Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

There is no desire or intention to suppress religious or other freedoms. This is about giving the police powers not to ban protest or assembly, but to place conditions on it. As I said in previous stages of the Bill, the job of this House in a democratic society is to balance competing rights. There is no doubt that, as is accepted at the European Court of Human Rights and across the liberal world, the right to protest is not unqualified. Someone cannot protest in such a way that it unreasonably impinges on my right to go about my business as a non-protester. Where noise is concerned, we are seeking to give the police powers to strike that balance where appropriate.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Can I take this point just a little further? This is about an interpretation not only of how loudly something is being said, but of what is being said. Is the Minister saying that the Bill would allow a police officer to make a judgment that he does not like the particular verse of scripture or quote that is being used, and could therefore stop it being said? That breaches the European convention on human rights in a number of areas.

[Kit Malthouse]

The amendments have no bearing on the content of the noise, merely on the impact the noise is having on people nearby from a decibel or distress point of view. Other legislation governs content, particularly if it promotes hatred or incites violence, although as I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, that will not necessarily be true in this case. The amendments are agnostic as to content.

[Ian Paisley]

I must press the Minister further. We surely live in a society that allows difficult things to be said. Unfortunately, the Bill is going down a road—it is considerably un-Tory-like, I have to say—where difficult things will no longer be allowed to be said, or at least to be said loudly, proudly and boldly. That appears to be where the Bill is taking us.

[Kit Malthouse]

Not at all. Difficult things will and should still be said loudly, proudly and boldly, but it may be different in certain circumstances—for example, we have already conceded in the Bill that certain things should not necessarily be said consistently loudly, proudly and boldly outside a school. We have already conceded the power to control noisy protests outside a school, or indeed a vaccination centre. Why should those areas necessarily be privileged over others? This is about the distress and alarm caused by that noise, and its imposition on the rights of others. It is not necessarily about the content.

Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

First, looking at what we are doing, we estimate that about 100,000 people are potentially eligible for the family route, and we have an unlimited position on the sponsorship route, which could well see us exceed quite significantly the numbers offered by the Republic of Ireland.

Visas are now going out. As I said, nearly 500 had been granted as of 9.30 this morning, and more are being granted as we speak. We are surging decision-making capability and upping the biometrics process, which will quickly increase the numbers arriving in the United Kingdom, on top of the numbers we have already welcomed as we moved UK nationals and their families earlier this year.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My constituent Michael Jevdokymenko has been contacted by his family, who have fled from Ukraine. They have no documents, no papers—nothing. They are at the border with a little three-year-old child. What assistance can we provide to give that family hope, to get them to Northern Ireland and to let them re-establish some semblance of normality? Where is the Christian compassion for which this nation was known?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that example. We are conscious that people are leaving without the normal proof they might have of family relationships. It would clearly be inappropriate to insist that people try to get a marriage certificate or something like that if they have fled from their home. We have provisions that allow travel without passports and other documents, obviously once certain checks and nominations are done. Again, that is part of the process that is being established.

We are conscious that, even where people have access to documents, they might not have the full documents. We are also conscious that people will potentially have left in a hurry, so they may not have had time to bring particular documents. Not having a passport will not be a bar, but we will need to use other processes to identify them, which is not unusual in situations where we are moving people at pace.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I am a co-signatory to new clause 4, and I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing it to the House. Does he agree that this is a unique group of individuals because of that service, and therefore that they should be considered favourably by the Government?

[Andrew Rosindell]

They most certainly should, and it should not have taken all this time for the Government to accept the need to deal with this matter. This is a left-behind group of ex-servicemen, and they really do need to be given the right of abode here in the United Kingdom.

Only 159 of the 654 British Hong Kong servicemen who applied under the 1990 to 1997 British nationality selection scheme prior to the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China were offered full UK passports for service to the Crown. I believe that those who applied for UK passports and were denied them have been discriminated against, and it is time that was rectified. They should have been treated equally to the 159 and given British citizenship for their armed forces Crown service.

The campaign for the right of abode of former British Hong Kong servicemen has established the number of servicemen still seeking recognition from the Government at around 301, with immediate family growing the group to around 1,000. That is a very low number of people when compared with the 3 million citizens affected by the changes made last year to introduce the BNO passport, which was such a welcome support for the people of Hong Kong.

Tackling Knife Crime

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I am sure that hon. Members are aware that social distancing is no longer in operation, but I would like to remind them that the Speaker has encouraged us, where possible, to wear facemasks when not speaking. I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between debates.

I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and are expected to remain for the entire debate. Those Members who are participating virtually are reminded to keep their camera on as they will be seen at all times by those viewing these proceedings. If Members experience technical problems, they should contact the Westminster Hall Clerks via their email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before leaving the room.

There are no Members sitting in the Public Gallery, and there are four speakers for this debate. Before I call the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to move the motion, may I suggest that I intend to call the Scottish National party spokesperson at around 3.20 pm? We do have lots of time and I do not think I need to impose a time limit at any point, but that is the time at which I would like to call the first Opposition spokesperson. I call Sarah Owen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

As well as prevention, at some point, we need to think about wrapping our arms around those people. I do not think that knife crime prevention orders are the answer, but they are being piloted. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about them from a sedentary position. He announced them with great fanfare in the middle of the knife-crime panic a couple of years ago, but nothing has actually happened yet. They are being piloted now, two years after they were talked about as the answer to everything. I am just saying that we need to have a conversation about the pathway and about exactly what happens to young people when they come to the attention of the police.

As I said in the Chamber last week, our summer holidays should be full of opportunities, including youth work, mentorship programmes, sports clubs, mental health support, as well as good neighbourhood policing, of course. In the medium term, we need proper wraparound support for at-risk children, including different housing when it is needed—moving people away from the area where they are susceptible to violence is a huge issue—people to talk to, mentoring, and proper youth services. In the longer term, we need to completely change the way that we tackle violence. The Government need to do more work in schools to better detect, prevent and eliminate violence, and they need to work with the NHS to properly treat the epidemic and immunise our society.

Under this Government, criminals are getting away with it, pathways to crime are wide open, and our children are being exploited by criminal thugs and groomed into violence. Our justice system is not taking the right response, and our Government are not taking the problem seriously. My question to the Minister is: where is the emergency summer plan to stop our children fighting and murdering one another over the summer holidays, and how does he plan to stop riots over the summer? Knife crime prevention orders have not been piloted yet; the education recovery plan is one tenth of what it needs to be; the Youth Endowment Fund is spread super-thin over 20 years; and the summer activities fund amounts to pennies per child. We need action. The scale of the problem needs to be matched by a proper response, because at the moment, drug use is rising, crime is rising, and the Government have no summer plan.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Minister, it is your opportunity. You have lots of issues to respond to.

EU Settlement Scheme

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have already done some close work with public bodies. For example, getting EUSS status can be very helpful to someone with a chaotic lifestyle who may have been homeless because it gives them a firm status and identity. We are working on those systems. We have been working closely with local government, particularly in the last two years, to get applications in and we will continue to do that. That includes work on provisions for expediting late applications when there are compassionate or compelling circumstances.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Minister on what has undoubtedly been a successful campaign, which he has looked after. However, I am sure that he accepts that there are anomalies in the system, specifically in Northern Ireland because of the land border that we share with an EU state, namely, the Republic of Ireland. That land border, which allows free movement across the whole island, between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, can at times undermine some of the good work that the Department is trying to do and affect and undermine commercial interests in Northern Ireland because of the different status that now applies. With that in mind, and given that the Minister has written to me about a number of those issues, is he willing to meet me to discuss those anomalies to see whether there is a way of addressing some of the problems that have been identified?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his overall comments. I would certainly be happy to meet. As he knows, Irish citizens do not need to apply. The frontier worker system has been open since January. That is more likely to apply to the Irish land border than perhaps it is in other parts of the UK. I was pleased to be in Northern Ireland last week to meet our two grant-funded organisations and someone who is a famous former Member of this House, who is the CEO of one of them, to discuss their work to reach out to more vulnerable citizens.

Release under Investigation: Metropolitan Police

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members participating must wipe down their workstations at the conclusion of their speeches. No one is speaking virtually. I have the pleasure of calling the mover of today’s motion, Sir David Amess.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of Release Under Investigation by the Metropolitan Police.

Since the Policing and Crime Act 2017 was introduced by the Government in April 2017, there has been a substantial use of suspects being released under investigation, more commonly known as RUI, by police forces around the country, with the Metropolitan police the heaviest users of this controversial practice. Moreover, since the introduction of RUI, there has been a substantial decrease in the use of pre-charge bail. Being released under investigation means that someone is suspected of a criminal offence and that the investigation into their alleged criminal activity is ongoing. They may have been arrested, but they have not been charged, nor has their case been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. However, they are not out of the woods, because the police are still suspicious that they might have committed a criminal offence.

The controversial nature of RUI is that it places those accused of crimes effectively in a state of limbo, not infrequently waiting many months or even years for the police to make a decision on whether to recommend a charge or recommend that no further action is taken against the accused. I cannot stress too much to my hon. Friend the Minister that the time the accused waits for a decision is a time when that individual suffers enormous stress and strain from all points of views and, as I will come on to, can ultimately take a terrible toll.

By way of background, when RUI was created in 2017, the purpose of its introduction was to overhaul the use of police bail. The very good intention was to remove the onus on those involved in lengthy investigations of having to frequently attend a police station to have bail extended. On face value, RUI was well intentioned, but as is often the case it has since fallen foul of the law of unintended consequences, and this power has been badly abused, in some cases by overstretched police.

When suspects or their legal representatives inquire about the progress of their case, they are frequently told by the police that they are pursuing “further lines of inquiry”. When they ask what these are, they are told, “This is confidential”, and when they ask how long the inquiry will take to conclude, they are told, “It’s difficult to say, but you will be updated”. The update often takes the form of a derisory monthly email simply saying that “Our inquiries are ongoing, but you will be updated”, which then results in much the same email being sent the next month, and the month after that, and so it goes on, in many cases for years. Indeed, RUI is often perceived, to the detriment of both alleged suspects and alleged victims, to be a pending tray for more complex cases, allowing overstretched detectives to tackle simpler cases with an easier prospect of conviction, which is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

It is clear that this system is not an improvement on the previous system of pre-charge bail, which had clearly defined time periods, whereby the suspect was updated on the progress of the investigation. That also helped to focus the minds of the detectives investigating a case.

So, with that in mind, the Law Society has proposed, as a minimum requirement, that the police should be required to explain to suspects who have been under investigation for more than four months why there is a delay in determining their case, and I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify whether or not he shares the Law Society’s view.

To paint a picture, typically what happens is that someone is interviewed under caution by the police, but there are not sufficient grounds to charge them. However, the police do not want to dismiss that person as a suspect just yet; instead, they want more time to make their inquiries, before deciding whether or not to refer the person’s case to the Crown Prosecution Service. The police therefore choose to release the person under investigation, which allows the person to leave the police station, but the police can still seize their personal property as evidence.

The person will be told about the outcome of the investigation at some point in the future. That creates a great deal of uncertainty, because they do not know if the police will eventually charge them or drop the case against them. To make matters worse, the investigation process has no maximum time limit, which is absolutely ridiculous. It means that the person could be kept waiting for weeks, months or even years before discovering their fate.

For someone to have the threat of prosecution hanging over their head can be very unnerving and may even damage their ability to earn an income. As has been previously stated, people in this position are left in a state of near-paralysis. Unsurprisingly, that can have a severely deleterious effect on a suspect’s mental health.

In preparation for this debate, I contacted an established firm of London solicitors that frequently interacts with the Metropolitan Police and it explained that

“Of three clients, one client who was under RUI and was in his early 50s has developed a brain tumour, which can only be partly removed. The other has begun to experience psychotic episodes and is now registered with local police by the crisis team. The other suffers from severe depression.”

I am not surprised. Tragically, the firm’s explanation continues:

“We know of at least one case in our office where a client took his life, having been accused of an offence in circumstances where he believed that if charged, he would not be able to see his children, only for notice to be sent within days of him taking his own life advising that the police were taking no further action.”

My goodness, how could I live with my own conscience had I been part of this process? I do not know. Taking that horrific example into consideration, does the use of RUI not ride roughshod over the principle of Blackstone’s ratio—that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffers?

How widespread is the use of RUI? This is a difficult question to answer, as since 2017 no reliable, national police data has been published on the numbers of suspect RUIs. Indeed, a report in December 2020 by the Criminal Justice Inspectorates found that some forces cannot even identify cases involving RUI because their IT systems cannot flag these cases centrally. Simply, that is not an acceptable explanation.

Nevertheless, data obtained by the law firm Hickman & Rose says that in 2018, 236,996 cases, almost a quarter of a million individuals, were at the time released under investigation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is ridiculous. Some 56,555 of those were from the Metropolitan police area alone. Not only is there an issue with the sheer scale of people under RUI, but there is a clear issue with the length of time suspects are subject to RUI. Available data shows that the average time spent before a final decision is made is 139 days. The average length of police bail, by comparison, was 90 days. It is just not acceptable. Some may even have to wait years for justice, in the case of alleged victims, or for vindication of those innocent of the crimes levelled against them, making a mockery of the central tenet of our criminal justice system: the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty.

The London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association reported recently that when a sample of 109 RUI cases was examined, more than 69 had been ongoing for between 18 months and two years. That is just not acceptable.

In fairness to the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, whom I do recognise is in the eye of the storm at the moment, I attended a virtual briefing of the APPG on policing and security just a few months ago. When I raised this issue on the call, the Commissioner did admit that the whole system of RUI was, indeed, not working and needed to be replaced. When the professional head of the Metropolitan Police Service acknowledges that the system has to change, changes should be made. I would have hoped that it might have been in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that we started to debate yesterday, and will further debate today.

Having checked the Metropolitan Police Service’s business plan progress report, I was pleased to see that the Met has implemented a so-called RUI recovery plan, led by commanders in Met Ops and frontline policing. However, much more needs to be done. The continued, unfettered use of RUI is unsustainable. I am therefore pleased to see that the Government have concluded their review into pre-charge bail, and published the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but I must ask the Minister: in light of the Bill, what is to become of RUI? Will it be abolished? Will it be reformed—or, essentially, will it stay the same? Although I am not prejudging the Minister’s reply, I must tell him that I am not going to leave the issue alone. I want a precise answer.

The effects of delayed justice on the individuals involved cannot be stressed enough. My former parliamentary colleague Harvey Proctor, although he was not subject to RUI, spent many years fighting to clear his name after the fiasco of Operation Midland. The cloud over his reputation led to the loss of his job. He lost everything, including his home. The failings of the Metropolitan police have never been satisfactorily investigated, and a public inquiry or independent external investigation by another force is long overdue. It should have happened by now. I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister, but if he cannot satisfy me on this subject I, and several colleagues, will consider calling for a full-scale debate in Parliament on Operation Midland and who should be held to account.

In summary, who guards the guards? Since its introduction, despite noble intentions, RUI has been an untimely policy failure. I have no doubt that its excessive use by forces has been exacerbated by previous pressures on police numbers; but that is simply not good enough. The use of RUI has had far-reaching ramifications for both victims and suspects, some of whom have, tragically, taken their own lives with the sword of Damocles still hanging over them. I am therefore pleased to note that the Metropolitan police leadership sees the continued use of RUI as unsustainable and has at least tried to remedy its excessive use. Furthermore, it is my hope that the 2,000 extra police already announced by the Government—and under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a fellow Essex Member who is doing a wonderful job at the Home Office—will mean that crimes can be resolved more quickly, removing the need to use RUI in the future.

As the age-old legal maxim states, justice delayed is justice denied. I am keen to hear the Minister’s reply, which I hope will be to say that RUI is to be discontinued sooner rather than later.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the sentiment that he has shared with the House this afternoon. I agree entirely with his comments. Alongside that, of course, he asks what I am doing. I have commissioned the inspectorate of constabulary. It is important that we have the full facts in addition, to supplement the lessons learned review. I come back to the point that I really, strongly recommend that colleagues do not prejudge. The images were upsetting—of course they were upsetting—but alongside that, it is right that we see the full report in due course and that we hear the facts as they come out.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I add my condolences to the family and friends of Ms Everard, and all those who have been affected by this most hellish and tragic of murders.

Turning to the events that we saw on Clapham common on Saturday evening, I think Members are entitled to ask the question, what on earth was the Metropolitan police thinking? What on earth happened to police discretion? What on earth happened to proportionality, to flexibility, to empathy, to any sense of self-awareness, given the circumstances that surrounded that hellish murder? Every ingredient of good policing, in my view and in the view of many of my constituents, appeared to be completely absent from the policing activity on Clapham common.

The defining image that will stick in the collective mind of Britain will be of Patsy Stevenson being almost sat upon by three police officers while being detained. I must say that if I saw one of my adult daughters treated in that way, I would find it impossible to contain my anger. May I ask the Home Secretary, therefore: how quickly will this report be made available? How expeditiously can she act to rectify what is an appalling wrong?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments are very strong, but in response to his question, he knows, and the House knows, that I have commissioned a report from the inspectorate of constabulary. I have asked for the report to be concluded in the next fortnight. We will obviously then update the House in terms of findings and recommendations.

I think it is worth reflecting that in terms of what happened on Saturday, for approximately eight hours there was peace around the bandstand. People were respectfully paying their respects, laying flowers, grieving and showing support and empathy in a way in which every individual would want to in offering their sympathies and condolences. That is why we need to look at the review to see effectively what happened operationally, and then if lessons need to be learned, they will be post the report.

UK Terrorism Threat Level

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend is clearly aware of the reassurance approach that counter-terrorism policing has taken. That has led to increased patrols and discussion with the counter-terrorism policing network and the Community Security Trust, to provide that reassurance, and ensure that action is well co-ordinated. As my hon. Friend will know, the Jewish community protective security grant has been provided for protective security measures at community sites, including a number of synagogues. We keep this issue under review, recognising that important essence of support so that all communities can practise their faith, and those are precisely values that we as a country seek to uphold.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, wish to extend my thoughts and prayers to the families, and to all those who have been bereaved or injured by these horrendous, horrible and evil attacks. The Vienna authorities have indicated that they failed to act on some of the advice they were given, and I hope that such a criticism could never be made of our British authorities and the good work they do. The jihadist and Islamist terror threat, and the Irish terror threat, are well known and well voiced, and this adds weight to calls to have the Muslim Brotherhood proscribed in this country. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commend the work of the National Crime Agency? It has a magnificent approach to its work across all the United Kingdom, and it works closely with our authorities in Northern Ireland. Is there any effort to extend that organisation’s footprint in Northern Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the excellent work done by the National Crime Agency. Earlier this year I was able to travel to Northern Ireland and see the actions of the NCA, and meet some of the officers who are doing sterling work in Belfast and across the whole of Northern Ireland. It is important to continue to support that, and I underline the connections between the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing. If any links or intelligence straddle organised crime and terrorism, those should be picked up, and we must ensure that that strong co-ordination has the effect on our security and safety that we all wish to see.

No Recourse to Public Funds

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms]

We have had an excellent debate. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to it and to the Minister for listening and for the offers that he has made.

The big expansion of no recourse to public funds came in 2012. It was an integral part of the hostile environment, or the “compliant environment” as it is now called, and the families we are talking about are, as others have said, largely on a 10-year route to indefinite leave. Frequently, they have been here for years beforehand. Nobody is suggesting that they are ever going to leave. The children have British citizenship. The people are working and pay taxes, yet they have no recourse to public funds throughout those 10 years.

I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to answer my question. I tabled it this morning for the fourth time, so now he has the perfect opportunity to go away, do the job he is expected to do, fulfil his responsibilities and answer the question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members and the entry of those participating in the next item of business, I will suspend the sitting for two minutes.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, and Members from both sides of the House, for bringing to fruition a Bill that will protect and support victims of domestic abuse. As many in this House have outlined, domestic abuse is on the rise in the UK. Northern Ireland figures released today show an increase of 1,000 cases in the past three months. The figures show a 15% increase on the same period last year, and domestic abuse is no respecter of gender or age.

Last week, as I travelled by car around my constituency, I listened to an interview about a young lady called Joleen Corr, a 27 year-old girl from Downpatrick. She was a mum of one and she was propelled down a set of stairs and died as a result of a brain injury. Her mum was devastated, and continues to be devastated. I trust that the legislation will assist in bringing some comfort to people like the Corr family. As a wife and mum, I am thankful for the safe haven of my own home, but I know that many throughout the UK do not have the safety that I enjoy. I want the Bill to be just the start of great things to assist victims. I also pay tribute to Mr Steven Smyth from Northern Ireland, who is today running 100 miles to raise awareness for Men’s Alliance Northern Ireland, a support group for male victims of domestic abuse. I commend him for his efforts.

A person who works with women experiencing domestic abuse in England said of new clause 28 over the weekend, “We work every day with women who experience domestic abuse. We see the way they are controlled and manipulated. To me, this suggests the legislation will only be making that worse. It will give abusers more power and more reason to keep the woman being abused at home, away from people who can really help them.” This House should not hinder those professionals in their work.

The new clause seems to be a clear attempt to use the Domestic Abuse Bill as a vehicle to advance an agenda that is emphatic on expanding access to abortion, seemingly failing to acknowledge that allowing women to have an abortion at locations other than hospitals or places approved by the Secretary of State has already led to serious complications. We all know that abortion is not the answer to domestic abuse. Surely we should be addressing how women find themselves in such difficult situations, and take measures to prevent that?

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that pushing that agenda has led to the ludicrous situation in Northern Ireland where one Minister brought forward a proposal to allow for abortion pills to be administered by a foreign jurisdiction over the phone to patients in Northern Ireland? Is she as appalled by that proposal as I am?

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have an absolutely terrible situation in Northern Ireland as a result of the legislation that was railroaded through this House, and forced on the people of Northern Ireland.

The amendment makes no provision for helping women to get out of the abusive situation. Providing women with abortion pills while failing to address the reasons why women may be unable safely to attend a clinic does not present itself as a responsible or logical solution to tackling domestic abuse. Our laws should be designed to help vulnerable women escape domestic abuse situations, not enable them to remain in those horrific situations. Indeed, if a woman is not assessed in person—and, specifically, given an ultrasound—and if she has gone beyond the legal limit for an abortion by pill, the risk of complications goes up dramatically. Coercion of some kind is frequent in an unplanned pregnancy and in removing the requirement of a face-to-face consultation, there is no guarantee that a patient can speak freely without the coercive party listening in. Furthermore, we know that women are coerced into having abortions based on sex selection. If an abusive partner does not want a particular sex of child, they can force their partner into having an abortion via telemedicine.

On new clause 1, I welcome changes being made to remove the defence of consent in cases of rough sex, but I believe we need to do more to tackle the drivers for rough sex practices. I strongly support new clause 1 in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom I commend for her efforts and work in this regard. The House needs to be clear about depictions of rough sex in pornography. Such practices cannot be normalised, and such content should be made illegal. In terms of pornography, it is already illegal, but it is notable that the campaign group We Can’t Consent To This, which has been advocating for a change in the law on the rough sex defence, states:

“In four of the most recent killings”—

of women and girls—

“the men viewed ‘extreme porn’ featuring violence including strangulation…before or after the killing of the women.”