Crime and Policing Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us.

The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated.

In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care.

My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane.

At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Smart]

I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way.

I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so.

The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Let me begin by emphasising that all women in England and Wales can access safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws. I also recognise and respect that there are strongly held views across the House on this highly sensitive issue, and I welcome the considered and informed debate we have had today.

The Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. We maintain that it is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, and will allow Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. If it is the will of the House that the criminal law on abortion should change, whether by our exempting pregnant women from the offences or otherwise, the Government would not stand in the way of such change. However, we must ensure coherence between the statute book and any legislation proposed.

It will be helpful if I first set out the relevant law. As hon. Members will know, in England and Wales, the criminal offences relating to abortion must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, which provide exemptions to the criminal offences. The Act defines the circumstances in which abortions or terminations can legally take place. Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is the offence of administering drugs or using instruments to procure an abortion. It is an offence for a pregnant woman to unlawfully take a drug or use instruments with the intent of procuring her own miscarriage. It is also an offence for another person who has the intent of procuring the miscarriage of a woman, whether or not she is pregnant, to unlawfully administer drugs or use instruments with that intent. It is also an offence under section 59 of the 1861 Act for a person to supply or procure drugs, poison or an instrument that was intended to be used to procure a miscarriage.

The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 deals with acts in the later stages of pregnancies, including late-term abortions in England and Wales. Under section 1 of the 1929 Act, it is an offence for any person to intentionally destroy the life of a child before it is born, if it is capable of being born alive, unless it can be proved that the act was done in good faith and only to preserve the life of the woman.

Turning to the amendments, the purpose of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), is to disapply criminal offences relating to abortion from a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation. This means that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of the number of weeks of gestation, including beyond the 24 weeks.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I apologise, but I will not. We are really short on time.

It would also not be a criminal offence for a woman to intentionally deceive a registered medical practitioner about the gestation of her pregnancy in order to procure abortion pills by post beyond the 10-week time limit. It would remain an offence for another person, such as a doctor, to do the relevant acts, and for a pregnant woman to do the relevant acts for another woman, unless the provisions of the Abortion Act are applied.

New clause 1 seeks to ensure that a woman cannot commit an offence in relation to her own pregnancy under the law related to abortion, including under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The phrase “related to abortion” is not defined in the clause but in practice will be limited to these provisions, as there are no other offences that relate to abortion in England and Wales.

It was suggested during the recent Westminster Hall debate on decriminalising abortion, and again today, that the risk with new clause 1 is that it creates a general power for the Secretary of State to amend the Abortion Act 1967 or the relevant criminal legislation relating to abortion. I would like to clarify that new clause 1 does not create such a power, nor do any other provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill. New clause 1 does not grant the Secretary of State additional secondary legislation powers, while clause 166 of the Bill does grant the Secretary of State a regulation-making power in relation to the provisions of the Bill. That can only be exercised to make provisions that are appropriate in consequence of the Bill’s provisions. It would not, for example, give the Secretary of State general powers to make substantive amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 in order to change the rules about abortion, or to amend the Offences Against the Person Act to reintroduce criminal offences, as that would not be consequential to new clause 1.

I turn to new clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), which would repeal existing criminal offences relating to abortion and concealment of a birth, place a duty on the Secretary of State to implement certain recommendations relating to abortion services, and create regulation-making powers regarding criminal offences relating to abortion.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will not give way.

This is a complex new clause, and I will not address all of its provisions or the policy intentions behind them. However, I will highlight areas where the House may want to consider whether the duties or delegated powers may be unclear or give rise to unintended consequences.

I acknowledge that my hon. Friend’s approach seeks to mirror the model used to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland. However, it is important to recognise that the circumstances in Northern Ireland at the time were markedly different from those in England and Wales. There was no functioning Executive, no provision of abortion services except in the most exceptional circumstances and no equivalent to the Abortion Act 1967, so provision had to be made to create a regime for abortion services. As such, the approach to decriminalising abortion in England and Wales, where the provision and regulation of lawful abortions already exists, needs to reflect the distinct legal context.

New clause 20 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to implement paragraphs 85 and 86 of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in England and Wales by using the regulation-making powers in subsection (8). The CEDAW report contains recommendations relating to the criminal law on abortion, which would, in so far as they relate to England and Wales, already be addressed by the repealing of the offences through subsections (2) and (4) of the new clause.

The report includes recommendations that go beyond the provision of abortion services, such as on the provision of sexual and reproductive health and education. As I have mentioned, the CEDAW report and its recommendations were developed in the specific context of Northern Ireland and therefore reflected the position there at the time. The position in England and Wales is different, with existing guidance, services and legislation that already address many of the report’s recommendations.

I turn to the criminal law aspect of the new clause. Subsections (2) and (3) would repeal sections 58 to 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. Repealing those offences would remove criminal liability for a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy and would also decriminalise any other person doing the relevant acts to a pregnant woman, or in relation to the body of a child. For example, there would no longer be a specific offence to cover cases of forced abortion. That would mean that situations in which an individual subjected a pregnant woman to violence with the intention of causing a miscarriage would be dealt with under different offences relating to assaults and bodily harm rather than section 58 of the Infant Life Preservation Act. The moratorium on investigations and prosecutions contained in subsection (4) would discontinue such cases. Therefore, those suspected of forcing a woman to have an abortion before the offences were repealed could not be investigated for those offences.

Subsection (2) seeks to repeal section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which criminalises concealing a birth by disposing of a child’s body after its birth. Unlike sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act, that offence is not limited to abortion-related acts. Repealing it entirely could therefore create a gap in the law regarding non-abortion-related concealment of birth following a child’s death. While I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about investigations under section 60 relating to alleged illegal abortions, a full repeal may have unintended consequences.

I will briefly address a point that my hon. Friend made about existing offences that cover this matter. The offence of perverting the course of justice requires a positive act coupled with an ulterior intent that the course of justice will be perverted. Therefore, it is not necessarily the same and we do not want to provide unintended consequences. It is important to note that subsection (12) grants the Secretary of State regulation-making powers in the light of the repeal of these offences, subject to certain restrictions. The power could be used, for example, to create offences specifically targeted at forced abortions or concealing a birth by disposing of a child’s body. While I do not comment on the policy intent, the House typically exercises its full powers of scrutiny over the introduction of new and serious offences, rather than conferring a power on the Secretary of State to do so through secondary legislation.

New clause 106, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), deals directly with the Abortion Act 1967. The intended purpose of the new clause is to require women to attend an in-person consultation. Section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967 does not apply to consultations that take place before the medicine is prescribed. Women would therefore continue to have remote consultations for prescription of the medicine, but would then be required to travel to a hospital or clinic for an in-person consultation before being able to self-administer the medicine at home. Alternatively, women could have an in-person consultation to be prescribed the medicine and then the medication could be posted to the women at home. The overall effect of this new clause would mean that no woman could legally have an at-home early medical abortion without an in-person consultation.

In conclusion, if it is the will of Parliament that the law should change, the Government, in fulfilling our duty to ensure that the legislation is legally robust and workable, will work closely with my hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Walthamstow to ensure that their new clauses accurately reflect their intentions and the will of Parliament, and are coherent with the statute book. As I have already stated, the Government take no position. I hope these observations are helpful to the House when considering the new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Irrespective of our position on the votes that we have just taken, we have to acknowledge that we have made a major change to abortion law, yet that was on the basis of no evidence sessions, no Committee stage scrutiny, and just 46 minutes of a Back-Bench debate and a winding-up speech by a Minister who refused to take any interventions, when the Chamber was full of one-line debates. If we want to continue like this, can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can improve our rules, so that we do not have this situation in the future?

Immigration

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Conservatives—who conveniently called an early election so that the Rwanda scheme would never start, after spending years saying that even perpetrating the idea of a Rwanda scheme would stop the boats—know as well as I do that over 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in the years from the Rwanda scheme being put into law to its being abolished. They can sit there and say that—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No. They can sit there after all this effort and all these gimmicks and pretend to the British people and Members of this House that the Rwanda scheme was ready to go and would have worked perfectly if only their Government had staggered on until 24 June, but nobody believes them, because it was a flawed scheme from the start. It was not a deterrent, it did not work, and it was massively expensive.

International Women�s Day

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This is not my first International Women�s Day debate, but each one presents a fantastic opportunity to learn about the exceptional women who have made our history and to be reminded, as though I need it, that many of those exceptional women are in the Chamber today.

My contribution for Norfolk is Elizabeth Fry. I am particularly proud of her, because she happens to be my five times great aunt�that is as close as I get to real commitment and fame, I am afraid. In the early 19th century, she was horrified by the conditions in prisons. She visited Newgate prison and instead of walking on by, she took action. She funded prison schools for the children who were incarcerated along with their mothers in those days; she taught employment skills; she promoted rehabilitation as a concept, which was new at that stage; and she developed a wider movement for reform.

In 1818, Elizabeth Fry was the first woman ever to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry. Directly because of her campaigning work, we have the Gaols Act 1823 and the Prisons Act 1835, which were the beginning of the end of the truly terrible conditions of the 18th century. We talk now about violence against women and girls, but that is not new. In her personal diaries, she expressly discussed the need to protect female prisoners from rape and sexual exploitation.

I recognise that things have improved beyond recognition from those days, and we should celebrate that today and at other times, but too much remains the same. Under the last Government, new offences of stalking, non-fatal strangulation, coercive control and public sexual harassment were introduced. The fact that that new legislation was needed demonstrates our corporate failure to change attitudes. Those conditions would have been familiar to Elizabeth Fry back in the 1820s.

Our work is not about legislation, because that is not the solution. Legislation deals with and treats symptoms, but the problem is the generational transfer of attitudes, I am sorry to say, typically from father to son. It is our work to challenge those generational attitudes. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), but on this I stand shoulder to shoulder with her.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is right. We look at the numbers—100 and 200—and think of organisations we know, and events that we have attended in churches and parish halls. I used to be a Scout leader, and the paperwork, the burden and the challenges used to put us off, in many ways, from fulfilling some of our functions. People who might have come along to help one day get slightly put off by the challenges and responsibilities that come with doing so. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

[Matt Vickers]

I welcome the revisions; that is why we had scrutiny. The fact that the figures can be determined unilaterally is the concern. There is agreement across the House that it is right to take the Bill forward. We are looking at what we can do at the edges to mitigate the impact for smaller venues, but I agree in principle with what the hon. Member says.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?

[Matt Vickers]

I agree entirely. There is no reason why we should not bring that measure to the House for decision. There is no reason to delegate that power to the Secretary of State. It would be sensible to take that delegation out. We have just talked about the fact that some people think the number should be 100, and others think it should be 200. It would be logical to bring the measure back to the House, if required, in due course, and I hope the Minister agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to the Bill, the stakes are high for small community organisations and small businesses, so I see no harm in reviewing the regulations after 18 months, and in keeping those powers for the House, rather than delegating them to the Secretary of State. That is logical and makes a lot of sense for many venues. It is the way forward.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states:

“it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”.

Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

I certainly would not suggest, and neither would the Liberal Democrats, that the training fee should fall on small venues, but the Government should consider it so that there is clarity for those smaller venues. I hope that answers the right hon. Member’s question.

The new clause covers evacuation procedures, monitoring of premises, physical safety and security and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress is being made. Crucially, it would ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need. The public deserve to know that wherever they are—at a concert, a wedding or a local cider festival—staff are properly trained to respond to such emergencies. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, the new clause would greatly improve safety, and would provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they must meet under this law.

Of course, there are concerns from many micro and small businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring. That is why the new clause proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden, with scalable and specific training.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have already mentioned that I am a church warden of a small parish church, so I have practical experience. I also have other duties—I am the safeguarding officer, because there are insufficient volunteers who are prepared to undergo the quite significant training needed to maintain safeguarding duties in that organisation. I accept that, given the Church of England’s troubled history over the past 20 years, safeguarding is a necessary part of modern life, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the duties imposed on volunteers are cumulative in their impact? I can be a Member of Parliament, a church warden and a safeguarding officer, but can I also be responsible for the additional costs and responsibilities that he has in mind?

[Ben Maguire]

Certainly, the intention of new clause 2 is not to be a burden on our small venues, but to do the opposite and make sure that they have clarity on what they are supposed to do, what their responsibilities are and how they practically carry out the requirements contained in this legislation.

I was glad to receive the promising indication of a commitment in writing by the Security Minister. He said that if the Bill is given Royal Assent, an implementation period of 24 months will be set. That will give venues the time to understand their new obligations, plan and prepare and, if needed, provide training to staff. The Government promise that training will be supplied by a number of expert security partners. I look forward to hearing more details on that.

Over the weekend, I met various local venues in my North Cornwall constituency, such as the Sea View Farm Shop, which expressed concerns over possible fencing requirements. Its venue hosts small outdoor festivals with between 1,500 and 2,000 attendees. It is similar in scale to the nearby Rock Oyster Festival, and can be contrasted with much larger events such as Boardmasters, which hosts over 60,000 people. Could the Minister provide clarity on the requirements for outdoor events?

We are not seeking to push the new clause to a vote, but we seek reassurance from the Minister today about training for staff and operators for venues big and small. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, proposes a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator. We do not oppose a cost-benefit analysis of the role of the SIA, but we worry about the impact of additional responsibility on local government, which is already stretched to breaking point, without the accompanying resources to deliver that.

I welcome the intent to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, but I must stress the need for reassurance that smaller venues, such as the village halls that we have heard about and the community centres that, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, are often run by volunteers, will not be disproportionately impacted. In North Cornwall, we have venues such as the John Betjeman Centre in Wadebridge, village halls in Padstow, Lewannick and St Mabyn and many more.

I acknowledge amendments 25 and 26 to raise the minimum capacity thresholds for standard and enhanced duty premises to 200 and 800, respectively. These spaces are integral to our communities yet they operate with limited resources, often run by volunteers, and cannot shoulder excessive regulatory burdens. Any changes must prioritise support and scalability for these organisations, so that they are equipped to meet public protection requirements without being overwhelmed. This legislation will not be able to do that if it is too burdensome for businesses, which are not clear what their obligations really are.

Will the Minister confirm that the content of our new clause will be given due consideration? Keeping everyone safe is the absolute priority, but by providing clear guidance and training we can avoid burdening our already struggling local businesses, and ensure that they have the clarity that they need about the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Any threat that this country faces is continuously reviewed by the Ministry of Defence, MI5, the police and the Government, and we adapt our approaches to suit.

That brings me to the fact that since 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 43 late-stage attacks, yet we have seen 15 domestic terror attacks in this country. These incidents underline the ongoing and difficult nature of the threats. I am sure the whole House will agree that we have the finest intelligence services in the world, and we owe it to them to enable their work as much as we possibly can from this place. This Bill is another step towards achieving that. The approach it proposes is both practical and proportionate for small and large venues. I commend the Government for engaging widely in the development of the Bill and for working with businesses, local authorities and security experts to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. It is right that we in this House support the Bill, and in doing so, we send a clear message that we will not only remember those we have lost but act decisively to protect those we serve.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law.

There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.

[Sir John Hayes]

To reassure my hon. Friend on that subject, he will understand that those of us who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee are fearless in holding Ministers to account, as this Minister will no doubt find out, and similarly fearless in challenging the agencies, which do such a wonderful job for us. He is right that the agencies need to be questioned appropriately and scrutinised fully.

On my hon. Friend’s second point, about proportionality, it is, of course, right that our response to risk measures the real character of that risk and is proportionate to it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments.

In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission.

Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk.

I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that?

I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I join other Members in paying tribute to Figen Murray for the tenacity and courage with which she has campaigned—a campaign that has done so much to bring us to this point. Any of us who have been touched, even indirectly, by a terrorist attack know the pain, the loss and the shock. That pain is only made worse if there is a suspicion that anything, no matter how slight, might have been done to have avoided or reduced the harm done. In fighting this campaign, Mrs Murray really has done Martyn’s memory proud.

As has been obvious throughout this debate, there is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the measures in this Bill. It is a good Bill. The draft Bill before the election was a good draft, it was improved by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill that this Government introduced and that has come out of Committee is better. The decision before us tonight is not whether we want these measures, because I think we agree, without exception, that we do. The decision before us is what can be done to make this the very best Bill it can be—one that provides the protections that are so clearly needed, as we heard from witnesses in the Committee’s evidence sessions and throughout the debate around the Bill, both inside and outside this House, without putting an unnecessary burden on those venues that do not need it for the purpose that we seek.

It is precisely because this Bill has broadly struck the right note that I rise to support new clauses 25 and 26, tabled in the names of the shadow Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) respectively. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to hospitality, although I intend to speak primarily not on the hospitality sector, but on the voluntary sector and volunteer-run venues.

I am thinking, in particular, of a venue in the constituency I represented until this year’s general election. The Brierley Hill Civic is a medium-sized venue in the Black Country and, about a decade ago, an asset transfer process was started to transfer it from Dudley council to Dudley council for voluntary service. Over that time, Dudley CVS has done a fantastic job—a really professional job in every sense of the word—in providing a first-class venue for the area. It will typically host a few events each year that top 500 attendees, although they do not reach as high as 800.

The standard duty in this Bill is absolutely appropriate for a venue like Brierley Hill Civic. The concern is about how Dudley CVS, which is primarily run by volunteers, would be able to fulfil the enhanced duties if the threshold were suddenly lowered, taking the venue into the enhanced duty category. That would cause them great difficulty on a practical level as well as a financial level, because as a non-profit-making organisation, they have to balance the books.

Arrests and Prison Capacity

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

First, prison places have not collapsed; I think there are more prison places now than in the recent past. I congratulate North Yorkshire and West Yorkshire police on that operation, which the hon. Lady said led to 62 arrests of dangerous criminals. As I have said, none of the contingencies referenced were activated, and there was never any question of dangerous criminals of that kind not being arrested. That is exactly the kind of operation we like to see. I am speaking from memory, but I think we have closed down something like 6,000 county lines in the past four years. I am delighted to see such operations successfully putting dangerous criminals where they belong: behind bars.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I am glad to hear that the contingency contained in the letter was not required. We can tell how tough this Government are being on crime and criminals by the very heavy population in our prison estate. The long-term solution is to build more prisons. Can the Minister update us on when he estimates the prison building programme will catch up with the prison population?

[Chris Philp]

The Justice Secretary and the Prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is also here, are building prison capacity rapidly. By the end of next year they will have added 10,000 prison places, including at sites such as HMP Millsike, which will be open shortly. We are embarking on a huge prison construction programme, which is on top of the fact that we already have record numbers of prison places. The fact that we have filled those up with criminals, serving typically longer sentences, is testament to the successful approach to law and order that this Government have taken.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I will start by looking at the foundation and principles of the Bill. It is worth remembering that it tries to do what our constituents want us to do. That is not a bad start for any Bill on Second Reading. I knock on doors week in, week out, and I have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents over the past few years. Without question, the single most common issue raised in those conversations is illegal migration, so we in this place owe them an absolute duty to do our very best to deliver on their wishes to produce an effective control on migration and illegal migration. That is what this Bill intends to do: to provide an effective deterrent that breaks the business model and that will lead to stopping the boats. However, it will not do so by itself. This is not an isolated policy; it is part of a whole suite of policies that this Government, to their enormous credit, have introduced over the past years and that are already bearing fruit. We have seen this year crossings by small boats down by a third—I think it is slightly over a third—at a time when they are going up by a third in Europe as a whole and up by 80% in the Mediterranean countries.

Therefore, the schemes that the Government have already implemented are working. They include bilateral agreements with countries such as Albania, a dedication of a safe country status, which is not novel to this Bill. That has had an immediate deterrent effect. It is not that everyone who comes to this country has then been immediately deported to Albania—that has not been the deterrent effect. It is the fact that people know that they will be deported that they have stopped coming in the first place. Crossings by Albanians have dropped by more than 90%. That is why Rwanda is so important. It is not that the capacity of Rwanda has to accept every single migrant who currently comes across the channel; it is the deterrent effect to stop them coming in the first place. We have seen it work, so why not follow the evidence?

We also have the upstream destruction of equipment. As I understand it, just last week there was a Bulgarian seizure of boats, engines and engine parts, preventing the ability of people to cross the channel. There is also increased co-operation with France, which I wholeheartedly welcome, as it has led to increased patrols and increased interdiction of attempts to cross the channel—although not all of them. There has been a 70% increase of raids on illegal employment in this country, and an enormous increase, which I very much welcome, in the number of claims handlers to speed up the process of assessment, bringing down the backlog from 90,000 to below 20,000 now.

The Rwanda Bill is important, but it is just one tool of many. Let us be clear about what the real dispute is in this Chamber today. It is not about the intentions of those on the Government Benches, as we are united in wanting an effective policy for Rwanda. Where the real dispute is—[Interruption.] Yes, every single Member on the Government Benches are entirely united in that objective; it is how we get there that we are debating.

While we want an effective deterrent, those on the Opposition Benches do not. Labour and the Liberal Democrats do not want an effective deterrent. They want to scrap it. Even if the Rwanda policy is demonstrated to be working, they have committed to replacing it. We want flights to take off to Rwanda, as do our constituents. Opposition Members want to prevent them. We want to restore control over our asylum processes, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats say that the only policy is to hire more staff—“Hire another 100,000; have safe and legal routes.” That is important, I accept, but it does not answer the question of how many people come over in the safe and legal routes.

We can have a process that welcomes everyone, but the UN tells us that there are 108 million people in the world at the moment who have been displaced by violence from their own country. Safe and legal routes is a great cliché, a great strap line, but it does not solve the problem of control of our borders.

This Bill responds to the Supreme Court judgment. It does not say that black is white. It does not say that the risk of refoulement then was a false decision by the Lords. The Bill solves the problem by an international treaty, preventing refoulement, and that, in the rare occasions where Rwanda may wish to export people to a third country, they come back to the UK. That is sensible. That is not going against the Supreme Court; it is respecting its judgment and solving the problems that the Supreme Court judges raised in their judgment, and I wholeheartedly support this Second Reading.

Town Centre Safety

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for calling this debate, because it spans the interests of every party, although apparently not the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish National party. For those who are taking part in this debate, keeping our town centres safe is enormously important. That includes all sorts of concerns, stretching from public disorder not only to more serious violence on the streets and low-grade antisocial behaviour, which can be an absolute scourge in our communities, but—this is particularly important for this debate—to shoplifting and violence associated with it.

That takes me to the meat of the motion that Labour has put forward for our consideration today. Its primary suggestion is that we need a new offence to deal specifically with violence against shopworkers. Presumably the argument behind that is that the offence against shopworkers is so different from other workers or other people on the high street that the tariff associated with that offence will be in some way different.

I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said in his opening remarks, but it left me confused, because as he is well aware, we already have section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which deals specifically with assaults on those providing a public service. I think it is common ground among us all that that includes shopworkers. Under the terms of section 156, which I will not read out—I will spare the House that—an assault against a shopworker is considered an aggravating factor. That leads us to the tariff.

Labour’s position appears to be—I would welcome further clarification on this, perhaps in the wind-ups—that there is something so peculiar about a shopworker receiving violence that the aggravating factors cannot be taken into account adequately under section 156. I do not understand what aggravating factors cannot be associated with the section 156 consideration. Surely the best person to decide the correct tariff is always the judiciary. That is the judge, who has all the evidence in front of them, assisted by legislation that clarifies in their mind what is and is not an aggravating factor according to the views of Parliament, and assisted by the sentencing guidelines. That is the right forum to decide the tariff for this kind of offence.

If we start going down to individual offences, so that we have a specific offence for shop workers, what about bus drivers? They are public servants who are exposed to the public. It is clearly outrageous when bus drivers are assaulted by the public in the course of their duties, which they are. What about that offence is less serious and requires a different tariff from those of shop workers? That is the logic of this motion from Labour. My concern is that by going for an eye-catching initiative—my suspicion is that this motion has been tabled to get a headline—Labour is doing an enormous disservice to the criminal justice system, when we need to empower our courts to assess the gravity of offences and let the judiciary, assisted by the sentencing guidelines, come to the right tariff .

I note in passing that Labour voted against Third Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. In my submission, we already have sensible legislation that deals with aggravating features for people serving the public, which those on the Government Benches voted for and Labour voted against. It begs the question: why was the measure so bad then and why is it so good now?

The second part of Labour’s plan is the roll-out of something called a town centre policing plan. Perhaps Opposition Members failed to notice that on 23 October, the Government launched their own retail crime action plan. There are striking similarities, because our plan changes the priorities of the police and requires them to prioritise attendance at shoplifting, particularly shoplifting with violence, shoplifting where a suspect has been detained and shoplifting where it is necessary for the police to attend to secure evidence. Those are exactly the kind of things that we want the police to attend, to reinforce the public’s faith in the argument that every crime needs to be investigated and brought to justice. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned from the Front Bench in her opening remarks, no crime is too small to be investigated. The plan also prioritises hotspot patrols by the police, and it sets up Pegasus, which is the specialist policing team to deal with organised crime using shoplifting gangs as a mechanism to drive revenue. It is important that that is dealt with, too, and I am glad that the retail crime action plan tackles that.

Labour appears to be announcing or, rather, re-announcing what is already Government policy. That leads me to the third part of its plan, which is to announce 13,000 extra police and PCSOs to be used in town centres. I mention in passing that the comfortable majority of that number is PCSOs, not police officers. That appears to be dressing up a £360 million investment and ignoring the £3.6 billion investment that the Government have already put into the police, generating 20,000 extra police officers in the past three years. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) says that we cut them. I can tell her that we have 1,897 police officers serving in Norfolk right now—more than ever before. That is an increase of 269 officers, which is driving down crime and increasing the capture of criminals in Norfolk, particularly in Broadland.

I wonder whether we should have confidence in Labour’s plans. It is either re-announcing Government plans or going for an eye-catching initiative, rather than looking for serious changes to the legislation. Let us look at Labour’s action in practice. Recorded crime is 34% higher in areas with Labour police and crime commissioners than in Conservative areas. The lived experience of all our constituents is that when Labour is in charge, crime is much higher, yet the Conservative record is that non-fraud crime has fallen since 2010. There has been a 50% fall in reported crimes, but let us look at the gold standard, which is the crime survey of England and Wales. By March 2023, our constituents’ experience of crime had dropped by 15% since before covid, and by a whopping 54% since 2010. That is even higher than the reported crime reduction.

Finally, I had a conversation with a seasoned senior officer in Norfolk, who said, “When I started out, if we had had the crime numbers that we have now, I’d have bitten your arm off.” Crime has fallen under the Conservative Government, and we should recognise that in this debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I prefer to trade in facts, and the fact is that in every single one of the visa categories the UK visa service is at or exceeding the service standard. It is true that we moved a number of people away from work and visit visa duties to ensure that we met the demands of the Homes for Ukraine scheme last year, but those people are now back on the job and the service is performing well. If the hon. Lady wants to give specific examples, I shall be happy to look into them.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The backlog of asylum seekers is increasing the need for accommodation. We have just heard outrage expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress that the Scottish Government are making on housing numbers of asylum seekers similar to the numbers housed in the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the outrage of the Scottish National party is entirely confected. There are almost no individuals in initial and contingency accommodation in Scotland; in fact, there are fewer hotels in Scotland than there are in Kensington. However, it is not just members of the SNP who should hang their heads in shame, but Labour in Wales, because in the whole of Wales there are only three hotels. There are more hotels in Earl’s Court than there are in Labour Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

11. What progress her Department has made on tackling domestic abuse.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

13. What progress her Department has made on tackling domestic abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

This Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse, and that is why we introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021. In March this year we published our tackling domestic abuse plan, backed by more than £230 million of funding, including £75 million for tackling perpetrators and multi-year funding for interventions and support. The plan also includes expanding the roll-out of Domestic Abuse Matters training for police officers and, importantly, projects to protect children.

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is right that prevention is the first pillar of our plan. We have set out how we are tackling perpetrators with specific programmes that are proven to prevent this disgusting crime from happening in the first place. It has to start very early, which is why relationships, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum so that children are taught the importance of respectful relationships.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Reports of domestic abuse now account for 24% of all calls to Norfolk police. Is the criminal justice system the right route for all these calls? If not, will the Minister set out how more appropriate steps can be taken to free up police time?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my previous answer, tackling perpetrators is a vital part of our work, but our response goes wider than just the criminal justice system. That is why we are funding perpetrator interventions that reach out to tackle some of these unhealthy behaviours at source. We are investing more than £75 million over three years to achieve that end.

Asylum Reception Centre: Linton-on-Ouse

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member raises a good point. The first tranche of 60 people—service users, as they are called by the Home Office—are due to move in in seven days’ time. There was an indication by the Home Office today that that might be delayed. We do not know by how long yet, but nevertheless, none of the plan for mental health support, GP support or dental support has yet been articulated. The police plan has not yet been articulated. It is simply wrong. We are going far too quickly with this. We need to slow down, pause, look again, consult properly and make sure that we have mitigations in place.

I was on the call with the police and the Home Office today, and the police came out with the phrase that they use, that they want to keep people safe and for people to feel safe. Neither of those things do people in Linton-on-Ouse feel. People do not feel safe. I think those fears are rational; they are not irrational fears. In any cohort of 1,500 young single men, there will be some who do not play by the rules. The vast majority will, but that is of little comfort to people genuinely in fear of their lives and wellbeing. I have had children as young as nine writing to me and meeting me at these public meetings saying how panic stricken they are. I have had elderly residents saying that they have lost the sale of their home and they are in ill health, including one lady whose husband is in ill health. This issue is changing lives today.

Crucially, one thing that has not been considered at all—this was the subject of an exchange of correspondence with the Home Office only yesterday—is what happens to existing service personnel in accommodation on the site and in the village. According to the Home Office, they have been given an option to move elsewhere, but that should not need to be the case. What happens with someone in the armed forces, currently or previously, who has already bought a house in the village of Linton-on-Ouse? I speak with some experience in the property market, and there is little chance of selling any house in Linton-on-Ouse at the moment. We are basically saying to service personnel or former service personnel who live in the village—it is commonly known where they live, and it may be that some of these service users hold a grudge against service personnel who have fought in Iraq and elsewhere—that a grudge held against them might put their lives in peril. No consideration has been made of that. It cannot be right that the Home Office is not showing a reasonable duty of care.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has spoken of some 60 or 70 service users due to arrive next week. That is already 10% of the entire population of the village. Can he clarify whether this will be a closed facility? Will there be any management of ingress and egress, or will the service users be widely open to move around the population at will?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a good question; I should have touched on that earlier. It is a non-detained site, so the service users—asylum seekers—will be able to leave the site and return at will. There will be some management of that on the door to get the name of who is leaving and who is coming back, although there is always a concern that people will get out by other means as it is a very big site, but the point is that they are non-detained. There is an informal curfew at 10 pm, so there is no requirement for them to come back. Safeguarding calls will be made to them after 10 o’clock if they are not back, but there is no limitation on the number of times that they can leave the site. In fact, they can go and stay overnight elsewhere. They are free to come and go, which is clearly a big concern for the village.

I am sure that this is not the Home Office’s intention, but it appears to me that the village is collateral damage of a wider policy. It cannot be right to put the whole burden of a single national policy, however important it is, on one small community wherever it is in the UK—whether it is in my constituency or not. This is not about my popularity locally or my majority. I know many people in the village and was at school with many of them. It is simply unfair, it is simply wrong and Ministers must think again.