Hillsborough: Bishop James Jones Report

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for that typically thoughtful and helpful suggestion. She makes an excellent point. Already in the civil service code, there ought to be arrangements for people to do precisely that, but, if we need to go further, let us discuss that. I would be happy to have that conversation with her.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I wonder if I could explore with the Lord Chancellor what he said about Bishop James’s recommendation on the pressing need for the proper participation of bereaved families at inquests. In the summer, the Joint Committee on Human Rights held an evidence session on a proposed Hillsborough law and strengthening human rights. We were particularly interested in the impact of the inequality of funding for legal representatives between the state and bereaved families at inquests and inquiries. In evidence, witnesses argued strongly that there should be proportionate equality of arms, distinguishing that from mere parity of arms, and they saw the wider use of exceptional case funding for article 2 cases as one way of achieving that. Does he agree with that evidence?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. and learned Lady makes an excellent point. Of course, we think there should be equality of arms. The only point of potential hesitation comes from the evidence of the Chief Coroner—as I said, I was reading that in my preparation—who said that there are some cases where although the state is represented and is an interested party, adding lawyers would not necessarily assist. As he put it in paragraph 97 of his written evidence:

“There are also arguments which could be advanced that simply adding more lawyers in to the system would not necessarily, uniformly help bereaved families in all cases.”

In our view, it will depend on the case. There will be some cases—this is one—where it is manifestly necessary. There are others where there must be a more judicious approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

1. Whether he plans to take legislative steps to help end violence against women and girls.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

3. Whether he plans to take legislative steps to help end violence against women and girls.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

4. Whether he plans to take legislative steps to help end violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he does a lot of work on perpetrator programmes through the White Ribbon scheme in Scotland. I am sorry to hear about the experience of one of his local councillors, and I draw to his attention the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent. It creates an offence of intentional harassment carried out because of a person’s sex. It is quite possible that that covers his friend’s case, so I would be grateful if he wrote to me or came to see me to discuss it further.

[Joanna Cherry]

Last month, Sex Matters presented the Prime Minister with a letter signed by almost 15,000 people asking him to

“take urgent action to halt an escalating campaign of violence and intimidation against women in the name of ‘trans rights’.”

It details how women and, in particular, lesbians are being threatened with the loss of their livelihoods and with physical violence, shouted down and intimidated at public events, and sometimes even assaulted for insisting on their rights to freedom of belief and of expression, and for calling for sex-based protections to be upheld. Will the Minister condemn that violence and intimidation? Will she urge the Prime Minister to do so as well and to commit to addressing it by commissioning a rapid review of the impact of extreme trans rights activism on women’s rights, including the rights of lesbians? Will she also open a call for evidence?

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question, and I certainly condemn the conduct that she has described. Even though holding a gender critical belief is protected in law, both under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 and, more widely, under article 9 of the European convention on human rights, I am aware of the polarisation and, sometimes, intimidation that surrounds this debate. I have seen the letter that Sex Matters wrote to the Prime Minister, and the hon. and learned Lady should be in no doubt about how seriously this is viewed. I have made reference to the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which creates an offence of intentional harassment where there is any causal connection, even a weak one, to a person’s sex, under which such conduct may fall. She has asked for a rapid review, and I would like to meet her to discuss that further and any next steps.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is one of two hon. Members who have fought hard on this issue, and he does so from the position of having served his country. It is completely iniquitous that people should seek to act in a way that desecrates war memorials. His specific point seems utterly compelling and I am happy to discuss it with him hereafter.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

T9.   The Justice Secretary is an experienced lawyer, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Will he explain to the Prime Minister that following the Supreme Court’s judgment on Rwanda, merely to legislate that the facts on the ground in Rwanda are the opposite of what the Supreme Court found them to be will make no difference to the problems the Supreme Court has identified, and will simply make the Government a laughing stock?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her point. At the risk of harming her political career, the respect is entirely mutual. In a rule-of-law country, people can disagree with the decision of a court but they must respect it. We respect the ruling and of course we will abide by court orders, but it is also right that we carefully consider what the Supreme Court said and seek to adjust appropriately. We will do what we properly and lawfully can do to stop the boats. That is our mission and the mission of the British people, and we will deliver on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. He has a long history with this issue since before he reached this House. It is, ultimately, all about rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and helping to keep the public safe.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Over 10,000 women have signed a public letter to the Prime Minister asking him to take action against the escalating campaign of threats and intimidation against women who stand up for women’s rights. Many of these women are particularly concerned that the institutions supposed to protect them are failing to do so, including the criminal justice system. Will the Minister with responsibility for victims be good enough to meet me and representatives of those who organised the letter to discuss this important issue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

T10. An official staff network within HM Prison and Probation Service has circulated an email to all staff, advising them that use of the phrases “protecting women and girls” and “same-sex attraction” is transphobic. That email came from a Ministry of Justice address and was marked “Official”. Does the Minister agree that that advice risks creating a hostile environment for female staff and for lesbian, gay and bisexual staff? Will he distance the Ministry of Justice from it?

[Damian Hinds]

I can reassure the hon. and learned Lady that the email she speaks of was not an official Ministry of Justice or HM Prison and Probation Service email; it was from a network of staff. It does not constitute official advice. The Department is looking again at how internal communications are done. Most importantly, she will be aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s move to ensure that in future the default assumption is that if you are a transgender woman with intact male genitalia, you will not be placed in the female estate. That is an important part of the reform package.

Human Rights Legislation Reform

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Member see any role for the protection of minority rights under the Human Rights Act and the ECHR?

[Scott Benton]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention. If she will wait a few moments, I will cover that. Of course, all aspects of human rights should be covered within our provisions and protections, but there should be a balance between protecting those rights and allowing the Government to ensure that national security issues are protected at the same time.

The British people rightly believe that they should be subject to British law, made by British lawmakers for whom they have voted and by British judges. This Government were elected in 2019 on a manifesto that promised to update the Human Rights Act to ensure a proper balance among the rights of individuals, our national security and effective government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am in a very significant measure of agreement with him, particularly about the need for evidence-based policy making.

I rise to speak as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I remind Members that it is a Joint Committee of both the Commons and the Lords, which takes half its members from each House. It is, of course, a cross-party Committee. As the Committee responsible for scrutinising the Government’s human rights record, we have conducted two inquiries considering plans to reform the Human Rights Act. During our inquiries, we heard evidence from experts with a diverse range of views and from people who have benefited from using the Human Rights Act. Having considered all that evidence, we remain of the view, which we have expressed in a number of previous reports, that the Human Rights Act is functioning as intended and enables human rights to be enforced effectively in the United Kingdom, with little need for recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. For that reason, based on the evidence we have heard and the information we have considered, we believe that the Government have failed to make the case for repealing and replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights.

We were pleased to have confirmation from the current Lord Chancellor that the Government were looking again at the Bill of Rights Bill and that its progress would be paused while they conducted a thorough review of the Bill. We were pleased to hear that, unlike before, he intends to look at the evidence base, including the independent Human Rights Act review. We were concerned by the Government’s lack of engagement with experts, Parliament and the public over the Bill of Rights Bill. It followed the independent Human Rights Act review, as we have heard, significant parliamentary engagement and inquiries, and a public consultation exercise, which elicited over 12,000 responses. That is the sort of extensive engagement we should be having before we embark on reform, but engagement has to be genuine and have meaning and purpose, and those who engage should be listened to.

The Bill of Rights simply does not reflect what the Government heard from Parliament’s Committees, their own commissioned independent review or their consultation exercise. The Government’s own consultation analysis shows that many responders were in favour of maintaining the status quo and the Human Rights Act, and believed that the changes proposed were unnecessary. Despite that lack of support, the Government decided to pursue a reform, in which they went to the length of repealing and replacing the Act altogether.

The Government’s consultation analysis provided scant to no reasoning to explain why they decided to disregard the views of a significant number of consultees. In the Joint Committee’s opinion, that calls into question the integrity of the whole consultation process preceding the Bill of Rights. We concluded that, given the overwhelming lack of support for these radical reforms, repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights was neither democratic nor necessary. We were particularly worried about the international implications of repealing the Human Rights Act. Our primary worry was that removing the Act would weaken protections for people living in the United Kingdom, but we were also worried about how it would be perceived internationally.

When we visited the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg earlier this year, we highlighted our concerns. It was emphasised to us that the Human Rights Act is viewed internationally as the gold standard and a model example of how human rights can be effectively embodied into domestic law and practice. It was impressed on us by our interlocuters that any weakening of the mechanisms in the Act could damage the United Kingdom’s reputation internationally and weaken the UK Government’s position when seeking to ensure that other states uphold their human rights obligations. Importantly, we were left in no doubt by those we spoke to that the United Kingdom’s status as a leading member of the Council of Europe and one of the founders of the ECHR means that any reforms to the Act that suggest that we are wavering in our commitment to the convention’s protections could be a green light for other less committed nations to weaken their own human rights protections.

Other hon. Members have spoken about the incredibly positive impact that the Human Rights Act has had on human rights in the United Kingdom, and the Joint Committee has highlighted that in a number of its reports. It has highlighted that it has made it far easier for individuals to enforce their rights, because they can do so in their domestic court, and that is much cheaper and easier. Before the passing of the Human Rights Act, an individual had to take their case directly to the Court in Strasbourg. That process was subject to long delays, by which I mean many years, and on average cost applicants £30,000. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst indicated, another benefit of the Human Rights Act is that it has led to a significant decrease in the number of cases brought against the UK before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because we resolve our own human rights problems at home, in the domestic courts of our jurisdiction. The hon. Member gave some statistics about that.

Contrary to what people sometimes think, having a Human Rights Act, and incorporating the ECHR into the domestic law of the United Kingdom, has also enabled courts—in my jurisdiction of Scotland and in those of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland—to influence the development of European Court of Human Rights case law. We heard that there is a strong dialogue between the UK Supreme Court and the Court in Strasbourg; they both influence each other’s jurisprudence, and that often works to the benefit of the United Kingdom.

Another important thing that the Human Rights Act has done is embed a human rights culture in public authorities. We heard from a number of witnesses—including an NHS trust, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the British Association of Social Workers—that the Human Rights Act has placed human rights at the centre of decision making in public authorities, and that the legal framework assisted them in making complex decisions.

We also heard that the Human Rights Act has been central to the devolution of justice and policing in Northern Ireland, and of course we know that it is embedded in the Good Friday agreement. It also plays a very important role in the constitutional underpinning of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. As other hon. Members indicated, in my own jurisdiction of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament has gone beyond the Human Rights Act to embed, for example, the UN convention on the rights of the child. The Joint Committee was very clear that we do not believe that the Human Rights Act should be reformed without the consent of the devolved legislatures, because it is so important to them.

I want to be clear: the Joint Committee on Human Rights is not saying that there should not be any amendments to the Human Rights Act, but we would like human rights protections to be strengthened rather than weakened. For example, we want the right to protest—a very important aspect of the right to freedom of expression—to be given greater protection in the Bill of Rights Bill, and we want the right to an effective remedy, as protected by article 13 of the ECHR, embedded. We also want the Government seriously to consider incorporating other international human rights treaties, such as the UN convention that I just mentioned and the refugee convention. That should include the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, in terms similar to those of article 14 of the universal declaration of human rights.

We are pleased that the current Lord Chancellor has paused the process. We had a very positive letter from him last week. We are looking forward to engaging with him, and we are delighted that the Government will go back and look at the independent review in a way that they did not before. The Committee will continue to engage with the Government, but we emphasise that we believe in evidence-based policy making. It is our view that so far we have seen no evidence to justify the argument that significant changes to the Human Rights Act are either necessary or desirable.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I propose first to talk about some of the key changes made to the Bill in the other place as a result of amendments brought forward by the Government, then to turn to the Lords amendments with which, sadly, the Government disagree for various reasons.

The Bill as passed by this House already included a number of significant measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and we have added to them during the Bill’s passage in the Lords. Lords amendments 13 to 15 make it clear in the Bill that domestic abuse and sexual violence are included within the meaning of the term “violence” for the purposes of the serious violence duty. It was always our wish that the serious violence duty should be all-encompassing, but following representations by Baroness Burton and others who were concerned to emphasise its importance, we are happy to agree to this being included in the Bill. The accompanying statutory guidance, which will be subject to public consultation, will make it clear that local areas, in drawing up their strategies to prevent and reduce serious violence, can and should include measures to tackle domestic abuse and sexual violence based on their local assessments.

With regard to Lords amendments 34 to 55, on Report in this House the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), reiterated the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the provisions of the Bill relating to the extraction of information from electronic devices are accompanied by strong privacy safeguards. These Lords amendments deliver on that commitment. Among other things, they add a new clause setting out the conditions that must be met in order for a device user to be treated as giving agreement to the extraction of information. These changes will increase victim confidence and ensure that the individual’s right to privacy is respected and placed at the centre of all investigations.

Lords amendment 56 will create new offences to criminalise recording images of, or operating equipment to observe, a person at a time when they are breastfeeding, without the person’s consent or reasonable belief that they consent. On Report, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a powerful case for introducing such offences. Although at that time we made it clear that the Law Commission is currently reviewing the law in this area, we do believe that this amendment will ensure that parents are protected from non-consensual photography and can feel safe to breastfeed in public, ahead of the publication of the Law Commission report later this year.

Another compelling argument was made on Report last July by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is sadly not in his place, to address concerns that the time limit for bringing prosecutions for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse is unfairly short. Currently a prosecution for common assault or battery must be brought within six months of an offence occurring. However, victims of domestic abuse may often, understandably, take some time to report an offence, leaving the police and the Crown Prosecution Service with little time to conduct an investigation and prosecute the offender. In some instances, the time limit has expired before the victim even approaches the police. To address this issue, Lords amendment 57 will extend the time limit for commencing a prosecution for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse so that the six months runs not from the date when the offence occurred but from when it is formally reported to the police through either a witness statement or a video recording made with a view to use as evidence. A prosecution must be commenced within an overall limit of two years of the offence. This amendment will make a real difference to victims of domestic abuse and stop perpetrators hiding behind an unfair limitation on victims’ ability to seek justice.

Lords amendments 59 and 60 will ensure that the police’s processing of personal data in non-crime hate incident records is made subject to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary. The amendments will address concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), also sadly not in his place, in this House and by Lord Moylan and others in the other place by bringing parliamentary oversight to this process. The College of Policing is currently responsible for producing non-statutory hate crime operational guidance. The Government’s statutory code of practice, once in effect, will replace the relevant section of this guidance on non-crime hate incidents. The college’s guidance will remain in place until the new code enters into effect. When drafting the code, the Government will work closely with policing partners, including the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to make sure that it will respect the operational importance of recording non-crime hate incidents to help to keep vulnerable people and communities safe while balancing the need to protect freedom of expression.

Let me turn to the Lords amendments that the Government cannot support—at least, not in their current form. Lords amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of the prevalence of, and the response of the criminal justice system to, the offence of administering a substance with intent under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—commonly known as spiking. The Government share widespread concern about the offence that has prompted this amendment, whether spiking of drinks or spiking by needles, and we are taking the issue extremely seriously. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for bringing forward his recent ten-minute rule Bill on this issue. Everyone should be able to enjoy a night out without fearing that they will be a victim of this dreadful crime.

In September 2021, the Home Secretary asked the National Police Chiefs Council to review urgently the extent and scale of needle spiking. It is clear from what the police have told us that this behaviour is not exclusively linked to sexual activity and that it demands a response that goes beyond the criminal justice system. We have therefore tabled our amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 70, which is drafted more broadly than the Lords amendment and is not linked to any specific offence. It will require the Home Secretary to prepare a report on the nature and prevalence of spiking and to set out the steps that the Government have taken or intend to take to address it. In this context we are also exploring the need for a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly, as my hon. Friend recommended in his ten-minute rule Bill. The Home Secretary will be required to publish this report and lay it before Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent. In preparing the report we will want to take into account the findings of the current inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee. This approach addresses the concerns that prompted the Lords amendment but in a way that enables the Government to consider the issue in the round.

Lords amendment 72 seeks, in common parlance, to make misogyny a hate crime. Hon. Members may be aware that in December last year, at the Government’s request, the Law Commission provided recommendations on the reform of hate crime laws. Looking very carefully at this issue, it found that adding sex or gender to hate crime laws may prove “more harmful than helpful”, as well as “counterproductive”. The principal reason is that it could make it more difficult to prosecute the most serious crimes that harm women and girls, including rape and domestic abuse. Obviously such an awful unintended consequence is not the intention of those who tabled the amendment in the other place. As such, the amendment seeks to exclude certain offences where the risks to their prosecution are acute.

The Law Commission looked at every possible model and unfortunately also found the one proposed in the amendment unsatisfactory. Time is short and I do not want to dwell on all its problems, but the review identified that to reflect sex and gender in some offences but not others would make the law very complex and imply that very harmful excluded offences such as rape are less serious, would result in tokenistic coverage of many misogynistic crimes, and would create new inequalities in how different groups are protected by hate crime laws.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The inner house of the Court of Session, Scotland’s highest court, has recently clarified that in the Equality Act 2010 “sex” does indeed have the meaning set out in section 11—that is, that it refers to one or other sex, male or female. Does the Minister share my concern that this amendment has that definition of “sex” but the word “gender” is undefined? Is he aware that many feminists feel that gender is not the same as sex and that in fact gender is a tool of sex-based oppression?

[Kit Malthouse]

I acknowledge some of the problems with the amendment that the hon. and learned Lady sets out. I think it is Women’s Aid that rejected the amendment and said that it would do more harm than good on the basis that she outlined: it is not specific about targeting crimes against women in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend has put her finger on the button of the problem. It is not that we are unsympathetic to the issue—of course we are not. I just do not see how, given the views of large organisations and of the Law Commission, somebody could, with any conscience, vote for something that they are being told might be damaging. I understand that the hon. Member for Walthamstow is exercised by the issue—as are all hon. Members present—but we hope to address it in other ways and to look seriously at the further offence that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has urged us to look at and bring it forward in future.

[Joanna Cherry]

In support of the English Law Commission—hon. Members should be aware that the legislation applies only in England and Wales—in Scotland, when the Scottish Government were looking at introducing hate crime legislation, they rejected misogyny as an aggravating factor after submissions from Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and Engender in Scotland. Baroness Helena Kennedy is now chairing a panel to look at that with a view to reporting. There are arguments on either side.

I am most concerned that if we are to have an aggravation based on sex or gender, gender must be defined. We already have a protected characteristic of transgender identity, which is very important, but in this Lords amendment, sex is defined but not gender. Does the Minister agree that, in future, we should define what we mean by gender so that people know what it means?

[Kit Malthouse]

There are a number of definitional issues within the Lords amendment that produce fatal flaws, but I absolutely commend the spirit behind it. It comes from a good place and from a concern that we share. Given that legal expertise advises us against it and advises us to pursue another course, that is our intention and that is what we will do.

I turn now to Lords amendments 114 to 116, which relate to the piloting and national roll-out of serious violence reduction orders. I assure the House that we want to pilot them robustly, which is why the assessment of the pilot will be conducted by an independent evaluator and the Government will thoroughly consider the report’s findings before any decision is made to roll them out across the whole of England and Wales.

The report of the pilot will be laid before Parliament, but commencement regulations are not generally subject to any parliamentary procedure and the Government do not agree that that approach should be changed for SVROs. To assuage the concerns that have been raised in relation to the pilot, amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 114 to 116 will set out in the Bill a non-exhaustive list of matters that must be addressed in the report of the pilot.

Lords amendments 141 and 142 seek to create two new offences to tackle so-called sex for rent. We are clear that exploitation through sex for rent has no place in our society and is a revolting phenomenon. We therefore fully understand the motivation behind these amendments. There are existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that can and have been used to prosecute this practice successfully, but we do recognise the need to do more to stamp out this abhorrent practice and to support those at risk of exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I understand what the hon. Member is saying, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is a carve-out clause particularly designed to satisfy that concern. I believe that distinguishing between serious sexual violence crimes and other forms of crime that may be enacted with a misogynistic intent would solve that problem.

These kinds of misogynistic attitudes and this kind of behaviour are more widespread in society than we care to think. We must be absolutely intolerant of it, and the hate law speaks to that. Such attitudes erode the very fabric of society and we should collectively reject them.

[Joanna Cherry]

I share the hon. Lady’s horror of misogyny, but I do not understand why although “sex” is defined in the amendment, “gender” is not. What does she understand by the term “gender” in the amendment? Why is it not defined?

[Sarah Jones]

I understand the point that the hon. and learned Lady is making. The offences are motivated by hostility towards the sex or gender of the victim, and the amendment is designed to be as inclusive as possible, but I hear what she says. Refuge and some other women’s organisations have published a good briefing that tackles some of these issues, and perhaps we could have a conversation about it afterwards. I think her concerns are unfounded, but I understand the point she makes. These issues are complex and difficult, and we must make sure we get them right.

[Joanna Cherry]

But surely as legislators, if we use a word we have to define it. We all know that there have been problems with conflating sex and gender. The amendment clearly states “sex or gender” and since “sex” is defined, as one would expect, by reference to section 11 of the Equality Act 2010, surely we can define what we mean by “gender”. If we cannot define what we mean by “gender”, why are we including it as an aggravation?

[Sarah Jones]

The aim of the amendment is to try to make misogyny a hate crime in whatever form it comes, and to be as inclusive as possible in that definition.

[Stella Creasy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that given that “gender” is defined in legislation—indeed, the Government rather helpfully defined it in their consultation document, so we have a definition of “gender”—it is therefore important that we focus on perpetrators? The point behind hate crime is that I could be a victim of antisemitic abuse whether I am Jewish or not. It is about the motivation of the perpetrator. By recognising that sex or gender can motivate hostility based on misogyny, we are ensuring that no perpetrator could have a defence where they demean a victim, and no perpetrator can avoid that hostility being reported because somebody wants to put them in the trans box rather than in the misogyny box. The amendment is inclusive, but it ensures that it protects women, whether they were born or become one, using definitions that already exist in law.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Sarah Jones]

I feel as if there should be a three-way conversation in another place to tackle some of these questions. But they are real questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has campaigned on this issue for a very long time, and it is important that we listen to what she says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I do not know who is throwing the red meat here, but it is certainly not me. Obviously the hon. Lady has a constituency that will lap up her remarks, no doubt released on social media. In truth, the police have been asking for some time for improvements to the elderly public order legislation. We put the measures through consideration by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, which felt they were proportionate and sensible for us to pursue.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister is implying that the police and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services in some way wanted this new noise trigger. Will he accept that I am correct when I say that neither the police, nor Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, requested the noise trigger at all?

[Kit Malthouse]

The inspectorate obviously would not request that because that is not its job, but we certainly asked it to look at the balance that we are trying to present with what I think are relatively modest improvements to public order legislation. Indeed, from memory of the report, it felt we should go further, which we are unable to do because of the structure of the Bill. That means that on the rare occasion where noise is causing other people’s rights to be impinged on, and where worship or business or residence is impossible, we would seek protection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)]

I will be brief, as I realise that time is pressing.

My father, sadly, passed away in September last year. Some years earlier, on his way home from work, he was involved in road traffic accident that left him almost dead and crippled, lying in a field. He never walked again. He was crippled by a hit-and-run driver, but because he received treatment in hospital very quickly, he survived, and because protesters were not blocking the road to the hospital he attended, he survived. My father went on to see marriages, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. My parents enjoyed years of marriage and had their 63rd wedding anniversary. I strongly believe that if protesters had blocked that road to the hospital A&E where I saw my father with his leg just about hanging off—it was absolutely horrific—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. In that case, I would not have had that time with my father, so I will be supporting this Bill tonight in memory of my father.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to support Lords amendments 73, 80 and 87, and to remind the House that they are very much in line with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, when we looked at part 3 of the Bill and reached the conclusion that the restrictions on non-violent protest in the Bill were inconsistent with our rights.

Given the short amount of time, I am going to focus on the noise trigger, because I think that that is the most egregious part of this. A restriction on the right to protest that targets noise strikes at the very heart of why people gather together to protest—to have their voices heard about an issue that is important to them and which they want other people to treat with importance. We noted in the Committee that the larger and better supported a demonstration is, the louder it is likely to be, so restrictions on noise could disproportionately impact on the demonstrations that have the greatest public backing.

Much of the written and oral evidence we received emphasised the centrality of noise to effective protest. For example, Liberty and Big Brother Watch highlighted:

“Protests, by their very nature, are noisy. Noise is also a crucial means of expressing collective solidarity or grief and, quite literally, making voices heard by those in power.”

This was echoed in oral evidence by Zehrah Hasan, the director of Black Protest Legal Support, who said:

“Creating noise at a protest is quite literally a part of people making their voices heard.”

Another witness told us that

“this new trigger, which is noise, is an absolute affront to the right to protest. This noise trigger should not exist for the purposes of imposing any conditions on assemblies and processions. It is essentially an existential threat to the right to protest.”

That is just a flavour of the evidence we heard.

The Minister has referred to the European convention on human rights, but that is intended to provide rights that are “practical and effective”, not “theoretical and illusory”. If the police have discretion to shut down protests because they are noisy, the right to protest will become theoretical and illusory in England and Wales. Thankfully, these laws are not going to apply in Scotland, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) said, many Scots come to London to protest and they will be affected by these laws.

I emphasise that, because it was made clear to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that neither the police, nor Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, requested this noise trigger. They may have requested other changes, but they did not request that. As even Conservative Members have said, this measure is a fundamental threat to the right of freedom of speech and assembly in this country, and as the JCHR said in our report, it should not be in the Bill and it should go.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work and diligence she has shown in representing her constituents, who understandably have real concerns about their family members. I will happily meet her to discuss the matter. Because the launching of the scheme is such a significant event and many, many constituents throughout the country have contacted their Members of Parliament, it will take us a little bit of time to sort through individual cases, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to clarify the situation and to see whether we can make progress. As I say, people who are already here in the United Kingdom will be on the pathway to settlement because we have worked so quickly after Operation Pitting.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I raise with the Minister again the particular vulnerability of women who were formerly judges and prosecutors in Afghanistan? She knows that I have been working with Marzia Babakarkhail, a former judge who is in the United Kingdom and is in touch with many of these women. The Minister said that some will have already come to the United Kingdom, but my understanding is that they are mainly very senior judges who were based in Kabul, at the heart of things; Marzia is particularly concerned about female judges and prosecutors in the provinces of Afghanistan. Will the Minister take some time to meet me and Marzia to discuss how the United Kingdom can help these women, whether by bringing them here or by helping them to get to a third country? Will she afford some time for such a meeting?

[Victoria Atkins]

I would be happy to do so. The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point. She has got the point, if I may say so, that sadly we will not be able to help every Afghan judge, but if we can signpost them to other countries that may be able to help, we will of course be pleased and keen to do so.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Ali. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for all his diligent work in this area, particularly on religious freedom and on freedom of speech: a subject very dear to my own heart. I echo what the hon. Gentleman said—more needs to be done and more needs to be done more urgently. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to his questions.

Many of us were glad to hear of some progress in today’s statement in the Chamber—I thank the Minister for that. I want to make one point to her quite gently. When the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), pointed out that there are some criticisms to be made of the way the Government have handled the matter, the Minister seemed to suggest that, in doing so, the shadow Home Secretary was criticising our forces, which she absolutely was not doing. We would all praise the efforts of British forces on the ground, and the civil servants and non-governmental organisations, who worked so hard back in August to get as many people out as possible. What I gently say to the Minister is that their efforts should not be a shield for our political masters to hide behind.

Many MPs continue to receive desperate pleas on behalf of those left behind in Afghanistan. The United Kingdom Government machine needs to up its game, for this reason: the UK Government pursued a foreign and defence policy that encouraged people in Afghanistan to participate in creating a democratic state, where human rights were protected. Due to the failure of that policy, many of those people are now at risk, so we in the United Kingdom—having been at the heart of pursuing that policy, albeit with some allies—have a particular moral responsibility to take proper steps to help those at risk in Afghanistan.

Like many other Members of Parliament, I have been trying to help constituents with inquiries about friends and family, as well as people who have contacted me as a British MP seeking my help. However, I have been particularly engaged with the plight of female judges and female prosecutors in Afghanistan. We all know that women face particular oppression under the Taliban; when I spoke in a debate about LGBT rights in Afghanistan, I made the point that lesbians and bisexual women experience discrimination twice over in Afghanistan, both for their sex and for their same-sex attraction. This is most definitely an area in which sex matters, and women are particularly at risk.

The brave women who became judges, prosecutors, policewomen, human rights defenders and women’s rights activists under western rule now find that their lives are in mortal danger. That is also true for many of the men they worked alongside, but those women’s lack of freedom to move and to access the means to leave the country themselves, because of their oppression as women and the severe discrimination against them, makes the position of women all the worse. These women who worked as judges, prosecutors and so on are at risk twice over, both because of their civic contribution and because of their sex.

As the Minister knows, I have been working with a former Afghan judge and feminist activist to try to highlight the plight of lower-level female judges and prosecutors in provincial villages, whose lives are particularly at risk because they live in small communities and are therefore more readily identifiable. Marzia Babakarkhail came to the UK in 2008 after two attempts on her life by the Taliban, having served as a judge in Afghanistan. She is now a British citizen who lives in Oldham, and her story is featured in the People’s History Museum in Manchester, which is very worth a visit for anyone who has not been there. It houses the black Samsonite bag that Marzia was given by her mother as a gift to congratulate her on her success as a lawyer, which is one of the few possessions she was able to bring with her to her new life in the United Kingdom. Marzia is anxious that the UK Government should provide a new life in the United Kingdom for other female judges and prosecutors, and she is in touch with many of those who are trapped and left behind. They are in imminent danger of persecution from the Taliban, and from other dangerous criminals and members of terrorist groups who the Taliban have released from prison.

The Taliban’s opposition to the formal justice system of Afghanistan is well known. They are strongly against state-building and against the justice reconstruction efforts by what they call westernising forces, and favour sharia law as the source of justice, underpinned by a strict interpretation of Islam. In the past, they have targeted and brutally killed many judges, and since last August, there have been other, similar targetings. Many of the men who the Taliban have released from prison are heavily armed and are now free to trace and target their enemies without fear, and many of those female judges and prosecutors were involved in the indictment and punishment of those criminals and terrorists, so they are prime targets for revenge attacks.

As we speak and over the past few months, the Taliban have been conducting house-to-house searches, and many of these women are now in hiding, where they receive threatening phone calls asking them about their whereabouts. These women are contacting Marzia in fear and desperation, and she in turn is contacting me and other Members of Parliament.

As the Minister knows, in 2003 the convention on the elimination of violence against women was ratified by Afghanistan under western influence; based on that law, specialist courts were established in 34 provinces under the control of female judges. The Taliban and other conservative groups in Afghanistan considered that law to be un-Islamic, and the judges who enforced it to be infidels and foreign collaborators, so any of the female judges who sat on those courts, trying to protect women, are now at risk. As the hon. Member for Strangford said earlier, Baroness Helena Kennedy, who is—among her many good works—the head of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, has worked with a large team of pro bono lawyers in the UK and across the world to try to save some of those women. She has succeeded in doing so, and I commend her and her colleagues on their efforts.

However, Marzia is worried that junior female judges and prosecutors in the provinces will be overlooked, so I am working to raise their profile with the UK Government. At the end of last year, I brought Marzia into Parliament to meet Baroness Kennedy, the Justice Committee and the then Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who has recently been knighted. The then Justice Secretary was very keen to assist, but unfortunately he lost his position in the Cabinet reshuffle and with all due respect to his replacement—the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—I have to say that he has not so far covered himself in glory over the issue of Afghanistan. However, doing something to help these female judges and prosecutors would be a way for him to make amends.

Regarding the Minister who is here today, she agreed this morning in the Chamber to meet Marzia and I; I look forward to doing so very soon. All I really want to ask her now is that, in addition to answering the questions of the hon. Member for Strangford and other hon. Members, she answers this question: can she reassure me that the meeting she will have with Marzia and I will recognise the United Kingdom’s particular responsibility towards these women? Will it bring tangible results for women who have been left behind in Afghanistan and are now desperate?

LGBTQ+ Afghan Refugees

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate. We have heard a number of hon. Members speak movingly of the terrible plight faced by LGBTQI+ people in Afghanistan, which is now back under the Taliban. We have heard some important questions for the Minister to answer, but before I turn to those questions, I would like to say something particularly about the plight of lesbians and bisexual women in Afghanistan, who are discriminated against twice over, both for their sex and for their sexuality.

We all know that women face particular oppression under the Taliban. As we heard in briefings from Stonewall and Rainbow Migration last night, being a woman considerably decreases someone’s ability to move or to act to protect themselves in Afghanistan. Lesbians are even less likely to come forward to UNHCR or other humanitarian agencies if they reach a third country, because as women they are even more likely to experience persecution within their homes and from family members, and to have less mobility and fewer resources open to them. If they make it to the United Kingdom, it is often hard for them to prove their sexuality, because they have led such hidden lives and have often been in forced marriages.

Perhaps the plight of lesbians and bisexual women underlines in particular why some aspects of the Nationality and Borders Bill are so problematic for LGBTQI+ people. The requests made of the Minister by hon. Members today can be summarised under three headings: support for LGBTQI+ people who make it to a neighbouring host country—some of those countries will not be particularly sympathetic environments—co-ordination of the international response and a willingness to create safe routes to the United Kingdom and then to treat people humanely once they get here.

In relation to neighbouring host countries, I ask the Minister to focus on questions about what efforts the United Kingdom Government can engage in, in partnership with organisations on the ground, to ensure that the needs of this vulnerable community are met if people make it to one of the neighbouring countries, and to ensure that there is expert support and expert legal advice and assistance relevant to their identity and their expression of how they live their lives.

Will the Government ensure that LGBTQI+ people are considered a priority and that the particular risks they face in their ongoing passage into a safe place are taken into account? Will the Government keep a close eye on those neighbouring states, through their international channels of diplomacy, to ensure that people who manage to get out are treated appropriately?

Looking at the international response, will the Minister hold an urgent cross-agency meeting to bring together resettlement countries, resettlement agencies and those in the LGBTQI+ community in civil society, to ensure that there is a robust process? Will she also ensure that LGBTQI+ people who are fleeing Afghanistan do not find themselves in detention facilities that could exacerbate existing trauma and put them at further risk?

One very important question for the Minister, which a number of hon. Members have asked, is whether she can confirm that all current deportations or removals of Afghanis have been halted in the light of the Taliban takeover? If not, can she confirm how many Afghans are facing a current risk of deportation or removal from the United Kingdom?

We have heard repeatedly how important it is that safe legal routes are created for people to come to the United Kingdom, that people are not treated as criminals on arrival and that they are treated humanely when they get here. Can the Minister please address specifically the issues raised by hon. Members in relation to the Nationality and Borders Bill, and aspects of the Bill that will be particularly problematic for LGBTQI+ people, such as the burden of proof? We have heard that many gay people in Afghanistan are living lives where their sexuality is not at all open, and that will be the same for transgendered people. Can the burden of proof please take that into account? Likewise, can the Government please look again at the unreasonable deadlines in clauses 16, 17 and 23 of the Bill?

Finally, can the Minister give us a guarantee that if LGBTQI+ people manage to make it to the shores of this country, they will not be hived off to be detained in some hostile environment pending the outcome of their application for asylum?

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend was himself a practitioner of many years’ standing. I assure him that we are using every tool available—including remote hearings, bringing back judges who have recently retired and, indeed, harnessing the entire legal profession—to deal with the number of cases before the courts. The restriction on sitting days has been lifted and colleagues in Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are working tirelessly to deal with the case load.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I return to the case of the female Afghan judges, which I raised yesterday with the Lord Chancellor’s Home Office colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)? A female former Afghan judge who escaped two assassination attempts by the Taliban and is now a British citizen contacted me at the weekend to explain the very real and immediate danger that her colleagues face, particularly from dangerous criminals and terrorists who have been released from prison. I am bringing her into Parliament at 5 pm this evening to meet informally with the Justice Committee; will the Lord Chancellor, or perhaps one of his junior colleagues, come to that meeting and meet this lady to hear at first hand how desperate the situation really is?

[Robert Buckland]

I will of course make sure that my diary is adjusted so that I can do that. The hon. and learned Lady can rest assured that I am getting emails from her colleagues directly to my parliamentary account. These are harrowing tales of harrowing experiences, which is why I meant what I said in my answers earlier. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Lady.