Plymouth Shootings

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I will meet the hon. Member and the families of the victims, as I think my predecessor has done, to listen to their concerns directly and to make sure their voice is heard in government. He raised a number of points in his question. As I said to the shadow Minister, the response we intend to produce shortly should address the points that he outlined. Clearly the families may have points that they would like to add that we can take into account, so I suggest we have that meeting in the next month or so, so that their views can feed in to the comprehensive response I have described. We intend to consult on the specific question of fees and ensuring full cost recovery so that police forces get the money it costs them to run these licensing arrangements over the summer or early autumn as quickly as possible. I can make that commitment now.

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I pay my own tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who has done outstanding work on this issue since this appalling event in 2021. I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the support that the Home Office has given to the people of Plymouth in the aftermath of this tragedy. I welcome the review that the Minister has talked about today, but I ask him not to close his mind to a thorough review of the law in relation to firearms. I take the point that some of that law is quite ancient, and needs to be brought together and looked at in the light of internet influences, as well as medical conditions.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker—thank you for being kind to me—can I ask whether the Minister has seen the excellent report produced by Plymouth’s violence against women and girls commission, which tries to tackle some of these wider cultural issues from the bottom up? Has he seen it, and will he commend Plymouth City Council on continuing to take that work forward?

[Chris Philp]

I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the families of the victims, who have shown extraordinary bravery in the way they have handled this situation and advocated for change during what have obviously been very difficult circumstances for them. We will obviously consider any recommended changes to the law that may follow from the three reports we are going to be considering.

I am aware of the excellent work led by Plymouth City Councillor Rebecca Smith on a VAWG strategy designed to combat these kinds of issues. When my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) was Minister for Safeguarding, she visited Plymouth together with Councillor Smith to discuss her excellent report, and I commend the approach that Councillor Smith has developed in Plymouth to other local authorities around the country.

Violence against Women and Girls: Plymouth

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of violence against women and girls in Plymouth.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. 2021 was a tough year for the city of Plymouth. In August, a young man tragically took the lives of five people in Keyham, killing two women and a little girl, before turning the gun on himself. In November, 18-year-old Bobbi-Anne McLeod was abducted from a bus stop in Leigham and found several days later, close to a beach in my constituency, having been brutally murdered by a man. These horrific incidents compounded the sense of fear and concern among female residents of Plymouth, which was shared by many across the country after the murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer in London, earlier in 2021.

As a result, it became clear that something needed to be done to tackle violence against women and girls in Plymouth, if the city was to feel safer and be safer. And so began a cross-party piece of work, which resulted in a groundbreaking report containing 15 recommendations. Recommendation No. 5 states that Plymouth should share its learning:

“Plymouth will share its story as widely as possible so others can learn from the experiences of people in the city and the work of the Commission. The Commission will call on local MPs to host a debate in Westminster on male violence against women and girls in Plymouth.”

That is why we are here today: to share the work of the Plymouth commission on violence against women and girls, and the ongoing work across the city to embed real change and make women and girls safer in our city.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) sends his apologies. He cannot be with us due to a long-standing commitment, but his work following the Keyham murders was exceptional. I am also expecting my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) to pop in later in the debate. His ministerial duties mean that he cannot say anything, but he is very supportive of the action we are taking today. We are all in this together. I also pay tribute to the leader of Plymouth City Council and the leader of the Plymouth Labour group for collaborating so closely on this project. They appointed a rising star of the council chamber, Councillor Rebecca Smith, to head up the commission. Months later, that appointment has proved to be well judged.

The first step on the commission journey was to host a question and answer event with groups already working on the issues of violence against women and girls in Plymouth, ranging from the police and the council to organisations such as Trevi and First Light, which work with survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence. It was important to start by more clearly sharing the existing work being done across the city. The online event was attended by over 120 people and gave a clear sense of the sort of questions that women wanted answers to, but also provided some of the topics that the commission would need to address—for example, the importance of working with young people to help to shift the culture of everyday sexism and misogyny that so many experience.

A group of experts from across the country were invited to join the commission to investigate the current situation in the city and make recommendations on how the city should tackle violence against women and girls. The commission was chaired by Councillor Rebecca Smith, with former chief prosecutor Nazir Afzal OBE serving as an independent adviser. Just over 12 months ago, the commission met for the first time and set about gathering evidence to report on how Plymouth was tackling violence against women and girls, and to recommend what might be done to enhance existing work. The result was the “Male Violence Against Women and Girls Report”, with its 15 recommendations, which was published in May 2022 and is available online.

We believe that the commission and its report and recommendations are the first of their kind in the country. The commission heard over 40 hours of oral evidence, conducted a citywide survey completed by over 1,300 people, and received written evidence from a large number of sources. From the start of the work, it became clear that the elephant in the room is the fact that the violence against women and girls acronym, VAWG, unintentionally leaves out any mention of the perpetrators. The commission therefore deliberately referred to male violence against women and girls throughout its report, to make that point. Although it is important to acknowledge that not all sexual violence, domestic abuse or stalking is male on female, it clear from the data that the vast majority is. In 2019-20, 69.3% of domestic abuse victims in the city were female and 74.4% of suspects were male. Thus, the commission sought to keep this tragic reality central to its work and recommendations.

The report and recommendations focused on four key areas: the need for cultural change around language and behaviour; the need for better access to support for women and girls who are victims of male violence; the need to help women and girls across the city to feel safer by creating safe places and spaces; and the recognition that, in order to deliver the recommendations, the whole community needs to be involved. Let me deal briefly with each area in turn, beginning with cultural change.

How do we change our deeply entrenched culture, which is riddled with inappropriate male attitudes to women and girls? In particular, how do we do so when the internet has made access to degrading images of women a free-for-all, and on social media so-called influencers such as Andrew Tate, as well as men belonging to the incel mindset, continue to pour out their bile and disrespect on women and girls? A challenge indeed. But just because we are unlikely to solve the problem completely does not mean we should not try to make a real difference right here, right now. As the commission chair, Councillor Rebecca Smith, said, a key to success is the fact that the conversation has already started.

By shining a light on male violence against women and girls through the work of the commission, Plymouth has been able to highlight the issues that need to be fixed—those that are behind the closed doors of homes across the city, common in workplaces and social spaces, evident across internet usage, and too often commonplace among our young people. Honest conversations have begun, and need to continue, as the city explores what a world without male violence against women and girls looks like, and the steps needed to achieve it. An early example is the NSPCC’s series of five films, launched in December last year, that show an intergenerational approach to preventing violence against women and girls. Another example has been the start of a local group called M.A.N. Culture, which is described as a network to challenge lad culture and promote positive attitudes among men towards women and girls.

Cultural norms can be challenged and changed. When I was first elected 30 years ago, who would have thought that we would call each other out for having a couple of drinks in the pub and trying to drive home? Drink-driving was not seen as particularly wrong in those days, but public opinion turned, legislation followed, and once acceptable behaviour became all but obsolete. That is just one example that cultural shift is possible; and on male attitudes towards women and girls, the journey has begun.

The report’s second area of focus was better support. It recommended that

“Women and girls in Plymouth are supported and empowered to report violence and abuse”,

that they should

“get the support they need, at the right time and in the right place”

and that they should not have to share their story twice. Since 2018, Plymouth has been proactively addressing violence against women and girls through the city’s domestic abuse and sexual violence partnership. The city has been implementing Home Office guidelines: putting the victim at the centre of service delivery; having a clear focus on perpetrators in order to keep victims safe; taking a strategic and systemic approach to commissioning domestic abuse services; providing locally led services; raising awareness of issues; and involving, engaging and empowering communities to design and deliver solutions to prevent violence against women and girls.

Work was already being done across the city before the commission was set up. However, since the commission’s report, work to deliver the recommendations has accelerated. The Safer Plymouth partnership, supported by the domestic abuse and sexual violence partnership board, is providing the overall leadership and direction for the citywide deliver of the commission’s recommendations, and a new strategic lead has recently been appointed, bringing to the role 20 years of experience in the sector.

Since the launch of the VAWG report in May 2022, a programme of work has been set in train across the city. Moonstone is the name of the local police force’s new stand-alone domestic abuse team, which brings together expertise and focus on cases of domestic abuse. Gemstone is the name of the sexual offences team based in the city. Early indications are that this new focus is bringing about more effective pre-charge advice, improved outcomes, improved timeliness and improved responses to victims. It is significant that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for our excellent Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez.

As one of 15 areas to attract Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and national lottery funding to deliver the changing futures programme, the city has been able to use the project to support the commission’s recommendations. Charities working with abuse victims have co-designed the violence against women and girls charter mark and helped to shape last November’s VAWG conference, both of which were recommended in the commission’s report but were enhanced by the approach of bringing in lived experience. The city’s specialist domestic abuse service is in the process of being re-procured—a timely activity, enabling the new service to be shaped to meet the commission’s recommendations. Much good work is under way following the commission’s report.

Thirdly, creating safe places and spaces also featured heavily in the commission’s list of recommendations. Although meeting the recommendations is obviously challenging, not least because one woman’s feeling of safety is not necessarily matched by her neighbour’s, it has been important to take action and do whatever is possible to ensure the streets of Plymouth feel safer. Funding has been secured to deliver help points at key locations for the night-time economy—essentially lamp posts with a camera installed in them. If someone feels unsafe for whatever reason, they can push the button and get connected to the CCTV team who can support them or provide help.

A night bus service has also been funded and is running each weekend over the winter to help those enjoying the night-time economy to get home safely. A mobile CCTV van providing a high visibility deterrent to tackle all forms of antisocial behaviour has been positioned to support the safety, both perceived and actual, of women and girls. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View joining us; he is very engaged with the whole situation.

The dynamic response project has been developed to make tactical and visible environmental improvements across the city, using referrals from the police or local councillors on behalf of residents to improve feelings of safety in hotspots. These might be simple changes such as trimming back trees to improve the lighting in dark walkways or improving the appearance of areas that have become rundown. The city is testing a single point of entry for children who require assessment, support and treatment for harmful sexual behaviour. All those measures are part of the work being done to ensure the city feels and is safer.

Finally, there is the recognition that this is an issue for us all—the whole community. Continuing to talk about and take action on violence against women and girls is crucial if Plymouth is to see the change it seeks. As a result, the city has set up a new VAWG communications working group to co-ordinate a citywide programme of activities, campaigns and events, including an annual conference, with the inaugural event held last November attracting over 200 attendees from businesses and organisations.

In addition, conversations are taking place with over 50 organisations across the city that have already signed a pledge to tackle VAWG, and to develop a violence against women and girls charter mark scheme and champions network by November 2023. As with any set of recommendations, setting up the framework for delivery is essential, and the new strategic lead is working with the domestic abuse and sexual violence partnership board to refresh the plan for the next 12 months to include the commission’s recommendations.

By setting out the work that has been done in the city since the publication of the commission’s report last year, I wanted to highlight how possible it is to tackle violence against women and girls across a city like Plymouth. Obviously, we have years of committed work ahead of us to see the cultural change we want and an end to violence against women and girls, but in Plymouth we have made a positive start. We cannot pretend it will be easy to set aside centuries of ingrained male attitudes and behaviour, but if we are to build a safer, better world for all women and children, it is essential that we commit to that task.

I will conclude by asking the Minister a few questions. I am sure she will set out how the Government have worked hard, which they have, to play their part in tackling violence against women and girls in recent years. Much of the work being done and facilitated in Plymouth has been impacted directly by Government policy and through funding made available for the work. For that we are grateful, which leads me nicely to my requests.

Additional central funding for frontline interventions would make a world of difference to our cause. Is the Minister aware that current Home Office funding is inaccessible to the majority of small local VAWG organisations in Devon and Cornwall because of the conditions attached? Could she kindly re-examine and consider that?

I have spoken about the ambition to see more work on prevention and systemic cultural change impacting all generations, and additional funding and focus are necessary to include work to change the behaviour and attitudes of men and boys. That would greatly help the city to deliver this vital work. I think we all agree that it is not all about funding; we also need to hear a clear and consistent voice on the issues from those people and institutions qualified to speak about the deeper causes of such attitudes and behaviour. I welcome the recent amendments to the Online Safety Bill that will ensure that we protect children from inappropriate sexual material online, because that is a key part of tackling violence against women and girls through culture change and education.

The commission launched its report at an event last summer attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), then a Home Office Minister, who gave a keynote speech that was extremely well received. All three city MPs were in attendance. We would like to invite the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), to visit Plymouth and see for herself the excellent work that we are undertaking. I congratulate the commission on its work and report, and look forward to supporting its leadership on this vital issue over the years ahead.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I do not wish to set a formal time limit, but speeches of around six minutes would allow everybody to have their full say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gary Streeter]

I thank the Minister for her response and thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It is worth sharing that when the three local Members of Parliament had a briefing—which was done individually by Zoom—on the killing of Bobbi-Anne McLeod, after 15 minutes I had to ask the police officers to stop. I just could not take any more. Maybe it is because I am a grandfather of two beautiful girls; I do not know, but that is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a beautiful young life, snatched away by someone who was influenced by the internet.

There is no politics in this: we are all in this together. I am so pleased that Plymouth has put in place the commissioner and is leading the way. I hope that other parts of the country will follow. I will say one thing to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who we are so fond of. He said that perhaps attitudes 30 or 40 years ago among our generation—we are the same age, more or less—were different. I am not sure about that. We are the Jimmy Savile generation. We are the Rolf Harris generation. So much was hidden. At least now it is out in the open, but we still have to deal with it. We have a long journey ahead, so we just have to commit ourselves to this task.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of violence against women and girls in Plymouth.

Unaccompanied Minors Seeking Asylum

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

If Angela Crawley is ready to go, it is a delight to call her to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. Just to remind Members, there is not an opportunity in a 30-minute debate for the Member in charge to wind up. That is our convention.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered unaccompanied minors seeking asylum.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I am grateful for the opportunity to lead today’s debate on an urgent and sadly all too familiar issue. Last month, 30 miles out at sea, at 3 am, in freezing conditions, four migrants died after a small boat capsized in the English channel. That is not a new story, sadly—it happens too often—but one of the dead was just a teenager. That news never gets any easier to hear or digest.

In that same tragedy, eight children were among those who were successfully rescued by the coastguard. The Mirror reported that one 12-year-old survivor was escaping Afghanistan after his whole family had been killed by the Taliban. None of us can imagine the horrors that drive people to get on boats or take perilous journeys to cross the channel, yet those horrors are experienced by innocent children every day.

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arrive alone, afraid, and have no idea where to start. Unfortunately, this Government are fixated on criminalising and discrediting desperate people who have come to the UK to seek a new life. Vulnerable children and young people are having their rights and protections stripped, and that is the wrong approach. Our duty must be to give them a warm welcome, a fresh start and the protection and hope that they so desperately need when they arrive to seek refuge in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

This is a half-hour debate; do you have the permission of the mover of the motion to speak?

[Angela Crawley]

He does now.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Mr Watling, you have five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley]

The Minister should be mindful when quoting statistics. It is somewhat misleading to suggest that, because Scotland is using fewer hotels, it is not adequately playing its part. Most local authorities in Scotland have more than stepped up to the plate. The use of selective statistics is very misleading and not great practice. Let us be honest: are not most hotels not suitable accommodation, temporary or otherwise, for individuals? It is therefore misleading to suggest that Scotland is not playing its part. There are many other ways in which we accommodate asylum seekers. [Interruption.]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. Can the Minister finish in 30 seconds? I suspect not. If not, we will have to come back.

[Robert Jenrick]

Could we come back? The hon. Lady had a number of points I should address.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Indeed.

Fire Services: North-east England

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I want to commend the firefighters working at Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service, who have attended two major fires in my constituency: one at Shee Recycling in Birtley, where there are environmental hazards, and a second at the Ryrton Willows—one of those summer fires that my hon. Friend referred to. We have also seen the impact of those budget reductions, with the loss of one pump at Swalwell in my constituency.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. A reminder that interventions must be brief.

[Liz Twist]

Thank you. There were also the proposed cuts to night cover in Birtley, which fortunately we were able to amend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues, you can see how many of you there are wishing to get in. You will have about three minutes each. I call Peter Gibson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Colleagues, because you have all been so disciplined, I will allow the remaining speakers—with apologies to those who have already spoken—to have three and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Gibson]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady refers to the intervention of the Army in previous strikes. I have just been doing some research into when the last fire brigade strikes were. They were in 2002, when Labour was in power, and 1997, when Labour was in power, but all the speeches from the Opposition side of the Chamber this evening seem to suggest that year dot was 2010. It clearly was not.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Let us remind ourselves that we are talking about the north-east.

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think anyone thinks 2010 was year dot, but the Government have been in power for 12 years, and we are judging that record today.

Captain David Mockett

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Before I turn to the important case of misjustice that I wish to raise with the Minister, may I place on record my deep sadness at the news of the tragic killing in Plymouth of Bobbi-Anne McLeod, whose body was discovered last night? As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Plymouth is a city in shock over the Keyham killings earlier this year, and the news last night of another senseless murder, of a defenceless young lady, has shaken us to the core. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and loved ones. We thank very much the police and emergency services for all that they are doing to bring to justice the perpetrators of this appalling murder in Plymouth.

While I am speaking about Plymouth, I should thank the Government for their support of the people of Keyham, with more funding announced today for schoolchildren in Plymouth, many of whom have seen things on the streets of our city that children of primary school age should never see.

I am delighted to turn now to the subject matter of the debate, which I am introducing to bring to the attention of the House an injustice suffered by my constituents, the Mockett family, who have never been able to achieve closure on the brutal murder of a much-loved husband, father and grandfather, Captain David Mockett, who was killed in Yemen in 2011—a death that has never been properly investigated by British authorities.

I will put my arguments in three sections. First, I will set out the background to the matter, and the link between the murder of Captain Mockett and the commercial court case of the Brillante Virtuoso. Secondly, I will set out the many attempts that the family have made to seek justice, and the failings of our prosecuting authorities. Finally, I will spell out the steps that we wish the Minister to take to achieve justice for my constituents.

Let me turn first to the background. David Mockett was a marine surveyor who divided his time between Yemen, where he worked on many insurance claims, and Plymouth, where his wife and daughters lived. He had a reputation as the finest marine surveyor in the region. In July 2011, an oil tanker with a cargo worth around $100 million—the Brillante Virtuoso—was apparently boarded by pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The Minister will remember that at that time the threat from Somali pirates in that stretch of water was very real. The ship was boarded at midnight by seven masked men armed with automatic weapons. Shots were fired and the crew held hostage. For reasons not then known, the capture of the vessel by pirates resulted in an explosion and the ship being set on fire. The crew were evacuated, but the cargo and the ship were substantially lost.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, Talbot Underwriting, with which the ship was insured, sent a surveyor to find out what had happened and to assess the claim, as was standard practice. David Mockett, who was working for Noble Denton in Yemen, was the surveyor chosen for the task. He was immediately suspicious that this had been not a straightforward act of piracy, but a clumsy insurance fraud. Through email correspondence with colleagues and his wife, David reported that he was unable to

“find any evidence of bullet holes or exposures to grenades”,

and that the incident on the Brillante Virtuoso was not simply an attack by Somali pirates, as claimed by the ship owner.

On 20 July 2011, David Mockett took his laptop and climbed into his Lexus car. After he had driven a short distance, the bomb carefully placed under his seat exploded, killing him instantly. In the days that followed, some attempts were made by British authorities to investigate the murder, but no real progress was made. However, substantial legal action followed in relation to claims made by the owner of the vessel, who was a Greek ship owner called Marios Iliopoulos. That legal action continued until a judgment was handed down in a British court by Mr Justice Teare late last year. In that trial—brought in the commercial court at the Royal Courts of Justice by Suez Fortune Investments Ltd and others against Talbot Underwriting Ltd—the learned judge concluded the following in his comprehensive judgment, in which he found for the insurers:

“The constructive total loss of Brillante Virtuoso was caused by the wilful misconduct of the Owner, Mr. Iliopoulos… the motives of the armed men were not to steal or ransom the vessel or to steal from the crew, but to assist the Owner to commit a fraud upon Underwriters… Iliopoulos had a motive to want the vessel to be damaged by fire, namely, the making of a fraudulent claim for the total loss of the vessel in the sum of some US$77 million which, if successful, would solve the serious financial difficulties in which he and his companies were at the time.”

I think the Minister will agree that that finding is as clear a statement from a High Court judge as we could ever wish to hear.

That commercial case was not about the killing of Mr Mockett, but it goes a long way to explaining the motive for killing him, as he was about to uncover the truth about the taking of the Brillante Virtuoso, and it also provides a clear indication as to who was almost certainly behind his murder.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for bringing the matter forward. I hail from a nation where too many lives have been lost in similar devastating manner. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that integrity such as that shown by Captain David Mockett is feared internationally, and that it is only right and proper that his death be recognised as the work of evil men with an evil purpose whose acts of darkness will never succeed in getting rid of the light?

[Sir Gary Streeter]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, Captain Mockett was a man of the highest integrity, and for him to be killed for doing his job, and doing his job well, is an absolute outrage.

During the 12-week trial in the High Court, it was established that the hijackers were Yemeni coastguard officers disguised as Somali pirates, and that the automatic weapons they used had been supplied to them in advance by one of the Greek salvors who was on standby to salvage the burning vessel, as part of the plan. It was all a massive fraud that Captain Mockett was in the process of uncovering—for that, he was killed.

Let me turn to my next question: what have the family tried to do to obtain justice for their murdered husband and father? At the inquest in Plymouth in June 2012, the coroner found that Captain Mockett was unlawfully killed. Evidence was given ruling out al-Qaeda terrorists and suggesting strongly that the killing was linked to an insurance fraud. In the past 10 years, Mrs Mockett, supported by two close friends who each have relevant expertise, has sought to persuade the British investigative authorities to carry out a detailed and forensic investigation of the case and to go after the people responsible. That has never happened.

The family have been shunted from pillar to post within the Metropolitan police, receiving only vague assurances that the matter was being looked into. Although terrorism was quickly ruled out, none the less the case went to the counter-terrorism command rather than a team used to investigating organised crime. No progress was made. As the commercial court case unfolded, much information was passed to that team within the Met that clearly demonstrated the link to the commercial shipping case, and that Captain Mockett was murdered owing to insurance fraud, but no obvious action was taken.

In 2018, Mrs Mockett sought my help. I wrote to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and received a reply confirming that the counter-terrorism command—SO15—had been involved in the investigation of Captain Mockett’s murder, but pointing out that the Yemeni authorities had the lead responsibility, and that it was all very difficult. We were no further forward. In March 2019 I wrote to the then Home Secretary, raising my concerns about the lack of investigation and making the crucial point that the way forward in this case was to open a piracy investigation in international waters, for which our investigators do have jurisdiction. That would enable them to bring proceedings against the perpetrators of this act of piracy, enabling the family to obtain justice.

I set out this argument clearly in my letter to the then Home Secretary, but, although his office spoke to the Metropolitan Police, they did not proceed as requested. The fact that the killing took place in Yemen, a failing state, is not the obstacle it might at first appear, because most of the evidence in this case sits in London and in Athens. The judgement of Mr Justice Teare provides a clear indication that serious criminal acts under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 have taken place, and our authorities most certainly have jurisdiction to investigate them. I wrote again to the next Home Secretary in March 2020, making a similar case, and received a response from a Home Office Minister, again pointing out the difficulty of bringing proceedings in relation to a crime committed in Yemen, but once again not gripping the argument about investigating the act of piracy and bringing to court those responsible.

In frustration, I then organised a meeting with the officers of the Metropolitan Police on whose desk this file sat, gathering dust, with Mrs Mockett present. Sadly, that proved to be equally frustrating. The only real point of encouragement was that they promised to keep a close eye on the commercial case involving the Brillante Virtuoso and, if any useful evidence emerged therefrom, to take matters forward. As far as we know, they did not once attend court during a very long hearing and, despite the crystal-clear judgment from the learned judge on the identity of the people behind the whole criminal enterprise, they have not taken a single step since the judgment to investigate the people responsible.

The Metropolitan police have been provided with a very clear way forward, which they have so far refused to pursue. I am sure the Minister would agree that when a British citizen is murdered in cold blood overseas, our authorities should move heaven and earth to bring those responsible to justice, using every legal means of action available to them. That has not happened, and the years are slipping by. There has been more than enough information to progress this investigation, yet the Metropolitan police appear to show an alarming reluctance to move forward. Any confidence that the Mockett family had in the police force has now been completely eroded.

Even now, however, it is not too late. The fresh wave of evidence raised in the insurance fraud trial provides a real opportunity and is more than a starting point for further investigation. While it may be difficult to obtain sufficient evidence surrounding the planting of the bomb, there is ample evidence to prosecute the mastermind behind all this for the international crimes of hijacking and destruction of the vessel. In the investigation of those offences, the murder of Captain Mockett would also automatically be investigated as part of the cover-up, leading to a measure of justice for those responsible.

The injustice in this case, and the inaction by our prosecuting authorities, has attracted the attention of third parties. Next year a book is to be published into this whole sorry mess, including an in-depth look at why nobody has been held to account, despite the evidence now uncovered. There will also be a Radio 4 programme highlighting this case as a miscarriage of justice. I am sure the whole House would agree that when a British citizen is murdered in any part of this world just for doing his job, there must be justice.

What do we want the Minister to do? The family will not let this drop, and nor will I. We recognise that the Home Office is not directly responsible for decisions on prosecution, nor should it be, but Ministers have influence and are there to ensure that our independent police forces are working correctly. I ask the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to call into his office the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and ask her to properly investigate this case. She should be asked to remove this file from the desk of the current team, where it still sits gathering dust, and give it to a new team of people experienced in investigating serious international fraud. They should be instructed to draw on the rich seam of evidence that the commercial court case has brought to light and to engage with the seasoned professionals who have advised Mrs Mockett throughout and who have real life and relevant experience. If that were to happen, I am confident that a way would be found under existing law to investigate and bring to book those responsible for this appalling crime and to deliver to Mrs Cynthia Mockett—one of the loveliest women anyone could wish to meet—her daughters and grandaughters the justice that they so richly deserve.

[The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)]

It was with great sadness that we heard yesterday of a body being found in the search for 18-year-old Bobbi-Anne McLeod. Our thoughts and prayers, and those of the whole House, are with her family. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) in his praise and thanks of the emergency services.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate on the tragic case of the late Captain David Mockett. My hon. Friend has long campaigned on the case and has shown great determination in seeking justice on behalf of his constituents, the family of Captain Mockett. I hear what my hon. Friend says about his continuing commitment in that regard. I also express my sympathies to the Mockett family for the tragic loss of their husband and father, and of a professional who was clearly highly respected in his field. Their determination and perseverance in seeking justice is entirely understandable and right, and of course we must do what we can to deliver on that.

As my hon. Friend said, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, known as SO15, supported the Yemeni authorities and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was then known. That command has unique expertise in assisting with complex cases in other countries. In 2011, a senior SO15 officer conducted a scoping exercise on the circumstances around Mr Mockett’s death to assist the UK coroner, and he subsequently gave evidence at the inquest. The coroner concluded that the murder was most likely criminally motivated. I understand that SO15 has worked closely with the City of London police, which carried out a fraud investigation linked to the case, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The Metropolitan police assured us that, over the last 10 years, SO15 has sought to assist other agencies with the appropriate jurisdiction and will continue to do so.

It is the case that Yemeni authorities have overall responsibility for the homicide investigation and there are very limited circumstances where UK police can take primacy on an investigation into a murder overseas. The Metropolitan police is of the view that the circumstances in this case are such that UK police do not have legal authority.

My late predecessor, our friend James Brokenshire, wrote to my hon. Friend in 2020 in response to his correspondence, as he will recall. As noted in that letter, the police and the National Crime Agency are operationally independent, as he noted in his closing remarks. Ministers do not have the powers to make a request or direction to them to open an investigation. In our system, that would not be appropriate.

I am entirely sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s determination to seek justice for his constituents. I am also sure that he will appreciate the principle of the operational independence of the police and of how operational decisions and, ultimately, prosecution decisions are made. Indeed, the police must be able to operate free of political influence or interference, even in cases as tragic, emotive and difficult as this one. Where there is a case for further action, we would of course expect them to take appropriate action.

While I regret that I am not in a position to agree to the requests my hon. Friend set out in his speech, I will do—and want to do—what I can to help support David’s family. First, I can confirm that the case has been drawn to the attention of Her Majesty’s ambassador to Yemen, who can make representations about the matter to the Government of Yemen. I am also, of course, very happy to meet my hon. Friend away from the Floor of the House to discuss the case more fully, and we should be in touch on that immediately.

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for seeking this important debate.

[Sir Gary Streeter]

I appreciate all that the Minister has said, but is he satisfied, or could he make further inquiries, on the point I have raised repeatedly about looking at the Aviation and Marine Security Act to see whether some other kind of investigation might be pursued by the British authorities into the act of piracy, which could then have the right result in securing some kind of justice? Could he please go back to his office and look at that point for me? I would be most grateful.

European Union Settlement Scheme

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements— welcome to those on the screen. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate, and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should either throw something at the screen or email the Westminster Hall Clerks at [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the EU Settlement Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. With the 30 June deadline for applications for the EU settlement scheme fast approaching, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate. I also wish to give my colleagues time to speak, and therefore I will use only some of my time today, not only to remind EU nationals living in the UK to apply for settled status if they have not already done so, but to highlight to the Minister that this scheme is already causing disruption in people’s lives and that this may be the last chance to prevent another Windrush scandal.

The EU settlement scheme was launched in March 2019 as part of the withdrawal agreement. The scheme was trailed by the Department for Exiting the European Union as the method for EU nationals to secure their rights post-Brexit, and to continue to live their lives broadly as they did under freedom of movement. The reality is that being forced to register for rights in the country they call home has caused a great deal of upset and anxiety among many of our European friends, neighbours and constituents. People have been left feeling unwanted, unwelcome, humiliated and angry due to this Government’s heavy-handed approach. For many, it has broken their sense of belonging and eroded their trust in this Government; for others, it has been the final straw, and they have left the UK altogether. This is a sorry state of affairs, considering the benefits that EU nationals bring to the UK: to our economy, our workforce, the NHS, and—most importantly—our culture.

As of the start of this month, there have been 5.6 million applications to the EU settlement scheme. The majority of those applicants, around 4.9 million, have been granted settled or pre-settled status. Settled status guarantees the right to live, work, and remain indefinitely, free of immigration controls, and is available to those who have lived in the UK for more than five years. Pre-settled status offers less definite security, giving permission for five years that will expire, with the expectation that the person will later apply for settled status. The onus for converting pre-settled status to settled status falls on the applicant. There is the potential for people to forget to reapply or to miss that reminder, and in this instance, someone could easily find themselves working illegally and have to go without income while applying to update their status. Will the Minister give consideration to a system of automatic conversion to settled status for those who are pre-settled?

Right now, there is a backlog of more than 300,000 applications still waiting to be cleared by the Home Office. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has raised concerns that if these applications are still live after the deadline, that will create a legal ambiguity for applicants. Will they be in the country unlawfully while they are waiting on this decision? Can the Minister offer clear guidance on the rights of the tens of thousands of people waiting for a decision, and give his assurances that those will not be affected after the deadline? Perhaps the Minister could allow applicants to avoid this pitfall altogether by taking the advice of the Scottish Government’s Europe Minister, Jenny Gilruth, to extend the deadline.

As of midnight on 30 June, those who have not applied to the scheme will feel the full effect of this Government’s hostile immigration system. That means that people who have lived and worked in the UK legally for years will be criminalised and potentially face a dramatic change in their rights. They will be unable to work or rent; they will be unable to receive NHS treatment free at the point of need; they will be unable to receive welfare benefits or access to other public services, such as housing; and they will be liable to criminal prosecution, detention and removal from the UK.

The Home Office has confirmed that it is aware of those people who are still due to apply to the scheme and will miss the deadline. According to the Home Office guidance, those groups include children, people with care or support needs, victims of domestic abuse, people in poverty, homeless people and rough sleepers, and, in particular, minority groups such as the Roma community. Could the Minister outline in his answers what steps are being taken to support those vulnerable people who his Department already knows will miss the deadline?

The campaign organisation the3million, which has been at the forefront of being a voice for so many people, has reported that even though the application process is still open, EU nationals are already being asked to prove their settled status in a wide range of contexts, contrary to Government guidance. Those asking them to do so include landlords, estate agents, housing agencies, employers, banks, councils, GPs, hospitals, schools, international airports, prior to their boarding a flight, and UK border staff. Those are just some of the many examples. I mention this because it is clear that the people asking for proof of status are unlikely to be specialists in the immigration field and may be unfamiliar with the settled scheme terminology, creating situations ripe for discrimination. As the Minister will be aware, the Court of Appeal ruled in December that those with pre-settled status must be treated on an equal basis with all other claimants when applying for welfare benefits, so will the Minister put it on the record that that must be the case in relation to employers, landlords and all services?

Successful applicants are not given physical proof of their status. Instead, every time someone needs to prove their status, they will have to go through a complex process, involving at least 14 steps, in order to show an online document. The Government’s implementation of covid certification allows people to show their status simply on their phone or to download and print a PDF document. Alternatively, if someone is not digitally literate, they can request a printed version. Allowing a similar physical status document would make life so much easier for those granted settled or pre-settled status. Can the Minister offer a convincing reason why that has not been built into the EU settlement scheme, and will he consider building physical documentation into the system going forward?

The Minister will be aware of the correspondence on behalf of my constituent Jenny Condie. According to her settled status documentation, she is called by her maiden name, Serraf. This is the case for many married European women whose passports list both their married and their maiden names. I understand that it is due to the Home Office taking details from the machine-readable zone of the passport. However, it may raise suspicions when the status documentation does not match any other form of identification. When I asked the Home Office how many women were issued with documentation in their maiden name, the information was not available. I am concerned that women will discover that their documentation is misleading only when they face awkward questions, delays or discrimination when trying to prove their status.

Initially, Jenny was advised by the Home Office to approach the French authorities to have her passport amended, so I am grateful to the Minister for his letter outlining that a process for changing maiden names to married names has been created at the Home Office since I first contacted him about this case. However, Jenny has been unable to have the change carried out. The Home Office requires her to send her physical passport, but she is reluctant to do so, because she is worried that she may need to travel to France if there is an emergency. Should the document get lost in the post, she would need to travel to London for a passport replacement. Those concerns will be replicated for most EU nationals in the same position. When making the application, Jenny only had to send a picture of the document. Will the Minister review the process and either make the change to married names automatic or streamline the process by accepting photographed documents?

In 2016, as part of the Vote Leave campaign, the current Prime Minister and the current Home Secretary issued a commitment that there would be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK; those EU citizens would automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and would be treated no less favourably than they were at present. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary respectively not only have failed to uphold that commitment on all counts, but have caused confusion, upset, anxiety and fear, and allowed the dignity of EU citizens to be trampled, through the faulty EU settlement scheme. It was evident when the scheme opened in 2019 that people would fall through the cracks; and now, two weeks before the deadline, the reality could not be clearer.

The Minister today has the opportunity to extend the deadline and avoid a Windrush-style scandal. I wish to allow time for parliamentary colleagues to speak. Therefore I will conclude here: I urge him to take this consideration very seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We now have two mini-speeches. First, we go again to Scotland with Anne McLaughlin, and then to Wera Hobhouse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Only yesterday, I was in Northern Ireland talking to two of our grant-funded organisations: the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme, whose chief executive Bernadette Devlin, as people may know, is a former Member of this House; and Advice NI. We talked about the work that they have been doing. We have been directly funding adverts. We are grateful for the support we have received from the devolved Administrations, both in Northern Ireland and, as has been referred to already, in Scotland, with the Stay in Scotland campaign, which the Scottish Government have been running.

I want to make clear a couple of core elements of the scheme. We made the application process simple and straightforward, including the introduction of a digital app to confirm identity, and automated checks of Government data, reducing the need for applicants to provide evidence of residence. We also made it simple by making the criterion residence, not exercising particular free-movement rights. People did not have to prove, for example, that they were working or studying here—just residence was enough. Those familiar with the EEA free-movement regulations will know that they are more complex. We wanted to make it simple and easy, so that it lent itself to quick and simple decision making.

We looked at the EUSS to provide us with a template for how we manage immigration applications and immigration status going forward: fewer physical visits to a visa application centre, less need for physical documents or sending information to the Government that they already have, such as tax records. That enables more simplicity in getting a decision, allowing us to focus resources on supporting and helping the most vulnerable.

Given that there is still debate on the point, I want to be absolutely clear. A person who applies by 30 June 2021 deadline will have their existing rights protected, pending the outcome of the application and any subsequent appeal, if it is not successful. That is achieved by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. That is quite firm. From 1 July, they will be able to rely on their certificate of application as proof to access the right to work or rent, when verified by the relevant Home Office checking service. In essence, that is a process similar to that for those who have been granted status. I want to make that very clear.

Similarly, the scope to make a late application based on reasonable grounds for missing the relevant deadline is indefinite. There is no set time for how long lateness can be deemed reasonable. The example I regularly use is of someone who turns 18 and applies for a job, and discovers that 10 or even 13 years ago the local authority looking after them at the time did not make the application for settled status. We consider that a reasonable ground, even though that may happen 10 or 13 years in the future if they are a young child in the care of a local authority today, or if their parents have not applied for them. The guidance states that for those under 18 at the time the deadline applied. I hope that gives reassurance on that matter.

We are working through a large number of applications, but the vast majority are cleared within less than three months. In many cases, those that have been outstanding for longer are more complex, such as those based on derivative rights that apply to non-EEA nationals as well as EEA nationals, or where there are matters of a relevant history of criminal offending or outstanding prosecutions, where the Home Office cannot proceed to decide the application until those matters have been brought to a conclusion, given that the offence involved would inevitably affect their status here in the UK.

In terms of supporting the most vulnerable, £4.5 million in grant funding was announced on 11 February for 72 organisations across our United Kingdom, who are providing invaluable support and help to vulnerable and hard-to-reach individuals in groups applying to the EU settlement scheme. That was on top of the £17 million already provided, and will ensure the continued delivery of support until at least the end of September 2021. We were keen that there would be funding and support available in the first three months of using digital identity and for those making late applications.

We are really pleased that over 310,000 individuals have been directly supported by these organisations to apply to the scheme to get the status they deserve. This includes a range of people with complex or chaotic lifestyles, and those who are not able to make an application themselves, due to their health. That is in addition to other support that is more generally available, such as the EU Settlement Resolution Centre, We Are Digital, the assisted digital service for applications, and the support available on gov.uk.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that he has until 4.35 pm, not 4.30 pm.

[Kevin Foster]

Thank you for the reminder, Sir Gary, which I greatly appreciate. Perhaps it is appropriate to come to the subject of children in care.

Across Government, we are looking to ensure that all eligible looked-after children and care leavers are supported to secure their status under the EUSS, through an application made by 30 June 2021; as I have touched on, we have already made it clear that if the application is not made by someone else who is responsible, then we will accept a late application.

The total number of looked-after children and care leavers eligible to apply for the EUSS, identified by a survey of 210 local government bodies UK-wide, was 3,600. As of 23 April, 2,440 applications from looked-after children and care leavers have been received, which was 67% of the total identified and an increase from 15,020—46%— back in November. We are now starting to see these applications coming through. To reassure Members, 72% of these applications have been decided, of which 1,365 resulted in a grant of settled status and 235 in a grant of pre-settled status.

I turn now to some specific points raised during the debate. It is worth touching on the issue of digital status. We are developing a border and immigration system that is digital by default. That means that over time we will increasingly replace physical and paper-based documents, some of which can be many years old, with easy-to-use, accessible online and digital services. We are building on this work based on the experience of counties like Australia, which has had fully digital systems for some time. That was highlighted by a letter from the3million to all Members of Parliament last year.

Individuals will still receive a written notification of immigration status, by email or letter, which they can retain for their own records, but they we will be given access to the digital version of their immigration status information, which can be accessed and shared at any time by the online view-and-prove service. Unlike a physical document, this cannot be lost or stolen and, it is also worth bearing in mind, it cannot be retained by someone who is seeking to exploit or abuse it. That status cannot be taken away; it is retained and it can be accessed by public services. It is not a document that someone can physically keep from someone else’s possession.

We are already seeing employers and landlords successfully using our online checking services, not least in the context of the pandemic, where performing physical checks on people’s rights to work may be a lot more difficult than it would normally have been. We are updating our guidance and communicating to ensure they are clear on the steps they should take at the end of the grace period. That will include additional safeguards for existing EEA employers and tenants who may have missed the deadline, which will include a period of time for people to make a late application to the EUSS. We genuinely believe that will provide a balance, ensuring that those who have taken up employment after the 1 July show status and their right to work. However, we will not require any employer to take retrospective checks on their staff who they have employed previously as EEA nationals, who have passed previous right-to-work checks using a passport or national identity card. We are not requiring anyone to do checks on 1 July retrospectively. There is absolutely no requirement for any employer to do that.

In terms of looking at how the system is working, as some hon. Members commented, between October 2019 and March 2021 the service had over 3.9 million views by individuals and over 330,000 views by organisations checking immigration status. Between January 2019, when the service was launched for employers, and March 2021, there were over 390,000 views by employers. A similar service to enable right-to-rent checks, which only apply in England, went live in November 2020; between then and March 2021, there have been over 6,500 views by landlords and agents on the online right to rent service. No one should be required to show status under the EUSS until after 30 June, but it can provide a convenient and useful way of proving status to a bank, landlord or employer, hence why people are already taking the opportunity to use it.

When it comes to conversion from pre-settled to settled, we will take a proactive approach of seeking to remind people when that is due. People will start to be required to convert in 2023. It would be difficult to go to an automatic conversion, given the reality that somebody may not be intending to settle in the UK, or may not have stayed in the UK having been initially granted pre-settled status. But we will look to proactively remind people. To be clear, it is a free-of-charge application and there are similar criteria for reasonable grounds for a late application to convert as well; unsurprisingly, they will be similar to the non-exhaustive guidance that we have published in relation to those making a late application at this stage, as we feel that is a reasonable and proportionate approach.

On looking at the issue of names in passports, I take on board the point that sometimes people discover what is in the machine-readable zone of their national passport when they apply for a status with the Home Office. That is not something that affects only the EUSS; it also affects wider immigration statuses. Members will appreciate why we put quite a lot of store into making sure we have secure identity and that we link people clearly to the identity status that they use to apply to the scheme. I appreciate that can produce some issues in countries where it is less easy to convert a passport so that it shows a married name rather than a maiden name than under the system we have here in the UK, but it is an important part of how our system operates that we have that security.

On having a digital system that allows people to apply from home, we are increasingly moving towards systems that will read someone’s passport rather than require them to go to an application centre to prove their status—the British nationals overseas route is a good example, where many apply from home using their BNO or their HKSAR passport to prove their identity to the Home Office. We will consider whether improvements can be made, but there is the basis of real security that we need to maintain, so that we do not have opportunities for different identities in applications being submitted.

The EU settlement scheme has been a success. It has given security and certainty to millions of people and is a genuine success of which we can be proud as a nation. I encourage all who are eligible who have not yet applied to do so as soon as possible. Support is available online, on the phone and in person through grant-funded organisations to help them apply

Question put and agreed to.

Retail Workers: Protection

Gary Streeter Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Five colleagues are trying to catch my eye. The winding-up speeches will begin at 5.10 pm, so you have four minutes each. I call Meg Hillier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for securing this important debate. Before I begin, I will declare an interest: I worked for five years for the trade union USDAW, which has done fantastic work alongside the British Retail Consortium in raising awareness of and tackling violence against shop staff. In the context of the TUC’s HeartUnions Week, I want to put that good work on record. I particularly highlight the work of the research and economics department, who are so often the unsung heroes behind the scenes of the union’s campaigning work on this issue.

Shop workers in my constituency, many of whom are on zero-hours contracts with poor terms and conditions, are expected to enforce the law on age-related sales. That is one of the key trigger points for violence. Having worked in the retail sector myself, I know from experience only too well how things as benign as not having someone’s preferred sandwich in stock, or asking whether they would like a carrier bag, can result in a volley of abuse being unleashed. Sadly, management may treat staff even more poorly than the customers do.

Retail is the largest employment sector in our country. If the Government are serious about levelling up, alongside a desperately needed industrial strategy in retail, they should do more to end the scourge of violence against retail staff; that should never be part of the job. That includes working constructively with trade unions in the retail sector to create a working environment that is free from violence and the fear of violence; reforming the criminal injuries compensation scheme to ensure that low-paid retail staff on insecure contracts who have been assaulted are eligible for the maximum possible compensation, including covering any loss of earnings; and reforming sentencing legislation to make assaulting retail staff in the course of their work a specific offence. I hope this important debate will kick-start that work.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Everyone has been so concise that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) now has eight minutes.