Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I will develop my argument before I give way. I am concerned that Members are coming under pressure to support a ban on what is described as trans conversion therapy that ignores the interim report of the Cass review and the testimonies of Tavistock clinic whistleblowers and detransitioners. There is an exponential rise in the number of girls seeking to transition. Many of those girls will be same-sex attracted; it is important that that possibility, and other explanations for dysphoria, such as autism, be explored in a respectful way with a qualified therapist before young women embark on a road to medicalisation. If someone experiences gender dysphoria in childhood or puberty, it does not necessarily mean that they are trans. Thousands of adult lesbians and gay men will, like me, know that to be true. It is really important that Members understand that “trans inclusive” means assuming that all children who say that they are of the opposite sex are transgender. It also means insisting that they do not need psychotherapy if they say they do not want it.

Hilary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has been commissioned to report on NHS gender identity services for children. Her interim report, which was published a couple of months ago, has provided worrying information about the lack of normal clinical standards being applied to children with gender distress. More work needs to be done, but the interim results show that a high proportion of cared-for children, those with autism or experience of abuse, and children who would be likely to grow up lesbian or gay are presenting for gender services. I am advocating for evidence-based policy making. Let us wait for the outcome of the Cass report, and let us not be influenced by those who want to criminalise therapists who simply want to do their job and act in their patients’ best interests. We urgently need proper, informed debate, in public and in Parliament, and it must centre on the wellbeing of children and young people.

We can have such proper, informed debates in this place and beyond only if we have free speech. The Tories say that they believe in free speech and want to better protect it as a right, but actions speak louder than words. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was passed in the previous Session, the Public Order Bill and the Online Safety Bill all contain potential threats to freedom of expression. One of the problems with the Online Safety Bill is the introduction of a “legal but harmful” category for the removal of content. It will create a situation in which people are prevented from saying things that are legal but prohibited. There is a significant danger that, as drafted, the Bill will lead to the censorship of legal speech by online platforms and give the Government unacceptable controls over what we can and cannot say online.

As a former sex crimes prosecutor, I completely applaud the desire to protect children online that underlines the Online Safety Bill, but I am worried that the “legal but harmful” category will enable vexatious complainants to exploit the lack of definitional clarity to try to shut down lawful speech on topics of public concern on the grounds that it is “harmful” and should be subject to censorship.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not know; the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) wanted to intervene earlier.

[Joanna Cherry]

I give way to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), then.

[Jamie Stone]

It is my lucky day. The hon. and learned Member is making a most interesting speech. When it comes to this Bill, does she agree that the weighting of primary and secondary legislation is worrying? Some of the definitions involved, such as those relating to freedom of speech, are so fundamental that they should be considered by this House, rather than nodded through in some instrument or another, whether under the negative or affirmative procedure.

[Joanna Cherry]

I do share that concern. I do not think it is safe to leave the setting out of definitions that will impact on free speech to a Government Minister— particularly not one in this Government—in secondary legislation. I am most worried about the online platforms, because they cannot be trusted to police speech in a way that is properly cognisant of the law—not just law on freedom of speech, but law on freedom of belief, as well as domestic anti-discrimination law.

I shall draw my remarks to a close shortly, but let me take Twitter as an example, because this is really important. Twitter’s hateful conduct policy does not include the protected characteristic of sex, so Twitter routinely censors perfectly legitimate contributions to the public debate on women’s sex-based rights while routinely ignoring threats of violence and worse to women who participate in the debate.

In October 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, in which we noted that Twitter has omitted sex from the list of protected characteristics in its hateful conduct policy. We recommended that Twitter remedy that, and in May 2019 a Twitter executive promised us that she would look at the issue; nearly three years later, nothing has been done. That is a real concern in respect of the Online Safety Bill, because when women have challenged Twitter’s unfair and discriminatory moderation policies, Twitter has responded that it does not consider itself bound by the Equality Act in providing services in the UK. Twitter’s argument is that because the company is established in Ireland as opposed to the UK, it is exempt under paragraph 2 of schedule 25 to the Equality Act. I am not sure that that is right, but it is a loophole that could be closed in the Online Safety Bill. I have already had informal discussions with Ministers about closing it.

To conclude, there is no point in saying that we need a Bill of Rights to protect free speech and then handing over the policing of speech to private companies such as Twitter, whose records show that they cannot be trusted. On free speech, the Government need to put their money where their mouth is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

No debate of this nature would be complete if I did not refer to Space Hub Sutherland. It is not all bad on the Conservative Benches: we are profoundly grateful for the Government’s assistance in bringing that project to the point it is at today. It has been a great pleasure to have Mr Roy Kirk of Highlands and Islands Enterprise sitting up in the Gallery for much of this debate. He has had to go home now but, me being me, I will make sure he gets a copy of Hansard so that he can see that I have name-checked him.

This is my only opportunity in the next few days to speak on the Queen’s Speech, and I am going to make three general, fairly broad points. In the last few days, just about every candidate standing in the local government elections in Easter Ross in the south of my constituency used a picture of the oil rigs in the Cromarty Firth. They are a majestic sight that we all know very well indeed. If you travel further north in my constituency and look east, you will see the Beatrice offshore wind farm, which produces enough electricity to power a staggering 450,000 homes. We also have loads of onshore wind farms in my constituency, and of course there is a discussion to be had about the merits of offshore and onshore wind, as many rural Conservative Members will know.

This leads me to my first point, which echoes a point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). My constituents live cheek by jowl with the symbols of British energy production and yet they are faced with a crippling rise in the cost of heating their homes. I hope that image brings home to the House the irony that, where I live, we produce so much energy but we have to pay through the nose for it. We should also remember that far too many of my constituents have no choice other than to use fuel oil to heat their homes. That is the nub of the problem, and I am horrified that the vulnerable and elderly have to make the invidious choice—perhaps this is a hackneyed phrase—between heating and eating. If the Government really do believe in levelling up—perhaps another hackneyed phrase—to help the most disadvantaged, and I hope they do, then solving this particular energy problem is crucial. I personally intend to pursue this in the most dogged fashion possible.

In terms of levelling up, the contribution made by the BBC and Channel 4 to bolstering local, independent production companies all over the UK cannot be overstated. Given Channel 4’s plans to provide 100,000 opportunities for young people starting in the media industry, to invest £2 billion in nations and regions content over the next decade and to become a truly digital-first public service broadcaster, the Government’s plans to sell it off to the private sector are, I am afraid, severely misjudged. But I take heart from the knowledge that many Conservative Members agree with that opinion. Let us think of what Channel 4 has produced: the Paralympics, “It’s a Sin”, and “Derry Girls”, which was made in Northern Ireland. What benefit has that been to the economy of Ulster? There was also the Black to Front project. These are all shows and features that have a British hallmark and would not have been made if Channel 4 did not have the freedom to prioritise public interest and purpose over profit.

Many Members will have read in The Times today the quote from Tim Bevan, who co-chairs Working Title Films. He said:

“British films have always been quite difficult to get made”

and that plans to privatise Channel 4 and scrap the BBC licence fee were a “travesty”. He also said:

“The British film industry and independent production have been supported by those two institutions…That’s our culture. We don’t want to be making American projects, we want to be making British films.”

He is absolutely right. English is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world, and the work of Channel 4 and the BBC gives our country international soft power that can hardly be imagined—I have seen it for myself.

I will keep my contribution short and conclude on power. The Public Accounts Committee has drawn the House’s attention to the fact that the Royal Air Force will have 30 fewer combat aircraft by 2025 because of the decision to retire Typhoon early. When we think that, over the last seven years, we have spent no less than £701 million on developing new radar systems for Typhoon that will not be ready until 2030, we can see there is something desperately wrong with how we are planning to defend our country in the future. These are killer facts.

Members on both sides of the House have rightly said that the plans to reduce the size of the British Army are ill-conceived. Combined with the Typhoon nonsense, we can see that the United Kingdom is surely in danger of sending entirely the wrong signal to our friends and allies, particularly when the dangers we face are all too clear. Now more than ever, we must not drop our guard.

I close with a reminder from the past. In the early 1980s, the Treasury imposed cuts on defence spending, one of which led to the decision to remove the Royal Navy Antarctic vessel HMS Endurance from the south Atlantic. Historians claim that that decision was part of Argentina’s reasoning that the United Kingdom was not serious about defending the Falklands, and that it was therefore worth taking the risk of invasion. The rest is history, and only an exceptionally foolish state does not learn from the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

On access to cash, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should take proper, firm action to make the banks work together to produce some sort of common access—some sort of real face behind the counter?

[Gerald Jones]

I absolutely agree with that point, because we have seen too many examples, particularly in rural and isolated areas, where communities are left without any access to cash. The opportunity for banks and other financial institutions to work together is long overdue.

As we know, the Tory record on crime is shocking. We have heard again today that crime is up, charges are down, criminals are getting off and victims are being let down by the Conservatives not taking crime seriously. We have seen an 18% rise in total crime over the past two years. Quarterly recorded crimes are now at their highest point on record, at 1.6 million. As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), told us earlier, the overall charge rate has fallen from 15.5% in 2015 to just 5.8% in 2021, meaning thousands more criminals getting off and more than 1 million theft cases being closed without a suspect being identified—and there is no sign of things improving.

Antisocial behaviour continues to blight our communities. I have spoken in previous debates about the difference under the last Labour Government, when all local wards—I was a county councillor at that time—had a police officer and one or sometimes two police community support officers. We do not have to hark back to “Dixon of Dock Green” to find a time when people knew their community bobbies, as we had that in the period of the last Labour Government up to 2010. At that time, the neighbourhood policing teams provided meaningful engagement and deterrence in communities before issues got out of hand. We now have the same-sized teams covering five or six wards, and the sheer lack of people on the ground makes it impossible for them to tackle issues effectively, despite their best efforts. Labour would strengthen legal protections for victims of antisocial behaviour to give victims of persistent, unresolved antisocial behaviour new rights, and we would give the police and local authorities stronger powers to shut down premises being used for drug dealing or consumption. Although we have seen more police officers recruited, we still have thousands fewer than we had before the Tories started cutting them in 2010. I am grateful that in Wales we have the support of the Welsh Labour Government on this. Although they do not have responsibility for policing, as it is not devolved, they have provided funding for 500 PCSOs—that has increased to 600 in this Senedd term.

Before I leave the topic of policing, I would like to put on record again the issue of the apprenticeship levy paid by Welsh police forces. In England, funding for the police education qualifications framework, which includes apprenticeships for uniformed police officers, is provided through the national apprenticeship levy. In short, English police forces are fully reimbursed by the Government for the cost of training police officers. In Wales, the Home Office has reimbursed only half that cost, leaving Welsh police forces with a shortfall of more than £2 million.