason why stalking was introduced as a stand-alone offence is that neither the existing law nor its application was working, as hon. Members have said.

Stalking as a concept is completely different from harassment: it has a different mode, motive and perspective. An inability to recognise those intrinsic differences is one reason why stalking is not taken seriously enough. Recognising stalking as a distinct and serious crime is in the interest not only of victims but of the public, because it plainly shows that such an offence has been committed.

There is a vast difference between someone identified as a stalker and someone who has got into trouble for harassment, as harassment says very little about the persistent, obsessional nature of the crime. Should an offender come before the criminal justice system again, it will be clear that he has a conviction for stalking. That is important in detecting stalkers who are serial ones, as many are. Stalking can lead to other forms of serious acts of violence, so it is important to establish such links. Prosecution for stalking signifies that the stalking has been acknowledged and taken seriously. It sends a clear message to the victim and to the public, and it encourages other victims to seek help and to report cases to the police.

The criminal justice system is a tool that we, as a society, use to signal what is and what is not acceptable. Based on many years’ experience, I firmly believe that where legislation is brought in, hearts and minds will follow. Victims should no longer be expected to live with the constant fear and powerlessness of being stalked. A miscarriage of justice occurs not just when an innocent person is wrongly convicted, but when innocent victims are failed by the state, sometimes at the cost of their lives, including from a failure to realise that psychological harm can be every bit as serious as physical violence.

There was welcome news in Scotland yesterday. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland will no longer enter into plea bargains with stalkers, following a case highlighted by the Daily Record, which has campaigned on the issue. The Crown Office chief executive wrote a letter of apology to the victim, Frances Carroll, after accepting that a plea of not guilty as part of a plea bargain should never have happened.

That plea bargain meant that the case against an obsessed bully who stalked and terrorised Frances was dropped, and that John Cabrelli faced only one charge of stalking, which was against a second woman, Ashley McCann. After the plea bargain, the charge involving Frances was dropped, while that involving Ashley was lowered from a section 39 charge of stalking under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 to a section 38 charge of abusive and threatening behaviour. Both women were therefore short-changed, to say the least, by the criminal justice system.

Procurators fiscal and their deputies are now being told that all evidence in stalking trials must be heard and tested in court. That huge step forward would never have happened without the Daily Record campaign, on which it is to be congratulated.

Before this debate, I contacted Ann Moulds for her views on training issues from the Scottish context. Ann reported that although there is still much to do, substantial progress is being made. She advised me that she was told at a recent meeting with the Crown Office in Scotland that all front-line police officers in Scotland are to be trained to a basic level of understanding for the purposes of identification, which is welcome news.

Ann informed me about the work she is doing on a schools stalking project in South Ayrshire in my constituency. It involves eight secondary schools across South Ayrshire, in which year 5 and 6 pupils will develop short films about stalking. I am sure that everybody in the House will agree that it is important to educate young people about this serious issue.

The main difference between Scotland and England and Wales is that the legislation has had longer to bed in in Scotland. The overall picture in Scotland is positive. The legislation there is now up for review, which is good news. I am sure that we will see more progress in England and Wales in the near future, particularly in the important area of staff training.

Whenever we discuss stalking, we must remember that it is not just something that happens to high-profile celebrities. It happens to ordinary people, whose lives can be ruined. The survey by Leicester university and the Network for Surviving Stalking, which is the largest such project undertaken in the UK, shows that one in five women will fall victim to stalking in their lifetime. That is a horrifying statistic that underlines why legislation was needed and why we need to build on that legislation by prioritising the training of criminal justice professionals and spreading awareness across local communities.

The question of how perpetrators should be treated is controversial, as it presupposes that treatment can be effective and can afford sufficient safety to the victim. I say unequivocally that stalking is a crime first and foremost, and should be treated as such. Perpetrators should feel the full force of the law, with no suggestion of pre-court diversion, which takes away the criminal element and puts the victim at risk.

I have campaigned against violence against women for more than 30 years. I chair my local Women’s Aid group, where I started work 30 years ago. I pay tribute to that organisation, especially Karen Gardner who has devoted her life to Women’s Aid and who leads the team in East Ayrshire. I make no apology for the continual tributes, because the people who do this kind of work do not get anything like the recognition that they richly deserve.

To return to the subject of perpetrators, I was astounded to hear last month that Sir Stephen House, the chief constable of Police Scotland, suggested that some domestic violence offenders could be directed to counselling or relationship guidance, rather than be taken to court. That would take us back to the early ’90s—it failed then and it would fail now. To categorise domestic violence or stalking as some kind of relationship dysfunction, rather than a crime, sends out all the wrong messages. It is particularly worrying that that has come from a person who is running the whole police force of Scotland. I honestly thought that we had made much more progress than that. To make matters worse, he takes issue with the fact that his officers have to act in every case. It took us years to achieve that in domestic violence cases and we are still a long way from it in stalking cases. It looks to me as though victims are once again being sacrificed to save time and money.

I recognise that many women want the behaviour to change or the stalking to stop, but the bottom line is that if a crime has been committed, court is what we have. Why should domestic violence or stalking be dealt with differently from any other crime, unless we do not really accept that it is a crime? I accept that a criminal sanction is not the whole answer, but it is an important part of it.

In the summer of 2011, NAPO, the probation union, asked its members to provide case histories of individuals who had been convicted of significant stalking behaviour in the previous 12 months. By autumn 2011, it had received 80 studies. The majority of those came from probation victim liaison units.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I regret having to interrupt the hon. Lady. Having put a time limit of 15 minutes on Back-Bench speeches, I note that it appears that fewer Members are in the Chamber than was the case at the beginning of the debate. If the hon. Lady would like to take a little more than 15 minutes, she is welcome to do so. The same goes for other Back Benchers.

[Sandra Osborne]

Thank you very much for informing me of that welcome news, Madam Deputy Speaker.

During NAPO’s study it became apparent that court report writers, following training, often concentrated on the immediate matter before the court and did not take into account previous histories or behaviours. In NAPO’s view that meant that significant stalking and harassment evidence was being missed by the courts on a finding of guilt—a view also shared by the leadership of the Magistrates’ Association.

Probation staff are concerned that evidence shows that sentences handed down by the courts are often too short for rehabilitation or treatment to occur, and that cumulative behaviour is not taken into account by the courts when determining outcome. For example, it is not routine for psychological or psychiatric assessments of the perpetrator to be requested by the courts; indeed, often they are turned down. In the view of NAPO and Paladin, as a consequence of that, women who are being stalked are placed at grave risk. The cases submitted by NAPO members are strikingly similar. They are disturbing and frightening for victims, and all the experiences were harrowing. The overwhelming majority of victims were in constant fear; many were physically injured and most experienced varying levels of assault. Many were the victims of criminal damage, and in extreme cases victims were either murdered or subjected to attempted murder. There is evidence that perpetrators threaten the family and friends of victims to get information, either in real life or through texts and the internet.

A number of common characteristics appear in all cases. Most victims claim that a significant number of incidents occur before they go to the police, and often their complaints are not investigated thoroughly. Stalking usually occurs over a long period—often years—and tends to be a mix of real life and cyber-stalking. There is overwhelming evidence that a perpetrator’s behaviour escalates if there is no criminal justice intervention or treatment. It appears that stalking behaviour is not properly recognised by professionals. In most cases—although not all—there is a history of domestic violence, with numerous incidents before matters are reported to the police. In a number of cases men were placed on domestic violence courses that were not appropriate, especially for those with links to mental ill health.

One case supplied by Paladin illustrates the problems that victims face. Rachel, aged 40, has been the subject of a long-term campaign of stalking. The stalker breached a court order banning him from contacting Rachel just hours after it was made. The magistrates court heard how he turned up at her address and workplace demanding she hand over cash, and he admitted stalking involving serious alarm and distress. He was given an 18-week suspended prison sentence and ordered to stay away from Rachel, but the next day he showed up at her place of work and was re-arrested. He told police, “She better not live in that house when I get out. I mean it.” His defence team stated that he was desperate and pleading for help. They said he did not threaten her when she said no to giving him money. The judge ordered the man to serve 18 weeks for each breach of the restraining order.

I strongly believe that whether a perpetrator is given a community or custodial sentence, a treatment programme from skilled practitioners is essential if victims are to be protected. I would welcome any statement from the Home Office on progress that has been made since last November when the laws came in, and on what plans there are for the future. I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will finish by saying that I am pleased, and actually proud, to take part in this debate.

Abu Qatada

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks, but may I say that an awful lot of work and effort is also being put in by Home Office officials and the Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? On the last point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I simply say that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers about such matters.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the widespread anger throughout the country about the amount of time it is taking to deal with this, but is she also aware that there is widespread understanding throughout the country, if not among all Members of the House, that there is an obligation on the Home Secretary and the Government to obey the law and abide by the decision of the courts, so we appreciate that she has no choice in the matter? Will she confirm that the Government’s position is made more difficult by the human rights legislation that the previous Labour Government passed in this House, although Labour Members take no responsibility whatsoever for the mess that we are in?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right to remind us that the previous Labour Government passed the Human Rights Act. Several Labour Members have spoken about dealing with human rights, but they brought the European convention into British legislation, and we will have to deal with that legislation if we are to sort out the wider issue of our relationship with the European Court.

Violence against Women and Girls

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I have already explained that I cannot give way.

Those figures do not tell the full story because they relate to all abuse and all violence in households. In partner abuse, 4.2% of women are victims and 3% are men. Men and women are both victims of domestic violence and partner abuse. We must also bear in mind that the definition of domestic violence includes non-violent components.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I have not got time to give way; there is a short time limit and there will be plenty of time for other cases to be made during the rest of the debate.

I also want to talk about the perpetrators of violent crime—[Interruption.]

Olympics (Security)

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The example that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted—another example is going across the broadcasts today about the Manchester area—is an exact example of the problem that G4S encountered. In encountering that problem, it identified the fact that it would not be able to provide the security personnel. As to the costs to the police, G4S has stated that it will ensure that it covers the costs for the police and the military, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to write to him with more detail, I would be happy to do so.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary reassure the House and people who live in areas such as my Epping Forest constituency, which is close to the Olympic park, hosts an Olympic venue and, indeed, a Ministry of Defence security site, that the normal levels of policing and security that are necessary at this time will not be adversely affected by the current situation?

[Mrs May]

Of course all parties involved have been working to ensure that the security that is provided is the security that is needed for the Olympic games. That is what is being put in place, and that is why we took the contingency arrangements we did in immediately calling in those 3,500 troops to ensure that we could maintain the levels of security we require.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

No, I will not.

Those mentors will help new business start-ups, and there will be help for women in rural areas, too, where we have provided a £2 million fund over the next three years to support women setting up and expanding their businesses. We are establishing a women’s business council as well.

We are going further. We are extending the right to request flexible working to all, establishing a new system of shared parental leave, and promoting equal pay and good practice in the workplace. With the help of Lord Davies, we are increasing the number of women on company boards.

Because disadvantage and the stereotyping of women do not start and end in the workplace, we are also tackling how women are portrayed in the media. The Government’s body confidence campaign—for which I know there is support on both sides of the House—is gaining momentum and is now receiving global recognition following an event I hosted on the issue at last week’s UN commission on the status of women. We are also tackling the commercialisation and sexualisation of children, working with a wide range of stakeholders to bring the use of sexualised images in line with what parents find acceptable. I am sure Members on both sides of the House are as sick as I am of women being portrayed either as sexual or servile.

The coalition Government recognise that investing in girls and women in the poorest countries is transformational both for economic growth and in meeting all the millennium development goals.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I will give way, but only briefly.

[Mrs Laing]

I simply want to ask my hon. Friend to pay tribute to the work of the UN Women agency, whose inception we celebrated last year, on the 100th anniversary of international women’s day?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me to pay tribute to UN Women. Our country is one of the biggest sponsors and supporters of that organisation.

The Secretary of State for International Development has ensured that girls and women are at the heart of the UK’s international development programme. We can all be very proud of that, and I am extremely proud of what I can do through my role as champion for tackling violence against women overseas, whether that involves going to Bonn to raise issues to do with Afghanistan, or raising issues in respect of the Arab uprising. There is still much to do in tackling forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes, but I know that Members on both sides of the House support taking action against those practices.

We are taking some very difficult decisions, but they are necessary decisions that are required to bring our country back from the brink. We are making sure that the cuts are shared fairly and that the most vulnerable are protected, and we are going further to ensure that women have a voice and are treated with fairness and respect in the workplace and in society so that they can be a vital part of our future economic growth, and we are working internationally with allies across the world so that women can be part of the world’s future.

Abu Qatada

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I have said, the bail conditions include a 22-hour curfew. The exact details of the curfew have yet to be determined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have now reached the point where the vast majority of people right across the country are saying, “Enough is enough”? While we understand the difficulties the Home Secretary faces with the European convention on human rights, the Human Rights Act and so forth, will she reassure the House that the Government will use its presidency of the Council of Europe to seek to reform the European Court of Human Rights?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who in a nice way points out that I referred to our chairmanship of the Council of Europe when I should have referred to our presidency. I can absolutely assure her that we are putting considerable effort into the possibility of reform of the European Court and the way it operates. As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister went to Strasbourg and gave a speech to assure people of the reasons why we feel that is necessary. We are, of course, working to bring the other 46 countries along with us in achieving what I am sure all Members want: appropriate reform of the Court.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Given the number of Back Benchers who have leapt up to mention, as part of their intervention, “the speedy action from Ministers” and “the fast response from Ministers”, one might think that a Whip’s note has gone around saying that that might be the phrase to put into every intervention, whatever the point might be.

Our first concern is about the initial delay before the Home Office got the written judgment. I am very clear that more work should have been done between the oral judgment and the written judgment. Then, once the written judgment arrived, there should have been very fast advice to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about the risks in this case. Instead, the Home Office seems to have sat on this for a week before Ministers were informed. Once they were informed, it was then important for them to accelerate action because the Home Office clearly had not been acting fast enough before then.

What did happen once Ministers were informed? We still do not know when the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and we still do not know why it has taken so long for there to be support via the Attorney-General, working with Greater Manchester police and the Supreme Court, to get an expedited hearing for a stay of judgment. I recognise the point that the Home Secretary made about the stay of judgment. Clearly, a series of different issues are relevant, some of which the Supreme Court has raised in relation to its powers. The Court also raised the issue of timeliness because by the time it was considering a stay of judgment, that judgment had been in place for many weeks. Timeliness is always a factor when the Supreme Court takes decisions and those delays might well have made it harder for the Court to bring in that stay of judgment.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who I am sure will say something about how speedily the Home Office has acted.

[Mrs Laing]

No, indeed—I have no Whip’s note or other briefing on this matter whatever. The right hon. Lady was statesmanlike in her opening remarks in supporting what the Government and Parliament are now doing out of necessity and—I am not going to say speedily—as soon as it could be done in Parliament, and the whole House agrees that the Bill must be passed today. Might I point out, however, that whereas the right hon. Lady was statesmanlike in her tackling of the issue, she is now grovelling around looking for party political points to make, which can sometimes be unseemly?