Persecution of Christians Overseas

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has an enormous heart and often speaks from it. I admire, respect and have affection for him.

I welcome the final report of the Bishop of Truro and thank him for it. I commend the depth of research in it. I want to speak rather technically about some of the recommendations, but before that—and more briefly than I would have liked—I want to affirm what colleagues have said. It is so important to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief; when it is encroached on, that so often also involves the violation of other human rights, including the right to life, the right to be free from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the right to freedom of assembly or association, the right to freedom of expression and many more.

That recognition must be clearly visible in the strategy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Protecting the right of freedom of religion and belief is so important because its violation is often the root cause of so many other human rights violations across the world, as we have heard today.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I praise my hon. Friend for all the work she has done, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others in this House.

Most countries in the world have signed the universal declaration on human rights. That is there—it is a commitment that they have made. All who have signed it, including the United Kingdom, need to be held accountable. Every year, the United Nations needs to hold to account all the nations that have signed the declaration but are not living up to it. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely. I commend the report’s recommendation that the UK engage better with international human rights mechanisms, but I do not think that the recommendation for a universal periodic review will help enough. A review conducted every three or four years is not enough to enable us to address some of the freedom of religious belief-related issues.

As my hon. Friend said, we need a solid review plan for a rolling oversight of the FCO’s obligations under the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights—international standards—so that we can monitor the situation of the affected communities, tailor the FCO’s response and oversee implementation. For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical about the suggested introduction of a diplomatic code. Actually, we have the international standards; we should be judged against those.

I commend the recommendation for the UK to champion the call for other countries each to have a special envoy position for freedom of religious belief—something that I emphasised in my communications with the independent review. I stress that we need to strengthen the mandate of our own Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religious belief, to ensure that he has all the resources and powers that he needs to be effective. I am not sure that that is the case at present. I see the good work that Lord Ahmad is doing, but time and again I see how stretched he is. I wonder whether the role should be distinct from that of a Foreign Office Minister, so that action on many of the review’s recommendations can be held to account independently.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Sadly, I have to agree that what my hon. Friend says is sometimes the case, but I would hope that with the Minister’s intervention—she has been kind to intervene in a number of cases—matters will speed up.

Given that the Chair of High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), is in the House, let me just say that it has been remarkable how some matters have been settled just when they were about to go to his Committee. It is therefore a matter not just of an MP getting involved, but sometimes of an issue actually coming before the Committee. That should not be the case. Common sense should prevail; getting common-sense matters put in place should not depend on pressure from a Member of Parliament or the Committee.

I am most grateful for the forbearance of hon. Members, but there are several very important matters that the House needs to be aware of and which I have tried to summarise. The first is the overall cost, about which we need the Government and HS2 to be honest with the House. The second is the question of the use and reuse of the spoil from the railway, another matter about which HS2 needs to be frank and honest with the House because of the consequences for the transport network and costs. The third is a plea that HS2 is open and transparent with all those affected, that it deals with things on the spot and that it delegates authority to its staff on the ground so that decisions can be made without the great distress that has been caused to so many of my constituents.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank you for allowing me to speak in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record my views and those of many of my constituents regarding HS2.

I have never voted for any motion relating to HS2 in the House, over many years, and that will be my consistent position today. That is why I will not even be voting for any of the amendments or for the Bill in due course. I cannot condone any expenditure in relation to this project, and I do not believe that the further reviews and reports proposed in new clauses 1 and 4 will do anything other than reinforce my view and that of so many of my constituents that the business case for HS2 has simply not been made.

It is a hugely expensive project. It will not proportionately benefit my constituents, who time and again say to me that the huge amount of money involved would be much better spent on improving local transport services, whether it is the cycleways; the bus services, which have been reduced and need reinstating, particularly for the elderly; a bypass for Holmes Chapel; or better facilities at Sandbach station.

I need hardly mention the catalogue of concerns about local rail services that have been brought to my attention. I held a surgery a little while ago at Congleton railway station, and almost 40 constituents turned up to express their concerns about local rail services. They want to see better local rail services. That is a particular concern. If money is going to be invested in some form of Crewe hub, that will simply not be of benefit to my constituents unless there are appropriate local rail services fanning out from Crewe to Alsager, Congleton, Sandbach and Middlewich. That assessment needs to be done. I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that we need an assessment of the benefit of these proposals to local towns, not just cities. That is what my constituents have been saying for many years—what is the benefit to them?

I am entirely in agreement with many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in particular regarding the current west coast main line. We need a proper business case for what will happen post-HS2 for the west coast main line. I use it every week, and I know that I am not alone among my constituents in thinking that the service currently supplied by Virgin is perfectly satisfactory. My constituents cannot understand why there is a need for them to contribute to the huge expense of HS2, particularly as only a tiny proportion of them are likely to use it.

Application of the Family Test

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely. I recommend that the hon. Lady points her constituent to that reply and challenges the Department accordingly. That is one of the reasons that we raise such questions.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Having well over 2,000 serving defence personnel based in my constituency, I wanted to comment on my hon. Friend’s important points about the Ministry of Defence. Does she agree that rather than being seen as a kind of hindrance, a pro-family policy is incredibly important for morale, not just for the armed forces but right across the civil service and across the country? It should be looked at as a positive thing, and not as something that somehow gets in the way.

[Fiona Bruce]

As so often, my hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We need to ensure that strengthening family life is embedded within our policy making, because it is good for the individuals involved, but also because it is good for the country. I am convinced that our productivity levels, which are lower than they should be compared with many other developed countries, have some connection with the fact that we also have one of the highest levels of family breakdown in the developed world. People need to be supported and secure in their home life, from which they can then go out to work and be fulfilled.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay who introduced this debate said, we all pay the price if we do not have strong families. There is pressure on housing, because families are divided. There is also addiction, underachievement at school, mental health problems among young people, pressure on GPs’ surgeries because of depression, and, as I have said, underperformance at work. All that adds up to far more than the £51 billion cited in one assessment—I think it was by the Relationships Foundation. We need to look much more closely at underproductivity; it will cost our country dearly if we do not. Clearly, those who are responsible for safeguarding the security of our nation—working in defence—deserve that to be addressed more than anyone.

The Government Equalities Office sent an amusing reply:

“The family test was not formally applied to any of our regulations, as they do not have a direct or demonstrable impact on family relationships.”

It quoted three such regulations, including the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 and the Equality Act 2010 (Equal Pay Audits) Regulations 2014. If they do not have an impact on families, what does?

I will pass over the Department for Exiting the European Union’s tick-box response. I am sure that we all agree that Brexit will affect every family in the land, if it does not already. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave a one-and-a-half-line reply:

“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not applied the family test to date, as it applies to domestic policy only.”

The Department of Health and Social Care replied with only four and a half lines, stating:

“The Department does not keep a formal record of the legislation to which the family test was applied.”

That is really important, because it is the exact point we are making: given that there is no requirement to record any assessment, there is no evidence of it being done, which is not satisfactory.

As I said, the Home Office—after a reminder—sent a reply six months later, which was three and a half lines long. It said:

“The Government’s guidance on the family test is available on gov.uk…The Home Office will apply the family test if sensible and proportionate.”

It gives no further information at all. I could go on, but I think colleagues get the gist.

What do we do about this? We need to ask the Government not just to take action, but to take on board the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill. It is a draft Bill that was introduced in the Lords by Lord Farmer, and which I introduced in the Commons in May 2018. I would like the Minister to explain why nothing has happened about the Bill. It addresses the concerns that we are talking about today. The Bill would require

“public bodies to accompany any proposal for a change in public expenditure, administration or policy with a family impact assessment”.

We felt that “family test” was perhaps not the best term, because it implies a pass or fail. By contrast, a “family impact assessment” is a broader exercise. The Bill would also:

“require the Secretary of State to report on the costs and benefits of extending family impact assessments to local authorities”

within six months of passing the legislation. We wanted to press for that because local authorities keep virtually no data on the extent of family breakdown in their areas. If we do not have the information, how can we start to address an issue?

It is very interesting that a number of local authorities are actively addressing this issue in a way that those of us who work on strengthening family life have recommended to Government in our policy paper, “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the document, but I never miss an opportunity to pass a copy to a Minister in such a debate. The document is now supported by about 70 Members of Parliament and contains several policies to strengthen family life.

It is disappointing that the Government have not collectively embraced the policies in the manifesto. Ideally, we would like to see that done through the leadership of a Cabinet Minister for families. That is not in any way to denigrate the work or enthusiasm of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). I know that he is interested in this subject, because he has told me so. However, if we are to make real headway on this issue, we need to have a Secretary of State who is responsible for strengthening families. Once again, I ask the Minister to take that message back—it is a key ask in the manifesto.

Another key ask is the development of local family hubs. These would not be Sure Start centres, which are just for pre-school children. The Minister might tell us something about the working group on young children, of which he is a member, and we support that. However, in each community we need a family hub where people can go if they have family difficulties and challenges regarding children of all ages, couple relationship problems or problems caring for an elderly relative. People need somewhere to go to get support on all those issues.

It is very interesting—this will bring me back to talking about the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill—that many local authorities are setting up family hubs, despite the national Government not providing any particularly strong incentive for them to do so. Across the country, we are getting such hubs set up. In fact, we will hold a family hubs fair in the Jubilee Room on 5 June, and I invite the Minister to attend. There will be examples from all over the country of local authorities that aim to strengthen family life. As I said, without the requirement for data to be produced by local authorities so that they can understand the extent of the issue in their area, how can they address it? That is why the requirement is in the draft legislation.

We also state in the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill that we want there to be proper evaluation of “progress towards family stability”. The Secretary of State in each Department should publish an annual report on progress towards stabilising families within the Department: what action have they taken? The family impact assessment would then begin to gather together information, recording how policies ultimately have a negative or positive impact on families.

When Lord Farmer introduced the Family Relationships (Impact Assessment and Targets) Bill in the Lords, he quite rightly said we need it because there is no systematic way that policies are developed to support family relationships; there are only individual Ministers doing this. It is interesting that the Department of Justice gave a tick-box reply, because it has actually taken up strengthening family life with great gusto. It indicates that the dots are still not being joined up within Departments regarding officials’ work on this issue. I commend the Department of Justice for the way it is developing the Farmer review, but we need to do more.

Our Bill would put family impact assessments and their publication on a statutory footing and, as I have said, require the Secretary of State to report annually on progress. The Government need to do much better. Some of us have been speaking in this place about the matter since this Government came to varying forms of power. It is now almost a decade. We will shortly enter our tenth year—that is half a generation that we have now lost, when we could have taken action to help children who are growing up in dysfunctional families.

We talk about how we will be held to account for the way that we address Brexit, but those children are not able to hold us to account. They cannot go to the ballot box next year or the year after, but they are being dreadfully impacted by the fact that we are failing them and failing to look at how we can strengthen family life in this country. If I am right, there are now 27,000 children involved in gangs. What are gangs if not substitute families? Those children are looking for somewhere to belong, and we must do something urgently to address that. The Government must get a grip on this issue. The responses to our questions about the family test show that that is simply not happening.

The Government should adopt our draft Bill and get on with it. Will the Minister please explain why that has not happened? The whole point is to highlight the importance of the family perspective in policy making. Perhaps one of the problems is that officials and Ministers need training. Perhaps we need to help them assess the impact of policies on family life. We expect them to do it, but perhaps we need to help them by giving them training. As a comparison, we all agree that antisemitism is a concern. Officials are rightly being given training in how to address it, and I believe that the Government have allocated more than £14 million for that. That is positive, but how much is being put in to strengthen family life holistically? Which Departments have sent anyone on courses to train them in how to assess family impact? If that has happened, who was sent, where did they go and what was the outcome? If it has not, why not?

Please let me know if I am speaking for too long, Sir David. I will conclude shortly, but I would like to turn to the loneliness strategy.

Taxation of Low-income Families

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

That is absolutely right. We outline in our report several reasons why this needs to be addressed. I will touch on four of them.

First, the hon. Gentleman is right that these arrangements are anti-aspirational. Secondly, we believe that they are illogical. While we as Conservatives celebrate the family—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said families are the bedrock of a strong, stable and flourishing society—we tax them as if they are individuals while at the same time operating a benefits system that views them as families.

Thirdly, the current arrangement is anti-choice. The best systems of independent taxation give couples the choice as to whether the two people are taxed independently or jointly. Fourthly, it appears judgmental. Any family in which the second earner is either not in work or earning less than their personal allowance will be hit hard and judged for that arrangement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) gave evidence to our inquiry and commented that we find ourselves in the peculiar situation of saying that we are not very judgmental, but being very judgmental at the same time. We are judgmental about couples who choose for only one spouse to work. The huge impact of that was underlined in evidence to us from the Child Poverty Action Group, which said that it looks like

“having a second earner in the labour market in Britain today is necessary to get oneself out of poverty”.

To some extent, we are telling parents staying at home to look after children or relatives that they are making the wrong choice, yet, as our report says, it is in the long-term interests of Government and society to have stable families in which children are nurtured and cared for to give them the best start in life, and if, in some situations, that means taking time out from work, particularly when children are under five, surely that should be encouraged and accommodated.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes the incredibly important point that this is certainly about children, but is also about carers. The enormous number of unpaid carers in this country do a massive amount for our country and society, but the current system does not help them, either.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is absolutely right: they do indeed.

We talk about cripplingly high effective marginal tax rates, but actually it costs money to go out to work. Often, it costs money to clothe oneself for work and to travel to work, and it is more expensive if one has to buy lunch out, so some people will effectively earn nothing when they go to work. That cannot be right. As my hon. Friend has said, what is proposed will help different types of family: single parents, married couples and couples in which one person works or one person provides care for other members of the family. Work is good—we know that—but it costs, and it is outrageous that some of the poorest in our society face some of the highest tax rates. One of the highest priorities of the Conservative Government should be to tackle and solve this burning social injustice.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 25th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate to mark this year’s International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it, for his work on this issue and for the tour de force that was his speech. I will also say how much I respect every speech that has been made in the Chamber today; I agree with everything that has been said.

Let me start with some positive news. Earlier this week, Members may have heard news of a 13-year-old boy in Pakistan called Sharjeel, who was the only Christian in his class, all the other pupils being Muslim. Last week he turned off a water tap at school, for which he was beaten and expelled, on the grounds that he had polluted the water supply. Colleagues may recall the case of Asia Bibi, the wife and mother who is still in detention, some nine years on, for drinking water from a communal tap, for which she was accused of polluting the water supply.

Sharjeel’s mother went to the school to object to his treatment. She was told that he was an infidel who was only fit for cleaning latrines. How, therefore, can I say that I have some positive news? Following the concerns raised in the past few days by religious freedom activists, in Pakistan and abroad, with the authorities in Pakistan, there has been a swift response, which is very different from what happened in Asia Bibi’s case, which I hope will help that lady. In Sharjeel’s case, direct action has been taken by the Human Rights Minister in Pakistan, Dr Shireen Mazari—the head of the school has been suspended and an inquiry has been launched by the district education office.

That shows that when we raise individual cases of concern, we can make a difference. Of course, we need to do more. I therefore ask the Minister to keep a watchful eye on Sharjeel’s case and to raise it as soon as he can with his counterparts in Pakistan. At the same time, may I also draw his attention to the fact that around half a billion pounds of UK aid is spent every year in Pakistan? However, there is little evidence that the aid money is being used either to prioritise freedom of religion or belief in that country or to help persecuted minorities. In Pakistan, 5% of minorities should be given proper jobs but, due to a lack of education, many members of minority groups do not qualify.

I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Strangford and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for the work they have done, because they have not just been talking about the issue, as I am today; they actually went to Pakistan and brought back their concerns, as did Lord Alton, who has told me about the camps that many of these people are living in, because they could not support themselves. The camps lack even the most basic facilities—no running water, electricity or latrines. However, I understand from Lord Alton that no DFID staff member has ever visited the camps. May I ask the Minister to rectify that omission, in a country that receives so much UK aid?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who does a huge amount of work in this area, for mentioning development. Does she agree that development without freedom of religion or belief is development that will not achieve its ends?

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend puts it so well. He and I have seen that that is the case in many countries we have visited with the International Development Committee.

One of those countries is Nepal, where we met Christians who were greatly concerned—I am going back now three or four years—about restrictions on their freedom in that country. I thank the Minister, because I know that he has taken very seriously the concerns that we have expressed many times about such restrictions in Nepal. Actually, they are now far worse than they were even when we visited the country a few years ago. He knows much about the situation in Nepal, so I ask him once again to urge the Government of Nepal to repeal or amend sections 155 to 159 of the country’s new penal code. That code, which came into force just in August, severely restricts freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. I have met people from Nepal who are now seriously concerned about being imprisoned as a result of speaking about their own faith in their own homes. That cannot be right.

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

I also ask the Minister to call on the Government of Nepal to amend its constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned constitutions being used to restrict freedom of belief. Again, the Government of Nepal have put in place elements of the constitution that are deeply concerning. Specifically, I ask the Minister to press the Government of Nepal to remove from the constitution any reference to restrictions on conversion, bringing it into line with the country’s obligations under article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights.

I will turn briefly to another matter: the persecution of Falun Gong in China. I commend the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston on her superb speech. She said so much to express the horror and incredulity that many of us felt when we heard about forced organ harvesting. It is almost beyond belief to hear reports that a Government are incarcerating people because of their beliefs, taking their blood and DNA samples, and then—this would appear to be the case, which is why the Minister must look into it—there is a request, almost to order, for an organ for transplant. If that is correct, it is horrendous. Of course, when the organs are removed, the victims die.

I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston for mentioning the report on that issue that the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission produced over two years ago. I do not like to go away from these events without presenting the Minister with something, so I handily have a copy of the report, which I will pass to him if he has not seen it. I ask that he acts on all the requests made by the hon. Lady. I ask that he raises the issue with the Chinese delegation at the next human rights dialogue with China, and asks why the practice appears to be continuing, despite the Chinese authorities’ announcement of a full transition to voluntary donations as long ago as 2015. If that is the case, let the Chinese authorities say so, because at the moment they are not confirming that.

I will now turn to a country that so far has not been mentioned: Russia. I will take this opportunity to pass to the Minister the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission’s latest report, launched just this Tuesday—it is on our website, conservativehumanrights.com—on human rights in Russia today. Time prohibits me from going into detail, but I hope he will read the report, particularly the several sections that are pertinent to today’s debate. Those sections deal with restrictions on freedom of expression, the press, assembly, association, and religion or belief. It is concerning to note how many religious groups other than the Russian Orthodox Church now face increasing restrictions in Russia.

The commission received detailed submissions from the European Association of Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses regarding the recent treatment of its members in Russia. In April, the Russian Supreme Court banned the Jehovah’s Witnesses as an “extremist” organisation. Those who continue to practise their faith—of whom there are 170,000—risk being prosecuted and jailed for up to 10 years. That is not just theory; it is happening. Evidence of widespread, specific cases of arrest, search, and seizure for interrogation and detention of Jehovah’s Witnesses is detailed in the report. I would be grateful if the Minister could raise those concerns with his Russian counterparts, or ask his colleagues to do so, when the opportunity arises. I hope that will be soon, because the report contains the names of over 100 individual prisoners who are currently in detention, specifically in connection with their rights to freedom of religion or belief. We ask the Minister to ensure that those names are drawn to the attention of the Russian authorities. They have come to our commission from the Memorial human rights centre.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. Russia has given so much to faith—to the Christian faith through the Orthodox faith, but also other faiths in other parts of Russia—and has benefited so much from faith. We recall Dostoyevsky, who was converted to Christianity through his experience in a labour camp under the Tsars. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see a country that has gained so much from faith behaving in this way?

[Fiona Bruce]

I agree wholeheartedly. I was saddened and deeply concerned by the stories we heard at first hand of intimidation, harassment, imprisonment—often including cruel treatment in prison—and repression of people in Russia because of their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech: Universities

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 17th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

This inquiry is one of the most important that we have undertaken in my three years on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As we have heard, we received some very disturbing evidence. Free speech is indeed a foundation for democracy in society, and universities are places where many of tomorrow’s leaders learn how to explore ideas in a way that prepares them to engage in and influence wider society, so it is critical that free speech is secured in universities. A key part of all students’ education is the ability to engage in dialogue and contentious debate. Universities have a legal duty under the Education Act to secure freedom of speech within the law, both for students and for visiting speakers.

If we do not prepare students to engage in dialogue in an environment that promotes free speech, there is a serious danger that we will risk promoting extremism and factionalism within wider society. Only by understanding different views and beliefs and by, as one of our witnesses said, countering bad ideas with good ones, will we build community cohesion and break down prejudice and discrimination in wider society, which, at worst, as we know, can lead to violent disturbances within our local communities. That is something that none of us wants. Indeed, it is one of the purposes of the Prevent strategy. It is ironic that the strategy is in many ways defeating one of its key objectives in the way that it is applied at universities. I will come on to that in more detail shortly.

For the record, I will set the legal scene, which the Committee is now well versed in. Article 9 of the European convention on human rights states that,

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Article 10 sets out the right to freedom of speech and a right to,

“hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority”,

and this

“can extend to the right to say things which may...disturb the listener”,

and which the listener might find offensive or even shocking. Free speech is not an absolute right. There are limitations on it to ensure that it is not exercised in a way that causes harm to others by, for example, inciting murder, violence or terrorism or stirring up racial hatred or hatred for other groups, or if it is defamatory or malicious or constitutes harassment. We found that within university settings the inhibitions and restrictions on free speech went much further than that. A number of factors were limiting free speech at universities. I will summarise them briefly, and go into detail about some of them.

As we have heard, there were incidents of unacceptable intimidatory behaviour by protesters intent on preventing free speech and debate. Unnecessary bureaucracy was imposed on those organising events. There was some confusion about what the Prevent duty entailed; for example, some students were frightened about the possibility of being reported for organising or attending events, and of being investigated, as a result, as potentially involved in extremism, which might draw people into terrorism. There was considerable confusion about that.

Other factors were regulatory complexity and confusion, confusion over the Charity Commission guidelines, and unduly complicated and cautious guidance from the Charity Commission itself about what student unions could or could not do in organising events and permitting speakers to attend. Safe space policies were often incorrectly used. Indeed, we did not find the concept of safe space policies helpful at all. It was applied too broadly and vaguely. We found that student unions were inconsistent in the way they applied the regulations on allowing them to hold events at the student union. The different types of group might include faith groups, groups with non-religious views, or groups with views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, right-wing or left-wing views, pro-life or anti-abortion views, and views on transgender issues or Islamophobia. There were many minority views and beliefs—a huge swathe. University authorities’ oversight of the issue, under the legal duty to secure free speech that I mentioned, was inadequate. Another matter of concern was the chilling effect—an undercurrent of restraint among students, both as to their speech as individuals and as to the large number of events either not held at all or inhibited, and of which there was no report, although students wanted them to be held.

Members of the Committee are not aware of one reason why I was concerned to hold the inquiry, which is a personal experience I had at one university. I shall try, in giving examples, not to name the particular university, as I think that might be unhelpful. I had been asked to speak about work I had done in Parliament —so, ironically, it was all in Hansard—on sex discrimination in relation to abortion. I was speaking in a room slightly smaller than this Chamber. The back wall was entirely glass windows and on the other side of it was a large courtyard or quad. To my right was one pop-up banner describing the organisation that had invited me to speak—the university Life organisation, on which two small feet were depicted. After I began to speak about what I had done in Parliament, which is on the public record, a university official in uniform came into the room and said, “Your event is causing offence.” There was a startled silence in the room, particularly from me. The official said, “It is causing offence to the students who are sitting in the bar on the other side of the quad.” They could not possibly have heard a word I was saying. It could only have been the sight of the banner. I was certainly saying nothing unlawful at all. We came to a compromise in the end. The official suggested that if we drew the giant curtains across the back of the room, so that the students in the bar could not see what was going on, we could carry on with the event and I could finish my speech. I know that that is not the only time when there has been an endeavour to put restrictions on parliamentarians at universities.

I was concerned about the issue and pleased about the inquiry, because I think the chilling effect and unreported inhibition of speech is far wider than we recognise. Often the chilling effect inhibits students with minority views, and that emboldens students who want to silence or censor views they consider wrong or offensive. I was more convinced about the resultant chilling effect by evidence from Professor Adam Tickell, the vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex. He said he had been unaware of the scale of the problem:

“It was only in preparation for this session that I became aware of the cases”.

Those cases included students being interviewed by Prevent officers, students subsequently telling the student union president that they were afraid to speak their minds, and Muslim students saying they were afraid to go to their campus prayer room. That is evidence from one of our witnesses that there is more to the issue than the public have been aware of for some time.

I join the Committee Chairman, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), in thanking the Minister for the interest he has taken in the issue. He told the Committee that just as important as the evidence of restrictions is

“what is hard to measure: the large number of events that do not happen at all, either because organisers are worried about obstruction or because the overzealous enforcement of rules makes them seem more trouble than they are worth.”

He added that,

“some of this is quite difficult to gather evidence for.”

I thank the Universities Minister for the lead that he is giving, and for the fact that he told the Committee that he would hold a

“summit to thrash out not only where the responsibilities lie but to make sure that they do not cut across each other and in so doing achieve the opposite of what all these guidelines are meant to achieve, which is to promote free speech.”

I should be interested if the Minister would today update the House on what he is doing to take forward what he said, and how he expects to tackle the issue in the coming months. It has become clear to me as we have examined the issue that it will not be resolved purely by the publication of our report, however important the Committee may think it. We have highlighted an issue that will take considerable tackling by a number of organisations and bodies.

I want to talk in a little more detail about the Charity Commission.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, and I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Committee, for the way she led the inquiry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps universities and, indeed, student unions could take a more proactive role and encourage debate, rather than waiting for debates to come up, and seeing whether they are lawful and whether they should go ahead? They could perhaps take a more overt stance. The range of issues debated in universities is often pretty narrow. I look at the range of debate here and the global concerns about the problems of youth unemployment or, for example, the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo over the last 10 to 20 years, where 6 million people have been killed or died as a result of civil unrest and other disturbances. I rarely see debates in universities on these incredibly important matters. They tend to be confined, albeit on important issues, to a fairly narrow range.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point, as always. I will refer back to it in a moment in relation to the Charity Commission’s guidelines. The actual wording of clause 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 imposes an obligation on university governing bodies to take

“such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured”

on both university and students union premises. I have written underneath, “proactive”. This is a proactive clause. It requires them to take steps to secure free speech, so I entirely agree. It does not help, for example, when, as charities, students unions have been told that they can devote resources to or campaign only on issues that further their charitable purposes. The Charity Commission has interpreted this—I think, and our Committee agrees —in a far too narrow way. The Charity Commission guidance for students unions indicated that it would consider it acceptable for charitable students unions to comment on

“street lighting near the campus”

because the issue affects students as students, and therefore fulfils their charitable purposes. The Charity Commission would consider it unacceptable for students unions to comment publicly on issues that do not directly affect the welfare of students as students, such as,

“the treatment of political prisoners in a foreign country.”

That is the Charity Commission’s own example, illustrating the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

The Minister told our Committee that the Charity Commission guidance should

“go further and facilitate the promotion of free speech. It should be giving students’ unions the permission to host debates about controversial issues and expose students to a wide range of viewpoints. That should be the core purpose.”

That is quite right. It is not just preferable that free speech is promoted and protected in universities. It should be a prerequisite for any university that is going to achieve its educational purposes. I am pleased that the Charity Commission has acknowledged as much this week and has announced in response to our report that it will create new guidance in this area. Helen Stephenson, chief executive of the Charity Commission said yesterday:

“charitable students’ unions, universities and other higher education providers can challenge traditional boundaries, encourage the free exchange of views and host speakers with a range of opinions, including those who might be controversial or divide opinion.

These activities are entirely in line with their aims to promote education.”

That is a pleasing response to our report.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I believe this year is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. He was born in Trier in Germany. He was effectively expelled from Germany because he was the editor of a newspaper that exercised the right of free speech. For those students perhaps slightly to the left of some of us here today, I point to the example of Karl Marx, who was the victim of university or town authorities in Trier, because he wanted to exercise free speech. From whatever political point we look at it, free speech is absolutely vital to secure the rights of individual citizens, as he was trying to do in that case.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is an excellent example. I hope it will also encourage students to the right of Karl Marx, because I have spoken to a number of students who have recently said, “I wouldn’t admit to being a conservative on campus.”

Our Committee concluded that the concept of safe spaces, having been extended to entire university campuses, is unhelpful. It is not only unhelpful. If minority views are supressed across the whole campus, but they are not views that are promoting terrorism or inciting the kind of activity I referred to earlier, the concept is actually against the law, impinging on the right to free speech under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. A number of students unions tried to argue in evidence to us that it was necessary to limit speakers who cause harm through speech—harm caused because people might find speech disturbing or upsetting. As our report says, however, this is counter or detrimental to free speech. Regarding safe spaces, we say:

“Whilst there must be opportunities for genuinely sensitive and confidential discussions in university settings, and whilst the original intention behind safe space policies may have been to ensure that minority or vulnerable groups can feel secure, in practice the concept of safe spaces has proved problematic, often marginalising the views of minority groups. They need to co-exist with and respect free speech. They cannot cover the whole of the university or university life without impinging on rights to free speech…When that happens, people are moving from the need to have a “safe space” to seeking to prevent the free speech of those whose views they disagree with. Minority groups or individuals holding unpopular opinions which are within the law should not be shut down nor be subject to undue additional scrutiny by students’ unions or universities.”

I hope that university authorities will take careful note of that.

On the Prevent strategy, we had quite some evidence. I want to reiterate what the guidance says. As our report states, under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the guidance states that higher education bodies,

“when deciding whether or not to host a particular speaker…should consider carefully whether the views being expressed…constitute extremist views that risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups.”

Those are important words—“risk drawing people into terrorism or are shared by terrorist groups”—if a little wide, but the issue of terrorism is critical. The guidance goes on:

“In these circumstances the event should not be allowed to proceed except where”

the educational bodies

“are entirely convinced that such risk can be fully mitigated”.

That is the legal position, but I will also cite some of the evidence we received about that and about hate speech.

An organisation called CARE, Christian Action Research and Education, stated:

“One common occurrence is that certain speakers who are perceived as ‘extremist’ are being denied the chance to speak at universities, to discuss their ideas, and have their ideas challenged by others in an open debate. First, this drives any such ideas underground. Second, the definition of extremism, as identified in the Counter Extremism Strategy…is very broad, incorporates non-violent as well as violent forms of extremism, and does not necessarily relate back to the concept of terrorism. In his recent judgment in the case of Mr Salman Butt, Ouseley J confirmed that the Prevent duty is a duty to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and does not refer to all forms of extremism…Nonetheless, no steps have been taken by the Government to confirm the correct interpretation and scope of the definition of what constitutes ‘extremism’ and its impact on the Prevent duty.”

Some student groups, for example, have been prevented from holding events because the Church from which the speaker comes is considered fundamentalist or, in other words, extreme. Such an individual has not the slightest intention of drawing people into terrorism. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look again at the counter-extremism strategy to ensure that its broad definition of extremism, which has been used by some universities, is not used to prevent free speech at universities.

Hate speech results from the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words, or the displaying of written material that is threatening, abusive or insulting and therefore intended to cause the person harassment, alarm or distress, or to stir up racial hatred. Although that is the definition of hate speech, and, as we were told in evidence,

“it is meant to be used narrowly in relation to any speech that fulfils the particulars under the Public Order Act 1986…over time, the phrase has become embedded into everyday language to describe any statement that some may find ‘offensive’.”

At universities, there is an increasing tendency to conflate offensive speech with hate speech, which

“has resulted in a far greater willingness to countenance censorship.”

Several pieces of evidence to our inquiry showed that that was the case. As a result of those common misunderstandings, freedom of speech at universities has suffered. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at CARE’s evidence to the inquiry in particular, so that an appropriate application can be made in universities.

I will give a few examples of the kinds of issues that were mentioned to us in evidence. We were told of a university that introduced “emotional risk assessments” in December 2016 that were used in an “invasive and heavy-handed way”. They have resulted in the students’ association telling student groups

“what they can and can’t do and say”.

In some cases, all of a student group’s activities, including weekly meetings, events and emails, that were to be sent to outside students or speakers had to be approved in advance by the students association. That meant that one or two people in the students’association office could basically make the operations of that student group impossible. For example, they rejected events because they were “too provocative” and they would not allow discussions that made specific reference to the Manchester terrorist attack or Hurricane Gregory, in case those specific incidents of suffering caused upset.

Another group was not allowed to have a stand at a freshers’ fair unless it was unmanned. A group at another university was told that it had to provide the name of any invited speaker, the topic and an outline of their talk 21 days in advance of the event.

We were told that at other universities there was a culture not only of safe spaces and hurtful speech but of trigger warnings:

“Students are encouraged to catastrophise when they hear something controversial or challenging rather than to engage with new ideas robustly.”

That is hardly a preparation for the world of work.

An ethics society was told that it could not hold an event because it would be asking for volunteers during it, and that contravened university policy guidelines. On further inspection, it was found that no such guidelines existed within the union or the university. Another group was told that it would be refused affiliation with the students union on the grounds that it was

“violating union policies regarding discrimination and equal opportunity”,

but on reading the union policy, no such violation was found. Several groups, particularly pro-life groups, were prevented from holding events or exhibiting material at freshers’ fairs that, on further investigation, was found to be used in primary schools and in further education material.

There are real problems for many groups in arranging external speakers and organising events. The Alliance of Pro-Life Students said that,

“pro-life societies are often given undue burden to host events”

and are

“subject to mediations to which other societies are not”.

Humanist groups said that student unions and universities,

“repeatedly shut down expressive conduct deemed by them to be wrong, offensive, or harmful, particularly with regards to criticism of religious beliefs”.

Such groups told us that,

“student unions were making arbitrary decisions about the views to which students should be exposed.”

They say that “many student unions” do not have clear or coherent democratic policies in place, which means that voting in a certain way, or no-platforming, or getting

“safe space policies into official union policy is surprisingly easy. If unions had better guidelines for democratic policies, and their union officials faced actual sanctions for disregarding freedom of speech, the union, and therefore the university environments, would become both more democratic and more open to diverse viewpoints.”

As I have said before, the issue will not be resolved overnight. I am encouraged that the Minister is determined to address it. It is clear that since our report more instances have come to light. For example, a colleague on the Committee received an email from UK Lawyers for Israel this week that expressed a number of concerns about specific policies on university campuses, including ticketing requirements and restrictions on advertising. It says that, although our report mentions that some pro-Israel events were disrupted, that happens on many occasions. The impact of such disruptions can be not only burdensome regulations and requirements for future events; the cost, time and administrative burden, and the need to protect people from hostile protests leaves students who run such societies exhausted and put off from hosting events. In an echo of another of our comments, UK Lawyers for Israel said that universities must impose penalties on students who incite, encourage or participate in the disruption of meetings.

It is a very full report; there is much more to it. I thank the Minister for his interest and look forward to his response and future action.

Strengthening Families

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Lefroy

Thursday 8th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Would he join me in commending the work of Keith Simpson, the headteacher at Middlewich High School in my constituency, who is a lead on the Emotionally Healthy Schools project? Wherever possible, when a child has difficulties at school, he not only works with the child to provide support, but will contact the parents and ask whether they would like to come in or would like some support themselves, so that the whole family gets the support that will ultimately benefit the child and their education.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Given that Middlewich is not too far from where I live and where I represent, with her permission I would like perhaps to come and talk to that headteacher, to see what I can learn from the school in her constituency.

As I say, the situation needs to change, and the Department for Work and Pensions has begun to recognise that. The “Improving lives” report announced plans to put £30 million into a programme to help workless parents to resolve conflict through independent providers. However, that provision does not go far enough, because the need is not just among workless parents. A far-reaching, holistic, family-based approach to tackling children’s health is needed, as the example in Middlewich shows.

The recent Green Paper on children’s mental health is an important step in the right direction, and for the first time recognises the importance of parental relationships on children’s wellbeing and mental health, but we need to do more to support families. By incorporating couples therapy into NHS provision, children and young persons’ mental health teams would not be syphoning funds from where they are most needed, but redirecting them to where they will be most effective. Training would be required to enable professionals and frontline workers to be confident in identifying and treating the needs of the couple, alongside an efficient system of referral. The roll-out of family hubs would facilitate a collaborative and consistent provision of couples’ support in addressing children’s mental health. Alongside providing for those affected by mental health problems, that would also help to prevent the mental health problems from arising by providing relationship support and encouraging the involvement of fathers in the family.

Sometimes there is a reluctance to make such points. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talked about the reluctance to refer to faith and religious belief. I entirely support what he said, but also, in our western, perhaps individual-focused society, we do not recognise enough the support that the wider family, indeed the community, can give to families. When I was living with my family in Tanzania, we often came across a proverb that was originally in Igbo, a Nigerian language, but in Swahili is, “Inachukua kijiji kizima kumlea mtoto”, which means: it takes a whole village to raise a child. If we view a village as our community, we should not shy away from recognising that families cannot do everything, as I know from my own experience. They come under great pressure at various times. Parents are otherwise engaged, perhaps going through crises themselves. It takes a community.

In my constituency, and many others, we have an organisation called Home-Start, which works with troubled families. The problem is that Home-Start relies on volunteers who give their time. It takes professional co-ordination, but we find that the funding for that, which is frankly peanuts when one considers what else we spend money on, is often the first to be cut, as I found in my constituency. Local authorities who were very generous have been put under pressure and, because it is not a statutory requirement, will remove the funding. As a result, the whole service is put under pressure, and may even disappear. These are people working on a voluntary basis with families that are under pressure, and saving the state huge amounts of money, because those families might otherwise fall into needing extremely expensive services. In addition to the issue of mental health, which I have spoken about at some length, I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of making relatively small amounts of funding available to schemes such as Home-Start. We are talking about a few thousand pounds, or tens of thousands, in a whole local authority area. The total cost for the country would be pretty minor, and the savings substantial.

Finally, colleagues may disagree, but I have found the value of family time at meal times very important, as well as the value of not having television. I have never had television, either as a child or an adult, but if people do have a television, there is value in saying, “Well, it has its place, but it shouldn’t be the centre of family life, because it takes up so much time and stops people talking to one another.” I think we can extend that to social media. I was very encouraged to read in The Evening Standard last week of a school, I think in London, which has 10 commandments about the use of social media. That school is really improving the lives of the children, not by forbidding access to social media, but by saying, “Let’s put less emphasis on social media, and spend more time interacting with one another personally, face to face, rather than via small screens.”

We ought to spend more time together as families, and play more games together. Despite my distaste for games that take longer than half an hour, I have discovered a great game called Bananagrams, which is brilliant for families that enjoy that kind of thing. It is not something that the Government can get involved in, but schools and other organisations can provide opportunities and suggestions for families.