Home Secretary: Resignation and Reappointment

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that this Government will act with professionalism, integrity and accountability; that is exactly what this Government will be doing. As the right hon. Lady will be aware, I cannot comment on what the Cabinet Secretary may or may not do; that is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary. On the speculation the right hon. Lady raised—I am not going to comment on speculation either; the right hon. Lady would not expect me to do so.

At the end of the day, it is very simple: the Home Secretary made a mistake, and has acknowledged that she made a mistake, but she offered her resignation and stood down. The Prime Minister has looked again, and has decided, as is his right, that she can return to Government. I believe in redemption; I hope the right hon. Lady can as well. The Home Secretary is busy today, doing the job of the Home Secretary: keeping our borders secure and helping the police do their job—and I am sure that the right hon. Lady welcomes, as I do, the fact that we now have over 15,000 additional police officers, delivering day in, day out for the country. That is what this Government can be relied upon to do.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I remind my hon. Friend that I recall that Tony Blair had to remove one of his very senior and most trusted Ministers for a breach of the ministerial code and later reappointed him to the Government? The public will respect the fact that we have a system that holds Ministers accountable for breaches of the code, but there is learning from mistakes and not just blame. I can vouch for the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has the highest integrity. I do not blame the Opposition for one minute for doing their job and probing this matter, because matters of national security are extremely important, but the Government have my confidence in that they have acted proportionately in this matter.

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that there were circumstances in other Administrations—in which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) played a prominent part—of members of the Government making mistakes and then being brought back into the same Administration. If people have made a mistake, have accepted that they made a mistake and have stepped down as a result of that mistake, that enables them at a future point to be re-employed if they have a good job to do—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has an important job to do.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Bernard Jenkin

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to support new clause 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). She has got into a bit of a scrape because she said something silly, but those of us who know her know that she is an extremely committed parliamentarian and very public spirited, and I hope that order will be restored in that department as soon as possible.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on new clause 11 and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for supporting it. I note that SNP Members support the new clause, although I am not sure whether they will vote on it—they might decide that it is an English measure—but it is interesting that similar measures are being considered in Scotland.

I am grateful to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), who kindly saw me at short notice yesterday about this matter. The Government may well oppose this new clause. I hope they do not, but I know they are seized of the issue and are giving it consideration. I will listen very carefully to what he has to say about it later.

“Clinic harassment” is the term used to describe the presence outside abortion clinics of groups who seek to dissuade and deter women from accessing healthcare that is their right under our law. Many people would call them protests, but mere protest is not the purpose of the activity and the groups who organise them do not call them protests. It is not about politics or campaigning; it is about stopping individual women from accessing their legal rights. New clause 11 would simply introduce a statutory buffer zone around any location where abortion services or advice are provided, making it illegal to carry out such activities as those eloquently described by the hon. Member for Walthamstow.

We are told that the scale of the problem is small and does not require a national response. That is false. Every year, around 100,000 women are treated by a clinic targeted by these groups. In the last three weeks alone, at least 15 clinics across the country have had people outside, including clinics based in hospitals, GP surgeries and in residential areas. That has impacted hundreds of women’s care and psychological wellbeing.

We are also told that the police and councils already have powers to restrict harmful protests. If that is true, why are they still happening? The fact is that abortion providers have proactively tried to use all the laws suggested by the Home Office to stem the problem, but even where individual protesters and groups have been dealt with by the courts and local authorities, the presence outside clinics has not stopped.

Let us be absolutely clear: we are not debating the principle of whether these so-called protests should be banned; they already are banned in certain places, and the principle of that has been supported by the House. We are just asking whether the existing statutory arrangements—the public spaces protection orders—used by councils to introduce buffer zones around individual clinics are effective. Only five out of 50 targeted clinics are protected.

There are three issues relating to PSPOs: they create a random patchwork of protections, which is inadequate; they are expensive to introduce and very difficult to uphold in the courts; and crucially, they can be introduced only with evidence that harassment is taking place. I made this point to my hon. Friend the Minister last night, and it is a painful thing for him to have to accept, but it is the Government’s policy that women should be harassed outside abortion clinics before a PSPO can be issued. Can the House think of any other policy that requires women to be harassed before the Government or the local authority do something that is perfectly justified? That is an immoral basis for PSPOs.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, as indeed he did yesterday evening. I was concerned and looked into the matter. The antisocial behaviour statutory guidance states that a PSPO can be made by a council if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the activity or behaviour carried out, or likely to be carried out, in a public space has had, or is likely to have, a detrimental impact. I hope that gives him some reassurance that if activity is anticipated and people are concerned that it may take place, there is a means whereby a PSPO may be taken out. He might not consider that a perfect scenario, but where an activity is foreseeable, action can be taken in advance.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I say rather wryly to my hon. Friend, “Good try.” But it is not really adequate, is it? All our local authorities are under huge spending pressure and do not want to spend money on drafting orders and so on, so what local authority will be preoccupied with this problem unless there is a problem? The strength of the case for implementing a PSPO is supported by evidence of likelihood, which will only be evident if the activity has already happened. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister has not really addressed the point, although I commend him for making a good attempt.

We are also told that these groups are only quietly praying and that there is no harassment involved. Well, the hon. Member for Walthamstow told us about what happens, and sometimes people attend in very large numbers.

My final comment on this may answer points that my hon. Friend the Minister will make later. I have been involved for years in discussions with the Home Office, and here I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) for the assiduous attention she gave us as she wrestled with this problem, which I know has vexed her. Although she never persuaded the Government to accept a previous amendment, the sincerity of her engagement with us was wonderful, and I am grateful. So finally, we are also told that our amendment contravenes protesters’ human rights. Well, I note that the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), does not think that is the case—albeit that the Committee has not actually considered this amendment.

We have to recognise that rights have to be balanced, and the exercise of one person’s rights are very often to another person’s detriment. We have to strike a balance, and my argument is that new clause 11 strikes the right balance. The amendment would not stop people sharing their opinions about the vexed issue of abortion. It balances the rights of people who oppose abortion with the rights of women to access healthcare confidentially and free from harassment and intimidation. It does not ban protest; it simply moves it down the road to preserve the space immediately outside the clinic for women seeking care, and for nurses and doctors providing that care. In Committee, when asked about this directly by the Minister, rights groups did not oppose new clause 11. Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have comparable laws in place or are in the process of introducing them.

I need not detain the House any longer. If the House does not support this amendment tonight, the argument will carry on until an acceptable means of protecting women exercising their legal rights is found. I am grateful to the Government for allowing a free vote on the matter, which is right and proper in the circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

That would be a decision made by a court in very specific circumstances, and I do trust our courts to take appropriate action. They can only do so on the weight of evidence, and they are very used to taking these decisions. After all, there is a tried and tested process whereby injunctions can be sought and obtained to prevent a future harm. I do not think this is as radical as my hon. Friend is suggesting. However, I congratulate him on the points he made, even though I disagree with him, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on his contribution to this point of the debate. I would love to prevail on my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his amendment, but I do not think that is going to happen, and I look forward to opposing it.

Turning to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), I spoke earlier in the debate about why we believe that injunctions are useful. We absolutely accept the point being made by the hon. Lady that they are appropriate when used properly, and that is why we have tabled our amendments. I think ours is a more competent and effective way of achieving our shared objectives.

On new clause 5, which seeks to define the meaning of “serious disruption” for the purposes of this Bill, I have to say that no two protests, nor the operational response required, are ever the same. Being too prescriptive risks the ability of the police to respond to fast-evolving protest tactics while also risking the exploitation of loopholes by those intent on causing as much disruption as possible. That is not to say that I dismiss the principle of this amendment. There is a balance to be struck between a definition that is broad and one that is prescriptive, so while I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s amendment, we will reflect further on its intent.

I turn now to perhaps the most vexed issue in today’s debate—namely, new clause 11, proposed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). New clause 11 seeks to create 150-metre buffer zones outside abortion clinics in which all activity interfering with a person’s right to access abortion services would be prohibited. As the hon. Lady would accept, that is a blunt instrument. It is there to achieve an objective, but within those 150-metre buffer zones there could be houses and churches, and this would be a national decision covering the 150 metres around all clinics.

At the outset of the debate, I made it clear that, from the Government’s perspective, it is a free vote for members of our party. My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said that this is a difficult issue to grapple with, and it is indeed difficult. However, I would like to make it clear that it is entirely possible to support totally a woman’s right to an abortion and to view protests outside abortion clinics as abhorrent while still believing that the current legislative framework provides an appropriate response.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I think the Minister should now be persuaded, particularly as one of his predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has now made it clear that she supports this amendment. It is time for the Government to say that we have to recognise that the present arrangements are not adequate, and we will be thinking about how to build on the arguments that have been presented in new clause 11. Just to rest on the status quo is not a sufficient response, however the Government vote today.

[Jeremy Quin]

I sympathise with the sentiment behind new clause 11. I hope we all agree that it is wholly unacceptable for women to feel harassed or intimidated when accessing abortion services. However, bearing in mind the size, scale and frequency of those protests, it is still our view that placing a nationwide blanket ban on protests outside all abortion clinics in England and Wales would be a blunt approach and disproportionate given the existing powers that can and should be used.

Ukraine

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Bernard Jenkin

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Ukraine.

It has been exactly one month since the Secretary of State for Defence last came to this House to provide an update on Putin’s brutal, unprovoked and illegal invasion. In that time, Russian troops have failed to take Kyiv and their initial strategic plans have been thrown into complete disarray. They have suffered heavy losses on a par with those in their nine-year conflict in Afghanistan, including more than 15,000 personnel and hundreds of tanks, vehicles and helicopters. They have also strengthened the resolve of the international community in a way that has not been seen for decades.

Rather than back down, however, Putin has refocused efforts on the eastern Donbas in a bid to entrench control of a land bridge with Crimea to the south. The people paying the tragic cost of his unrelenting war are still the Ukrainian men, women and children who have been bombed in hospitals, blown up in schools and bombarded in railway stations. The number of Ukrainian civilians killed has risen to more than 3,500—including, I regret to say, 250 children—and up to 100 Ukrainian troops are reported to be dying in the battle for the Donbas every day.

The latest intelligence shows that Putin’s troops are currently bombarding and encircling cities including Severodonetsk, Lysychansk and Rubizhne, while in Mariupol, the last Ukrainian fighters have now been evacuated from the steelworks after more than 10 weeks of brave resistance. It is extremely concerning to hear appalling comments about those gallant defenders from certain Russian MPs. Russia must treat these soldiers in full accordance with the Geneva convention.

In the Black sea, Russia is continuing to block shipping lanes and reinforce its troops on Snake Island, but it is clear that their momentum has slowed, and in places Ukrainian forces are beginning to push them back to their borders. In Kharkiv, for instance, the fact that three quarters of the 1.4 million inhabitants are Russian speakers has not had one iota of impact on their resolve. Instead, Putin’s forces have been unceremoniously driven out of Ukraine’s second city—not just a major strategic blow for the Kremlin, but a symbolic one, as it peddled the lie that Russian invaders would be welcomed with open arms.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the blockade of the Black sea is one of the contributory factors to rapidly escalating food prices in global markets. In fact, 26 countries now have export bans on various foodstuffs to protect prices for their own domestic markets. This is now blockading some 15% of the world’s calorie intake, according to The Economist. Are the Government treating the reopening of the food supply from Ukraine as an urgent matter? I appreciate that it is very complex and sensitive, but will the Government confirm that they are attaching extreme urgency to it? Otherwise, we will have more starvation and more famines in some of the poorest countries in the world.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend makes an acute observation. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the matter, which is of profound concern. We were in a bad situation with food supplies even before war in Ukraine; we are in a worse situation now. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America informs me that, unsurprisingly, the matter was discussed at the meeting of G7 Ministers; it has also twice been the subject of conversations between the Prime Minister and President Zelensky. It is very much a focus for the Government, and we are in discussions with our NATO allies in the Black sea and others. It is a complex situation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) reminds us, but I assure him that we are very focused on it.

Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Bernard Jenkin

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that Defence has been involved from the outset on planning and logistics. At an early stage, Defence was called on, as it is regularly; we have had, on average, about 130 MACA requests a year for the past few years, and we are well used to working at a local level and a national level with partners across Government. There is a role for the military and a role they can pass on. For example, the military did a fantastic job on working with our partners in Health to provide the mobile testing units, but it is appropriate at some stage, when others get up to speed, that we hand over that task in order to be ready to undertake the next role, which in this case includes the whole-city pilot in Liverpool.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

NHS Test and Trace has grown from literally zero to being the size of Asda in little more than six months, and it would be difficult to imagine an organisation that has grown so quickly that would not be organisationally challenged. May I suggest that if the MOD has not been asked for headquarters capability, it should offer headquarters capability to NHS Test and Trace, as I am sure it would be welcomed with open arms?