Public Order Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Christine Jardine

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not know how often my hon. Friend prays—maybe more often than I do, although my need to do so is probably greater—but he must understand that prayer does two things: it sends a message, one hopes, to the Almighty; and it provides solace for the person praying. So the person praying outside the clinic may well be sending a message, but that message is just as likely to be transcendental as to be intended for any individual in proximity.

The idea that we should interrupt the relationship between an individual and their God seems to me to be pretty monstrous, particularly as amendment (a) states specifically that any activity, communication or prayer shall not influence any person’s decision or, more especially, instruct or impede any person. This is not about interfering with another. Rather, it is about expressing a view to oneself, to the Lord and perhaps to others; but that could surely be said of any prayer at any time. Are we going to arrest people in other public places? Once this is allowed and the police are permitted to apprehend people for what they think and what they are praying about, why not arrest them in other public places? Why does this have to apply only to abortion clinics? Once we open this door, why would the police not arrest people outside mosques or temples, or in any other public space where they are praying to illustrate an opinion—or indeed, as I have said, to express it not horizontally but vertically, to a greater power above us?

[Christine Jardine]

This is an extremely important point. I do not think anyone in this House wants to restrict anyone’s right to pray, but we are trying to differentiate here and consider the impact of that action on the women who are going in for a very traumatic experience. Many of them will be grieving and many will have been through a traumatic experience to get them to this point, only to then be presented with someone telling them that what they are doing is wrong, increasing that trauma. Regardless of the intention of the person praying, which I would defend forever, the impact on the women is the problem.

[Sir John Hayes]

But in a free society the impact we make on others by our sentiments, by what we do, say and, indeed, by what we pray about, is the inevitable consequence of the openness that I would have thought all of us in this place would celebrate. In this case, the amendment states specifically that we should not influence or obstruct, but the more general context in which we are having this debate is a world in which the ability to express a view that others might find offensive or unreasonable is being curbed every single day as our freedom is being eroded, and all the things we hold dear put at risk.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Christine Jardine

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). I will not take up much of the House’s time.

I am sure that all of us in this place wish that this Bill was not necessary and that we could be sure that our towns and cities will never again have to fear attacks like the horrors of Fishmongers’ Hall last year, Streatham earlier this year, the Manchester Arena bombing, and the attack on Parliament, which was referred to earlier. All of us want to better protect the public and to somehow find the time and the means to rehabilitate those who want to visit that violence on our society, and to persuade them of a better way. Although I wholeheartedly agree with and support that motive and aim, I cannot agree that parts of this Bill will be effective in doing that.

As the hon. Lady said, keeping people in prison for longer will not de-radicalise them. It may, in fact, radicalise them further or give them the opportunity to radicalise others in prison. Keeping them off the streets for longer will certainly succeed in keeping them off the streets, but will that actually be effective if, in fact, they become more radicalised or radicalise others so that they are even more dangerous when they come out?

There are other flaws in that approach. If we are to prevent people from reoffending after they leave prison and encourage them back on to a lawful path away from terrorism, they need to feel the security of a home and a job. However, the release on licence, which is vital to that, will be shortened by this Bill. Similarly, probation is currently under-resourced, and it would be undermined by the Bill in its ability to de-radicalise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not know the answer to this, but I am extremely doubtful whether there is any reliable correlation in respect of the known terrorists that have committed such awful crimes in this country over recent years and unemployment or their family situation in terms of homes; in fact, I rather suspect the opposite. We need to be careful about making such correlations unless there is really strong evidence to suggest that they are meaningful.

[Christine Jardine]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I was going to come on to a different correlation. Surely, we want to stop terrorism happening in the first place. Longer sentences only happen after the fact. Surely, what we want to do in this country is root out of the causes of terrorism—to make people feel secure, to give young people an alternative, to keep them away from radicalisation and, if they are in prison for another reason, to ensure that they are not radicalised by someone who is in there on a long sentence and has the ability to radicalise them.

I believe that the key is reaching young people to prevent them from going down the wrong route in the first place. That is why I believe that we have to strengthen the licensing system, strengthen probation and look at ways of ensuring that our young people, whether they get into trouble or not, have the security of a job and a way of seeing their future positively. That way, we can identify those who might go on to threaten our way of life. We should work with the education system and agencies. We should tackle inequalities. Longer sentencing will do none of that.

There is also a dangerous assumption that one size fits all. As in other areas, that cannot be the case. It is vital that we recognise in the way we proceed that there is a different dynamic in Northern Ireland. In clause 30, there may be an implication that people already serving sentences will have their terms changed retrospectively and will have grounds for challenge at the European Court of Human Rights. We have to be very careful how we proceed.

Although we all desire a way of limiting the threat of terrorism and de-radicalising our young people, simply acting with more force—longer sentences—after the fact will not be enough. We have to get to the root cause first.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Debate between John Hayes and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and everyone who supported her in securing this debate. It is of vital importance, not in a party political sense—or any political sense—but in a human rights sense. Two issues are involved here. The first is that it is simply appalling in 2018 that abortion is still treated as a criminal issue, rather than a medical one. More than 100 years—only just more—after women were given the vote, we are here debating an Act from 1861 when not only was it all men in the Chamber who decided, but it was all men who voted for all the men in the Chamber to decide. The other issue is that even now women in Northern Ireland are the only women in the UK who are denied a fundamental human right: the right to choose—the right to control their own bodies.

I have heard the debate about devolution. Even as someone who has campaigned consistently for devolution and whose party has campaigned tirelessly for it, I cannot find myself supporting that argument. I listened to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) had to say, but then I listened to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said and thought, “If I were one of those women sitting at home listening to us today, what would matter to me more: devolution and a political principle; or my human rights?” The answer would be my human rights and my right to choose. It would be my daughter’s human rights, my niece’s human rights and the human rights of every woman I know above a political principle.

If that is not enough, perhaps we should look at what the legislation says, because human rights are not devolved. There is a precedent from 2007. When the DUP blocked the EU gender directive, Westminster stepped in and intervened. Legislation also gives the UK Parliament responsibility for meeting international obligations such as United Nations treaties ratified by the UK. UN bodies have found that Northern Ireland abortion law is incompatible with human rights treaties ratified by this Parliament. That is also the view of Amnesty International, which has said:

“Northern Ireland laws have been repeatedly found by UN treaty monitoring bodies to be in significant violation of the various human rights treaties the UK is state party to.”

We are not trying to usurp the rights of the Stormont Parliament; it is not sitting at the moment—

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Christine Jardine]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind, but because of the time limitations, I am not going to give way.

We are not trying to usurp the rights of that Parliament; we are simply trying to establish the rights of women throughout the UK, to put those rights on an equal footing, and to give every woman the choice. If we repealed sections 58 and 59, the Parliament in Northern Ireland would, as we have heard, be able to decide for itself how to proceed. I give my complete support to today’s debate, not just for myself, but for those women who have a right—a human right—and for our children throughout the UK. I want them all to be on an equal footing.