Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Judith Cummins Excerpts(5 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members to take care to avoid saying anything that could prejudice any cases relating to vulnerable children that are currently before the courts or might come before the courts at a later date.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Last Monday, I set out the actions this Government are taking to tackle the terrible crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including mandatory reporting, a new victims and survivors panel, an overhaul of data and police performance requirements, tougher sentences for perpetrators, and support for local inquiries, including in Oldham.
The Safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), met this morning with survivors from Oldham. Earlier this week, she and I met Professor Alexis Jay, who chaired both the seven-year national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse and the first local independent inquiry into grooming gangs in Rotherham. Professor Jay’s strongest message to us was that the survivors, who bravely testified to the terrible crimes committed against them, must not be left to feel that their efforts were in vain because, despite all the inquiries, no one listened and nothing was done. Following those discussions, I want to update the House on our next steps to take forward the inquiry’s recommendations, and to go further in tackling sexual exploitation and grooming on the streets and online, in order to keep children safe.
The independent national inquiry into child sexual abuse completed its final report in 2022. It took seven years, heard 7,000 personal testimonies and considered 2 million pages of evidence. There were devastating accounts of brutal rapes, sexual violence, humiliation, trauma and the betrayal of vulnerable children by those charged with protecting them, and accounts of people in positions of power who shamefully put the reputation of institutions before the protection of children. The inquiry included separate detailed reports on organised child abuse in residential homes and schools, and on abuse and cover-ups in the Catholic and Anglican Churches.
A two-year inquiry into child sexual exploitation by organised networks and grooming gangs, published in February 2022, examined over 400 recommendations made by previous inquiries and serious case reviews, as well as taking further evidence of its own. There have been further reports since then, including on Telford and on police performance. However, despite all the national inquiries, reports and hundreds of recommendations, far too little action has been taken and, shamefully, little progress has been made. That has to change.
Before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report. Four of those are specifically for the Home Office. I can confirm that we have accepted them in full, including on disclosure and barring, and work is already under way. A cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by our new victims and survivors panel. In addition, I can confirm today that the Government will implement all the remaining recommendations in the child abuse inquiry’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, including updating key Department for Education guidance.
Let me turn to the areas where we need to go further. As I said last week, the most important task should be to increase police investigations into these horrific crimes and get abusers behind bars. We will introduce stronger sentences for child grooming by making organising abuse and exploitation an aggravating factor, and today I can announce new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions under way. I am extending the remit of the independent child sexual abuse review panel to cover not just historical cases before 2013 but all cases since, so that any victim of abuse will have the right to seek an independent review without having to go back to the local institutions that decided not to proceed with their case.
Today, I am writing to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ask all chief constables to look again at historical gang exploitation cases where no further action was taken, and to work with the child sexual exploitation police taskforce to pursue new lines of inquiry and reopen investigations where appropriate. These new measures will be backed by £2 million of additional funding for the taskforce and the panel, and all police forces will be expected to implement the 2023 recommendations from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, including producing “problem profiles” on the nature of grooming gangs in their area. I have asked the inspectorate to review progress this year.
As well as reviewing past cases, we need much stronger action to uncover the full scale and nature of these awful crimes. The child sexual exploitation police taskforce, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, has estimated that of the 115,000 child sexual abuse offences recorded by the police in 2023, around 4,000 involved more than one perpetrator. Of those, around 1,100 involved abuse within the family and over 300 involved abuse in institutions, and the taskforce identified 717 reported cases of group or gang-related child sexual exploitation. However, we know that the vast majority of abuse goes unreported, so we expect all those figures to be significant underestimates.
The taskforce reports that 127 major police investigations across 29 police forces are currently under way into child sexual exploitation and gang grooming. Many major investigations have involved Pakistani-heritage gangs. The police taskforce evidence also shows exploitation and abuse taking place across many different communities and ethnicities, but the data on the ethnicity of both perpetrators and victims is still inadequate.
As I said last week, we will overhaul the data that we expect local areas to collect as part of a new performance management framework. I have also asked the child sexual exploitation taskforce to immediately expand the ethnicity data it collects and publishes, so that data is gathered from the end of an investigation when a fuller picture is available, not just from the beginning when suspects may not yet have been identified.
To go much further, I have asked Baroness Louise Casey to oversee a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation across the country, and to make recommendations on the further work that is needed. The specific 2022 IICSA report on gang exploitation concluded:
“An accurate picture of the prevalence of child sexual exploitation could not be gleaned”
from the data and evidence it had available. This audit will seek to fill that gap.
The audit will look at further evidence that was not previously available, including evidence collected by the police taskforce and the new problem profiles compiled by police forces. It will also include an equivalent audit of child protection referrals; it will properly examine ethnicity data and the demographics of the gangs and their victims; it will look at the cultural and societal drivers for this type of offending, including among different ethnic groups; and it will make recommendations about further analyses, investigations and actions that are needed to address current and historical failures. Baroness Louise Casey was the author of the no-holds-barred 2015 report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, and I have therefore asked her to oversee this rapid three-month audit ahead of the launch of the independent commission into adult social care.
In many areas across the country, the focus must now be on further police investigations and implementing recommendations to improve services, but we will also provide stronger national backing for local inquiries where they are needed, to get truth and justice for victims and survivors. Last week, the Prime Minister and I met survivors from Telford, who had enormous praise for the way that local inquiry was conducted after there had been failings over many years. That inquiry led to tangible change, including piloting the introduction of CCTV in taxis and appointing child sexual exploitation experts in local secondary schools. As we have seen, effective local inquiries can delve into far more local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy nationwide inquiry can provide.
Tom Crowther KC, the chair of the Telford inquiry, has agreed to work with the Government to develop a new framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries where they are needed. As a first step, he will work with Oldham council and up to four other pilot areas. This will include support for local authorities that want to explore other ways to support victims, including local panels or drawing on the experience of the independent inquiry’s truth project. The Government are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law.
We will also work with mayors and local councils to bolster the accountability mechanisms that can support and follow up local inquiries, to ensure that those who are complicit in cover-ups, or who try to resist scrutiny, are always robustly held to account so that truth and justice are never denied. This new package of national support for local inquiries will be backed by £5 million of additional funding to get further local work off the ground because, at every level, getting justice for victims and protecting children is a responsibility we all share.
Finally, we cannot ignore the way in which child exploitation is changing as offenders exploit new technology to target and groom children. We should all be deeply worried about the pace and growth of exploitation that begins online. We are therefore bolstering the work of the Home Office-funded undercover online network of police officers to target online offenders, and developing cutting-edge AI tools and other new capabilities to infiltrate livestreams and chatrooms where children are being groomed. Further measures will be announced in the crime and policing Bill to tackle those organising online child sex abuse.
Nothing matters more than the safety of our children, yet for too long, this horrific abuse was allowed to continue. Victims were ignored, perpetrators were left unpunished, and too many people looked the other way. Even when these shocking crimes were brought to light and national inquiries were commissioned to get to the truth, the resulting reports were too often left on the shelf as their recommendations gathered dust. Under this Government, that has changed. We are taking action not just on those recommendations, but on the additional work that we need to do to protect victims, put perpetrators behind bars and uncover the truth wherever things have gone wrong. This is about the protection of children, the protection of young girls, and the radical and ambitious mission that we have set for this Government to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I hope all Members will support that mission and support the measures that we have outlined today to help achieve that aim. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let us start by remembering the victims of this scandal. Thousands of young girls, often in their early teens, were systematically raped by gangs of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage. Those in positions of authority—the police, local councils and the Crown Prosecution Service—ignored them and, in some cases, even covered up these horrendous crimes because of absurd concerns about so-called cultural sensitivity.
Ten days ago, the Prime Minister compounded this by saying that it was a “far-right bandwagon” to raise these issues and call for a proper inquiry. Let me say this: it is not far right to stand up for rape victims, and smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims—[Interruption.]
Chris Philp
Smearing those who raised this issue is exactly what led to the victims being ignored and the crimes covered up in the first place. Therefore, will the Home Secretary apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his language last week?
It is not true to say that the previous Government did nothing following the IICSA report. They set up the grooming gangs taskforce following the IICSA report, which led to 550 arrests of perpetrators in the first year alone, and I am glad that the new Government are continuing that work.
In April 2023, the data collection on the ethnicity of perpetrators was initiated, but the initial publication of that—I think last November—showed that the collection is incomplete. Will the Home Secretary ensure both that the police follow through on the work initiated in April 2023 and that the data is collected more comprehensively?
The mandatory reporting recommendation was introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the early general election. I am glad that the Government say that they will now pick that up and take it forward.
Previous reports and reviews did not go far enough. The IICSA report itself was mainly not about these rape gangs. In fact, it barely touched on the issue and looked at only six towns. We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected, so the IICSA barely scratched the surface.
The Home Secretary just announced Government support for only five local inquiries. That is wholly inadequate when we know that up to 50 towns are affected. I have some serious questions for the Home Secretary. First, how are the other 40-plus towns supposed to get answers to the questions that they have, and how will these initial five towns be chosen?
Secondly, the Home Secretary said nothing in her statement about the powers that these local inquiries will have. It seems that they will not be statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. That means that these local inquiries will not have the power to compel witnesses to attend, to take evidence under oath or to requisition written evidence. If that is the case, how can they possibly get to the truth when faced with cover-ups? It was precisely that problem—the lack of powers—that reportedly led the chairs of the Manchester local inquiry to resign last year. They were not given the information that they needed by public authorities, and did not have the powers required to force its release, so they resigned.
Legal powers are needed, because these crimes were deliberately covered up in some cases. We heard just a week or two ago from the former Labour MP for Rochdale Simon Danczuk, who said that the then chair of the parliamentary Labour party told him not to raise these issues for fear of losing Muslim votes—truly appalling. Not a single person has been convicted for covering up or ignoring these crimes. In my view, the criminal offence of misconduct in public office might apply. Moreover, those vile perpetrators who can be deported should be deported, every single one of them—changing the law if that is needed to do it, and using visa sanctions on countries such as Pakistan to ensure that they accept eligible perpetrators.
What the Home Secretary has announced today is totally inadequate. It will cover only a fraction of the towns affected, and it appears that the inquiries will not have the legal powers they need. That is why we need a proper, full national public inquiry, covering the whole country and with the powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 that are needed to obtain the evidence required. It is not just me who thinks that; in the last week or two, the Labour Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) have called for a full national inquiry, as has Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester. I commend those Members and Andy Burnham for their courage in speaking out.
Recent polling shows that the vast majority of the public want a full national public inquiry, including 73% of Labour voters. Most importantly, so do victims. Jane was groomed and abused at the age of just 12. She was gang raped repeatedly. She told the police and she told her social worker. At one point, the police even found her being abused by an illegal immigrant, but instead of arresting him, they arrested her. Jane still does not know if any of her abusers have been jailed, or if any of the public officials who let her down so badly have been held to account. Jane now wants a proper national public inquiry—Home Secretary, why don’t you?
Yvette Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for her questions. To go through them in turn, we will set out before Easter the timetable for taking forward the work around all the recommendations from the main independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. She will know that some of the recommendations raise complex issues, and considerable work will need to be done on some of them. We recognise that and have discussed that with Professor Alexis Jay. There are other recommendations we can take forward swiftly, and those covered and led by the Home Office are being taken forward swiftly. The work is already under way, including on disclosure and barring and on the duty to report, which will be included as part of the legislation.
On the local inquiries, we are not redoing the Telford inquiry. My hon. Friend is right that in Telford the extensive inquiry that was conducted involved, crucially, victims and survivors throughout. They were involved from the very beginning, designing the inquiry in the first place. The inquiry has led to substantial change, and there continues to be further follow-up work on it. That is the effective model. We need local councils, police and crime commissioners, Mayors and the Government to work together on them, so we are providing the additional £5 million. Tom Crowther will work specifically with the first five local authorities that want to do such work, drawing up an effective model that can be used in other areas.
On the ability to gather evidence and ensure that there is proper accountability, there has to be clear accountability. This process cannot be a way in which areas or institutions can avoid scrutiny. Obviously, the work in Telford and the original work in Rotherham by Baroness Casey managed to uncover truths in different areas, but there also needs to be other new arrangements on accountability. We are working with the Cabinet Office, Mayors and councils to draw up new accountability arrangements. That will ensure either proper follow-up or, as part of those initial inquiries, that a proper accountability framework is in place. We will link that to the duty of candour part of the Hillsborough law. Unlike the previous Government, who frankly never took seriously issues of candour, responsibility and accountability in the 14 years that they were in power, and refused to bring in a Hillsborough law, we will bring in such a law because we are clear that there must be proper accountability for the failure to tackle this abuse.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Survivors are tough, as I know from my own experiences of abuse as a child, about which I have spoken in the Chamber. Survivors have been subject to intense impacts and blistering climates, but like a blade in the blacksmith’s forge, each strike has strengthened many survivors’ character, mettle and spirit, even though those are experiences that should never be undergone in the first place. Each shock has emboldened our resolve to be the very sword carried by Lady Justice herself, or at least to see it wielded with strength—to see action taken and justice done.
However, too many survivors’ stories have been characterised by being ignored, hidden or gaslit. Recently, too many survivors’ stories have been shamefully used as a political football in some corners of this House and beyond. Survivors’ experiences are littered with gut-wrenching instances of power-holders missing glaring opportunities to take action against child sexual abuse and exploitation. History must stop repeating itself. We cannot afford for Professor Jay’s findings, or those of the inquiries announced today, to gather dust atop power-holders’ bookshelves, to get lost at the bottom of in-trays, or to be banished to the depths of filing cabinets. In line with the courage that it has taken so many survivors to speak out on this issue, we Liberal Democrats—and many others, I know—implore those in positions of power at all levels to step up, too. That means that those weaponising this issue for party political gain must stop now; it means that Professor Jay’s 20 recommendations must be implemented from now; and it means that the work to get the local inquiries set up must start now.
Survivors need assurance that—beyond the areas that have been announced today—they will be able to get justice in their cases as well. Will the Home Secretary share the plan for the areas beyond those she has announced today? What legal powers will the inquiries have to ensure that they have teeth and justice can be delivered? We must all dignify survivors’ experiences with action. We must honour all survivors’ stories with reform. Lady Justice demands it, and so does the tempered sword that she wields.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise those important points, and I know that she has worked on this issue for many years. One of the things we need to do is strengthen the law in this area. We need to have a much stronger legal framework to ensure that there is proper accountability; not just holding to account and properly punishing the perpetrators of appalling abuse, but holding to account institutions and individuals who fail to take the action needed to protect our children. That means the duty to report, making it an offence to cover up child abuse; a duty of candour, to comply and provide the information and transparency in these cases; and looking at the other local mechanisms that need to be in place in areas such as my hon. Friend’s and across the country, enabling us to ensure that there is proper accountability when things go really badly wrong.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome the statement, which my Committee will look at carefully. Professor Alexis Jay will be in front of us next Tuesday and I am sure that we will come back with further points, but I have two points today. The first is about the duty to report. In many cases, reports were made but the victims were simply not listened to and not believed, so what can the Home Secretary do to ensure that changes? Secondly, since I am not clear from her answers so far, will the local inquiries have statutory powers to compel witnesses—yes or no?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and particularly to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am the last remaining MP of the seven Members of the House of Commons who originally called on Theresa May to hold an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. My experiences are also on the record. I therefore particularly welcome the acceptance of Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations and Baroness Louise Casey’s rapid review into child sexual exploitation.
May I, however, draw the Home Secretary’s attention to my concern about police investigations? She has referred to the matter of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to reopening cases, but I am concerned about people marking their own homework and we know that there is an institutional resistance to being found lacking and to deep scrutiny.
One of the primary whistleblowers with whom I was involved has waited years for the truth to out, and senior police officers have threatened to sue her. It would appear that complaints can only be made about junior officers who are called and investigated, and that there is no ability to complain about senior officers. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct reports, whether they have been published or not—particularly where they have not been published—and where there have been threats, as I understand it, from the police to sue members of those organisations about their findings. It is incredibly serious that we have organisations such as the IPCC and the IOPC—
Yvette Cooper
I am happy to follow up with the hon. Lady about the very serious issues she raised. She is right that this cannot be about institutions just marking their own homework. That is one of the reasons why we have made the right to review an independent one. For child sexual abuse cases, where victims feel that they have been let down by a police force or the Crown Prosecution Service, they should be able to take that right to review not back to the same police force, but to an independent child sexual abuse panel to get a right to review in order to see whether they can get their cases reopened and properly investigated and see perpetrators pursued.
The hon. Lady will also know that there are other routes to hold police forces to account, including the police inspectorate. Although it can currently make recommendations—for example, it has just found serious failings in Cleveland police’s response to child sexual exploitation—too often, those recommendations are not followed up because there are no powers to do so. That is why we will also be changing the police performance management framework to strengthen the ability of the inspectorate and the Home Office to ensure that action is taken to improve performance and implement recommendations for improvement where serious problems are found. I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about the wider policing reform needed to make sure there is accountability.
Border Security: Collaboration
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
We are obviously reviewing the situation as swiftly as possible. We have withdrawn the previous Syria country guidance, because it would not have been appropriate to take decisions on that basis, and we are monitoring the situation closely to look at how and when new country guidance can be drawn up. My hon. Friend will understand that there is considerable uncertainty about what is happening in Syria. We have welcomed the removal of the Assad regime. However, much is still unknown about what will happen in Syria next, which is why we have to be serious about this matter and monitor the situation closely. Other countries are doing the same.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for advance sight of it. On Syria, this is a fast-moving situation, and it is absolutely right that the temporary pause on decisions on Syrian asylum claims is kept under constant review. The UK should be doing all it can to help secure an orderly transition of power in Syria in accordance with international law, and the Government should move to offer asylum seekers and others certainty about their claims as soon as possible.
We welcome the Government’s attempts to tackle people smuggling gangs, who send vulnerable people on perilous journeys across the channel. We also appreciate their working closely with our European neighbours on this issue, instead of blaming them, as the previous Conservative Government did all too often. Does the Home Secretary agree that in addition to bilateral agreements with states and the Calais group, such as the one she signed yesterday, we need to work even more closely with inter-state agencies such as Europol, which she mentioned, and Eurojust to restore the UK police’s real-time access to the EU-wide data sharing systems that lead to the identifying and arrest of criminals? Shamefully, that co-operation and access was lost under the Conservatives.
We should not forget how we ended up in this mess. The asylum backlog ballooned thanks to the last Conservative Government, and thousands of people are currently waiting for their claims to be processed. Can the Home Secretary update the House on what progress she and colleagues are making in tackling the backlog? Will she commit to establishing a dedicated unit to improve the speed and quality of asylum decision making, and introduce a service standard of three months for all but the most complex asylum claims to be processed? Many of the people we are talking about are incredibly vulnerable; they are fleeing war, persecution and famine. Does the Home Secretary agree that we have to tackle this problem at source, and what conversations has she had with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about boosting international development spending and co-operation to tackle the root causes of the numerous refugee crises?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear that we need to reduce both legal and illegal migration because we have seen significant increases in both over the past five years. That is why we are setting out the policies that we have been introducing since the election. The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the multiple different aspects and why we need to take action comprehensively, across the board. That also means that the response has to be across the board and has to include not just the prevention work and going after the criminal gangs, but increasing returns. It is possible to do that through new agreements; it is also possible to do that, frankly, by just making the existing system work considerably better. That is what we have been doing throughout the summer and we have already seen a significant increase in returns, with nearly 10,000 people who did not have the right to be in the UK returned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We all agree in this House and across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the issue of immigration needs to be realistically prevented. To give the right hon. Lady credit, she has shown that determination and commitment through the statement today and we look forward to seeing the action on the ground.
Let me gently take the Secretary of State on another journey, across to Northern Ireland. What discussions have taken place with the Republic of Ireland to secure the border with Northern Ireland? The Irish Government have implemented checks for their security. I believe that the time has come for the Government here to do likewise, and to prevent immigration through the back door.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 9th December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
Tim Roca
I shall not, because I think we have touched on that point enough.
Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent Figen Murray for her bravery in championing these measures. No parent would ever want to have the name of their child on a law if they could help it, but she has worked tirelessly to push forward these measures. I hope to see them enacted. I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for his hard work on it.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I echo the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca): this has been a constructive, cross-party legislative process. I also pay tribute to the Security Minister for the way in which he has engaged with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, cross-party. My comments on the Bill are made in that spirit.
The purpose of the Bill, as well as new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is clear. I am pleased that the House has been given the opportunity to champion Martyn’s family and their campaign. The Bill draws clear lessons from the tragic 2017 attack and brings fresh commitments to protecting lives.
Matt Bishop
That is a fair point, but I am not worried that the Bill will cause that. I think that the wider general public will allow the police to deal with the matters in hand when they need to, but there may be, as I mentioned, several opportunities to act on this together.
Public venues, businesses, local authorities and communities themselves must all work in tandem to create a robust, unified front against terrorism. By integrating efforts across sectors, we make our society stronger, more resilient and able to respond more effectively to threats while ensuring the safety of every individual.
Terrorism is not a static threat—it constantly involves, and so must our response. The Bill will ensure that we remain ahead of emerging risks. As we have seen in recent years, attacks are becoming more unpredictable, more dispersed and harder to anticipate. The legislation will give us the tools and the framework needed to adapt and respond to those ever-changing threats. The legislation is about more than policy; it is about the future we want to build for our children, our families and our communities. We owe it to future generations to ensure that they inherit a society that values safety, peace and resilience. By taking action now, we lay the foundation for a stronger, safer tomorrow.
Paul Holmes
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session.
I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation.
We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family.
Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.
Dan Jarvis
I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.
I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.
In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,
“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]
This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for his considered response to the debate. However, while entirely supporting the objectives of the Bill, we do not see why the Government cannot commit to a review of the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, given that the Bill places an entirely new set of requirements on venues and an entirely new set of responsibilities on the SIA, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tackling Stalking
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
First and foremost, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must apologise, for myself and on behalf of the Government, and I am sure that your words, spoken on behalf of Mr Speaker, have been heard by all.
With permission, I will make a statement on the action that this Government will take to improve the response to stalking. Depression, anxiety, fear, trouble sleeping and loss of confidence. These are just some of the ways that stalking can ruin lives. Victims are subjected to an onslaught of psychological and emotional terror that can go on for months or years. And even if the perpetrator is caught and the stalking comes to an end, the impact of being tormented day after day and night after night persists. For many victims, it never leaves them.
I am sure the whole House will agree that it is unacceptable for anyone to suffer in this way. This is a serious threat, and one that affects a substantial proportion of the population. According to the latest statistics, in England and Wales, one in seven people over 16 has been a victim of stalking at least once in their lifetime. Alas, I think that the statistics would be even higher in this House. Given the scale and impact of these crimes, it is right that we ask ourselves whether enough is being done to stop them and, when they occur, whether we are responding effectively. I am afraid that the answer on both counts is no.
In September, following a joint investigation, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the College of Policing published a report in response to a super-complaint on stalking made by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. The report found
“significant changes are needed to improve the police response”.
I have heard first-hand accounts of stalking victims who have not been listened to, or who have even been told that they should be “flattered” by their stalker’s actions. This is totally unacceptable, and it has to change.
The report on the super-complaint made nine recommendations to the Government, and today I will update the House on the actions we intend to take in response. We will introduce a power to issue multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking, which will set out for the first time a robust framework for how frontline professionals should define stalking and better work together. We will review stalking legislation to determine whether and how the law can be changed. And we will improve our understanding of the operation of the current law by publishing more data on stalking offences.
We will also make good on our manifesto commitment to give victims the right to know who their online stalker is. The House may be surprised to hear that victims do not already have this right.
The broadcaster and activist Nicola Thorp told me about how she was stalked and abused online by a stranger whose identity she did not know. Her stalker set up almost 30 social media accounts to send her a constant stream of violent and misogynistic messages. Her ordeal was made worse when she was told by the police that, although they knew who her stalker was, they could not tell her, even after he was arrested. Nicola had to continue living with that fear, looking over her shoulder and not knowing whether the person near her was her stalker, until she finally saw him in court. That is not right, and she is not the only victim to have endured this. Nicola is with us today, and I pay tribute to her activism for change.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) who, unfortunately, is busy chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee. She heard about Nicola’s story when we were in opposition, and she worked with her to develop a new policy that is coming to fruition today.
Inspired by Nicola, and with thanks to my right hon. Friend, the Government will introduce statutory “right to know” guidance that will set out the process by which the police should release identifying information about anonymous stalking perpetrators to victims.
We are also acting to ensure that the risk posed by perpetrators is managed, and that the causes of their behaviour are addressed. We will legislate to enable the courts to impose stalking protection orders, of their own volition, which can impose restrictions and positive requirements on those who pose a risk, on conviction and on acquittal. These orders are currently available only where the police make an application to the magistrates court. And we will publish national standards for stalking perpetrator programmes that seek to engage with perpetrators to address the behaviours that are leading to stalking offences. This will help to ensure these programmes are evidence-based and consistent.
Taken together, our package will strengthen the system so that victims have the protection they need and the support they deserve. I have seen at first hand the good work being done in some forces. I recently visited Cheshire constabulary, which has a multidisciplinary team of police, psychologists and probation officers working effectively together. We need to see all forces taking this sort of action.
We will ensure that stalkers are robustly targeted, with effective arrangements in place to address the root causes of their behaviour, like in Cheshire. And we will respond to concerns that frontline professionals’ understanding of stalking is still not where it needs to be, and that stalking legislation may not be working as intended.
These are important first steps, but I emphasise to the House that we are in this for the duration, because only through a sustained effort will we achieve the change that is so badly needed.
Before I finish, I pay tribute to organisations such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the wider National Stalking Consortium, and to brave victims like Nicola who have spoken out and campaigned for change. Their tenacity and persistence have been instrumental in getting us to this point, and I am grateful to them for all that they have done and continue to do. We will work closely with them and other key partners as we progress our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Through that mission, we will show stalkers and other offenders that they have nowhere to hide. We will stand with victims and survivors so that they know that they are not alone. We will work relentlessly to give everyone the peace of mind they deserve as they go about their lives, whether they are at home, online or anywhere else. Our streets belong to the law-abiding majority, and under this Government they always will.
I commend this statement to the House.
Jess Phillips
To be completely clear, what is illegal offline is also illegal online. Today, the Government are announcing how we will make stalking protection orders more robust. Such orders can be used to tackle online stalking as much as any other type of stalking. The Online Safety Act includes stalking offences in the list of specified priority offences. As my hon. Friend says, in Nicola Thorp’s case, her stalker thought the cloak of anonymity would protect him. The tech companies have the capability to identify such people, but we need to ensure that they are working with the police, and that the police are working with the victim, so that everybody can be kept safe.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, which I welcome. Stalking is a horrific crime that impacts every aspect of the victim’s life, threatening their mental health, wellbeing and, all too often, their physical safety. Far too many people, in particular women and girls, face that pervasive threat, so I welcome the developments that the Minister has announced today, particularly around improving the police response to stalking. That will be vital for rebuilding women’s trust in policing.
Sadly, I have first-hand experience of the topic. From my own knowledge, the police can find it easier to deal with such crimes via harassment legislation, rather than stalking legislation. Police often assume that the perpetrator is a former partner when the conditions of a restraining order are breached, for example, thereby failing to recognise the wide range of circumstances that can lead to these frightening situations.
We should not take a one-size-fits-all approach to stalking, because that could leave a legal hole for victims when the stalking is not related to domestic abuse or a previous relationship. I would welcome some more detail from the Minister on whether the Government’s plan will include better training for police officers and 999 call handlers to ensure that when a stalking victim comes forward, the response is always sensitive, effective and personalised.
It is right that the Minister is considering how best we can hold perpetrators to account, so I would welcome further details on how she is working with the Ministry of Justice to tackle the Conservatives’ legacy of criminal court backlogs, which will be the only way to truly ensure that stalking victims get the swift justice they deserve. No woman should face the fear of being targeted by a stalker, and it is absolutely right that we work across the House to make that a reality.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely will meet my hon. Friend. I have dealt with many extraterritorial cases in the space of violence against women and girls in my time as a Member of Parliament, so I am more than happy to try to help in any way that I can on that case. On borders, under the Online Safety Act, if it is illegal here but is not happening here, it is still illegal. It does not matter where in the world it is happening.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. I welcome the measures announced today. I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Rhianon Bragg, who I understand the Minister has met. She has been a tireless campaigner, in spite of extraordinary and horrific experiences. I also pay tribute to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and its work.
I welcome what the Minister said about Cheshire constabulary; I visited the unit there. Specifically in Wales, for us to be able to establish multi-agency units within police forces, we will have to recognise that part of the membership, such as the psychologists, will be funded at a devolved level through health. Can she assure me that that will be possible for the four forces in Wales?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to once again say, “I am not sure where that has come from,” but I am always happy to dispel it—I love the idea that anybody could question our commitment, or certainly my commitment. Not that I think the shadow Minister was doing that.
On the multi-agency statutory guidance, local areas will have a duty to bear it in mind. Some Members here today have visited the amazing services in Cheshire. What we need to do is to show the absolute benefits of that approach to local areas and to local health service providers specifically with regard to the psychological services that are required in the system. Properly run multi-agency services in this space always make a difference. But, as somebody who has sat on many multi-agency services over the past 14 years, as my hon. Friend has, I have seen many partners leave the table as a result of the years of austerity.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I was glad to hear the good work of Cheshire police being commended in my area. May I also put on record my admiration for Nicola Thorp? Her terrifying ordeal at the hands of a man who had created 30 online accounts to stalk and abuse her should shock all of us. As we come to the end of the statement, may I ask the Minister to join me in paying tribute to her?
Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Angela Eagle
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend: we inherited a system that was at a standstill. There was a backlog of 90,000 cases involving 116,000 people, and the law would not allow them to be processed. We have restarted processing. We are gearing up the asylum system, so that we can get throughput in the system, and ultimately exit the hotels and start using a more cost-effective system. I agree with my hon. Friend that the carping by Conservative Members, who created the backlogs and the mess that we are having to deal with, is a bit rich.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to raise this issue. As he said, Labour promised in its manifesto to end the use of hotels, yet the Minister has just admitted at the Dispatch Box that, far from ending the use of hotels, the Government are in fact opening up even more. She has just admitted to 14. Perhaps it should come as no surprise now that, once again, Labour is doing the precise opposite to what it promised in its manifesto.
When the Conservatives were in government, they were in fact closing down hotels. Luckily, I have the figures in front of me. Between September last year and 30 June this year, the number of people in contingency accommodation, which is Home Office speak for hotels, went down by 47%—it went down—yet under this new Government it is going up. The Minister has told us how many hotels have opened up, will she tell us how many extra people are now in contingency accommodation, compared with 4 July? Will she also commit to always notifying Members of Parliament in advance—at least two weeks in advance—that a hotel will be opening in their constituency?
We all know the cause of this problem. It is the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. I am afraid the position has got even worse since the figures my right hon. Friend quoted were drawn up. Since the election, 19,988 people have crossed the channel. That is a 23% increase on the same period last year, and it is a 66% increase on the same period immediately before the election. Why have these numbers of people illegally crossing the channel gone up? The National Crime Agency has told us that we need a deterrent—that we cannot police our way out of this. Even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has said that European member states should look at offshore processing. We saw a deterrent system work in Australia, yet Labour scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it had even started. The first flight had not taken off and that is why the deterrent effect had not commenced. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice? Will she emulate the Australians and reinstate the scheme?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are prioritising getting the system up and running again so that we can have throughput in our asylum accommodation estate. The fact that the system had ground to a complete halt when we came into government, with 90,000 unprocessed cases, has meant that there have been delays in getting it up and running. I explained to the House that we have gone from making 1,000 asylum decisions a month to 10,000. The system is beginning to get flow-through, and as that happens, we will exit from hotels. We have had to have a small increase. We have been in power four months. The manifesto did not say that we would end the use of hotels in four months. When the Conservatives were in power, more than 400 hotels were in use at its height, and they did not give any MP two weeks’ notice that those hotels were opening.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
While an asylum seeker waits months or even years in a hotel for a decision on their claim, they are trapped in limbo. They are unable to work and are forced to depend on Government funds. That benefits no one—not the asylum seekers, who want to get on and start rebuilding their lives, and not taxpayers, who foot the bill. That is before I mention our local councils, which are left to pick up the pieces.
To end the use of hotels, tackling the backlog that ballooned on the previous Government’s watch must be part of the solution, but we can also reduce the demand for Government accommodation by allowing asylum seekers to support themselves and contribute to the economy—something that the Home Office has recognised will not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. Will the Minister finally scrap the ban on asylum seekers working and paying their fair share as doctors or dentists if they have been waiting three months or longer for a decision on their claim? Will she commit to providing local councils with the resources that they need—both funding and clear guidance—to provide proper support for asylum seekers and the local communities hosting these hotels?
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Judith Cummins ExcerptsMonday 14th October 2024
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right that there has been considerable work by many venues and premises in Northern Ireland to respond to the kinds of threats and risks that, sadly, communities have faced through the years. He may also be interested to know that in Manchester a voluntary version of Martyn’s law was introduced after the appalling Manchester Arena attack; training and support were provided for venues and many businesses were keen to sign up. That has been very well supported and the view in Manchester is that it has been hugely successful.
The experience of the hon. Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland and the experience in Manchester is that, too often, there has been a tragic reason as to why organisations have responded in that way. We need to make sure those same lessons are learned right across the country. That is why we are setting out this comprehensive legislation, so we are not in a situation where the biggest venues only respond when something terrible happens—when it is too late and lives have been lost.
We are committed to working extensively with the business community during the passage and roll-out of the Bill. As well as the ongoing programme of direct engagement, we have also updated ProtectUK to make it easier for businesses and others to navigate and understand the supporting information on the Bill. We are acutely conscious in introducing this legislation of the need to get the proper balance and detail right. That is why, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, the Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and the draft version of the legislation was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government.
Most crucially, we have raised the threshold for being in scope from 100 to 200 individuals. We recognise the need for a location-specific approach because the procedures in one place may not apply to another. We have also ensured that in both tiers appropriate procedures and measures are required only
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
Those words are crucial to recognising the importance of protecting life and our way of life.
With Figen here, we always keep in our minds that terrible day in Manchester seven and a half years ago. The youngest victim was an eight-year-old girl, Saffie-Rose Roussos. Her headteacher asked the question afterwards:
“How do you tell 276 children that their friend has been murdered”?
That is a question we all ask: how can we explain how anyone could have targeted the event that day, with young children enjoying their love of music and dancing? But that is the point. When terrorists want to cause maximum damage—when they want to destroy our way of life—of course they seek out crowds, but they also seek out innocence, happiness and joy. That is why our task is not just to take measures to keep people safe but to work tirelessly to ensure that people can get on and enjoy their lives, and that we never let terrorists, extremists and criminals win.
Let me finish by quoting Figen. She said:
“It’s time to get this done.”
I could not put it better. I commend the Bill to the House.
Violent Disorder
Judith Cummins Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I remind the House that several hundred people have been charged with criminal offences relating to these disturbances. Most of those cases are still before the courts. Public order is a matter of national importance, and Mr Speaker has therefore decided to grant a limited waiver to the House’s sub judice resolution in the following terms. Members may make statements of fact about the circumstances of the unrest, about the number of people arrested, charged and sentenced, and about the kinds of behaviour exhibited during these events. However, they may not refer to specific individuals who have been charged and are awaiting trial, or engage in any discussion or speculation about individual cases.
I call the Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the number of young people involved. Some of them had a string of convictions—they had history—but there were also young people who were drawn into violence and disorder, sometimes antisocial behaviour and the looting of shops, or sometimes into serious violence as well. There is an important issue about how we prevent young people getting drawn into violence and antisocial behaviour. That is one of the reasons we are so determined to set up the Young Futures programme, and one of the reasons we need to look at the online radicalisation of young people as part of the extremism review.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I associate myself and my party with her comments of praise for the bravery and professionalism of the police and the other emergency services, which we saw throughout these disgraceful episodes.
This a moment for everyone in this House to make it clear which side they are on. It simply is not credible for people to talk about two-tier policing and then, in the next breath, say that they also support the police. The Home Secretary is correct to call out the disorder we have seen for what it is: thuggery, racism and crime. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the steps that she has announced, but does she agree that this renders urgent the need to appoint an independent adviser on Islamophobia, a post that has been vacant for the past two years, and to have a formal definition of Islamophobia, in order to underpin and inform Government policy across the board and across all Departments?
Tackling Spiking
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Farris
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and thank her for her question. First, as I said, the purpose of clarifying the law is to empower more people to be clear on their rights and to come forward. But it is also the case that by having a clear offence in which spiking is defined, the police will be able to use the data of people who come forward and report a spiking incident. That will allow us to build a much more accurate picture, through the criminal justice system, of the extent to which this offence occurs.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement. I welcome any measures to tackle this awful crime of spiking, so I look forward to the Government’s amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has stated that a stand-alone offence would help it to understand the scale of the problem, enable a more accurate picture to be realised and allow enhanced support for victims. Will she outline her reasons for ignoring the NPCC’s concerns and missing a clear opportunity to create a stand-alone offence of spiking? It is welcome news that, as she has just stated, hundreds of door staff will be trained to change the response to spiking at every single level, but I am at a loss as to the logic for why the Government have not included training for staff at outdoor music festivals, where tens of thousands of under 18-year-olds attend, often camping out, and where private security firms are tasked with their safety. Will the Minister extend the training to outdoor music festival staff in order to protect our young people?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for all her work on this issue. I think we are arguing on two sides of the same coin. We agree, without reservation, that there is a need to define spiking in law and that is what we are committing to do. Effectively, it could be viewed as an offence, which will enable people to report clearly and the police to record data in the way that I have suggested. Essentially, there is no particular difference between where the NPCC is and where we are on this issue. I hope that will satisfy her. I encourage her to have a look at the report itself. The ambition is very much to work with staff at every level. We are in no doubt about who the frontline responders are. Yes, festivals are a primary location, as are student campuses. Of course bar staff come into this. The direction of travel is absolutely to further their work in recognising and—ultimately, if our research goes further—perhaps playing a role in testing and supporting the police effort on this particular crime.
Spiking
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of spiking.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I wish to extend my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. It is a timely debate, given that we are in the season of Christmas when, sadly, we would expect to see an increase in spiking incidents and the subsequent sexual violence primarily against women and girls. I thank my co-sponsor and Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is so ably chairing here today. I know she shares my passions and concerns about the subject and it has been a pleasure to work with her on the issue. I also thank hon. Members across the House who have given their support for today’s debate. I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has worked relentlessly on the issue.
I want to highlight my support for the e-petition on making it a legal requirement for nightclubs to thoroughly search guests on entry, with a particular view to preventing date-rape drugs from entering nightclubs, and also the e-petition on funding free drink-spiking tests for all bars. Over 190,000 signed those two petitions, including many in my constituency of Bradford South. That reflects how strongly people feel about the subject across this country.
I will begin by briefly speaking to the enormity of the issue. Spiking is not new or rare in this country. In a YouGov poll of 2,000 people commissioned by The Independent, 11% of women and 6% of men said that they had been spiked. The National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee that
“the true figure of spiking occurrences are likely to be much higher”,
with estimates showing that 97% of spiking victims will never report the incident to the police. To protect innocent people across this country, the Government need to act urgently and Parliament must afford the victims of spiking the attention that they deserve.
A year has passed since the last time the issue received a full debate in this place—I see some familiar faces here today—but there has been little progress. We might have even gone backwards. At that time I stood in this very room and called for immediate action and I spoke of the need for a specific criminal offence for spiking. Last week the Prime Minister responded to a question that I posed in the Chamber about a specific offence on spiking by saying he remains satisfied that
“existing laws…cover the offence of spiking”.—[Official Report, 6 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 335.]
The National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee that the absence of a clear criminal offence presented a challenge in policing spiking. It also said that a stand-alone offence would help police to
“understand the scale of the problem…enable a far more accurate picture to be realised”
and allow
“enhanced support for victims”.
I am sure that hon. Members across this place will agree that there can be no more dither and delay. A new stand-alone criminal offence of spiking is needed now. The absence of a specific offence for spiking is causing untold damage to innocent people across this country, particularly women and girls.
Freedom of information requests submitted by Channel 4 recently revealed that drug-spiking incidents reported to police have increased fivefold in five years, but the proportion of investigations leading to a criminal charge has fallen. The number of reports that were investigated by police and resulted in a criminal charge have dropped from an appalling 4% in 2018 to a shocking 0.23% last year. That is just one in every 400 spiking crimes reported to police resulting in a criminal charge.
The Home Affairs Committee report concluded that the absence of a specific offence for spiking, along with
“limited reporting, investigation and prosecution, means there are few deterrents for offenders.”
Indeed, with a charging rate that rounds down to 0% it is no surprise that victims do not have confidence in our current laws when it comes to spiking. There are currently seven separate criminal offences under which the crime of spiking can be prosecuted and, importantly, recorded. Five of those date back to the 1800s. It is time that Parliament took a stand against this injustice and created a stand-alone law on spiking that is fit for the 21st century. Throughout my time in Parliament, I have been active in highlighting the dangers of spiking at music festivals, and I have given evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on this issue.
Festivals are a big business, with some directly marketing towards 16 to 17-year-olds—so much so that they are now seen as a rite of passage on completion of GCSEs. Those who attend events can camp overnight, with festivals attracting populations equivalent to a small town; for reference, Leeds festival is attended by around 100,000 people. The police presence is minimal, and the lack of safeguarding training for members of staff can subsequently lead to severe issues with the non-reporting of spiking, sexual assault and rape. Indeed, a female survey respondent was quoted in the Home Affairs Committee report as saying:
“I got the impression that event staff…thought that I had taken drugs willingly as opposed to being spiked”.
That is a clear example of a victim not being believed or understood due to a combination of ignorance and a lack of safeguarding training.
It seemed an obvious and positive step forward when the Home Affairs Committee report recommended that all staff working at music festivals, including vendors, be given compulsory safeguarding training, and it was disheartening to hear that the Government do not intend to mandate training for all staff at events such as festivals. I urge the Government to reconsider that position, because this terrifying lack of safeguarding at music festivals is a clear blind spot and it cannot continue. Many hon. Members will share my view, and my experience, that what should happen to tackle violence against women and girls does not happen unless specific legislation is put in place to make it happen.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee of its difficulties in getting a true picture of how widespread spiking is. To highlight the dangers at music festivals, I made a freedom of information request to nine different police forces regarding 11 of the most popular music festivals over the past 10 years. The findings were shocking. They included nearly 200 cases of reported rapes and sexual offences against children as young as 12, and 32% of the cases reported were against children under the age of 18. However, in the 10-year period to 2019, the data that I received recorded just 10 instances of spiking. Devon and Cornwall police gave examples of two spiking offences at Boardmasters festival recorded under the offence of administering a poison or noxious substance. At Reading festival, Thames Valley police noted a case of spiking, but it was recorded as sexual assault.
With cases of spiking reported under different offences in that manner, it makes understanding the scale and nature of this issue difficult. The opportunity to identify patterns in the crime is being missed, and the ability of our legal system and laws to detect, prosecute and prevent this crime—to seek justice for the victims—is undermined as trust is eroded, therefore feeding the cycle of under-reporting.
I therefore welcomed the news that, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Government were legally required to publish a report outlining the nature and prevalence of spiking in this country by April 2023. We are nearly eight months past that deadline and the report is still not forthcoming. The Government have failed in their legal duty to publish that report. In giving reasons for their delay, the Government argued that they had cause to consider with colleagues across Government whether their rationale for not introducing a specific offence for spiking was sound.
I suspect that, in being forced to gather data on spiking, the Government have now become aware of the difficulties in collecting and understanding that data, which is a direct result of the absence of a specific law on spiking. By failing to create a stand-alone law, the Government have been left blind in the face of even an issue so prevalent and widespread as spiking. The Government must publish their report on spiking, and I call on them here today to clarify if and when they will now publish that report.
In 2022 the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), rightly stated that the Government were looking into
“a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly”.
However, in January 2023, a Home Office Minister carried out a policy U-turn by saying that a new law on spiking was unnecessary. Then, in a letter in July 2023, the Home Office said that it was reconsidering whether a specific offence was required. Last week, in response to my question, the Prime Minister suggested that he did not believe that a specific offence of spiking was necessary. On an issue that demands certainty and clarity, we have a Government who are uncertain and unclear on their position. In April 2023, in relation to spiking, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the leader of the Opposition, clarified that
“an incoming Labour Government would make it a specific offence.”
There were 34 signatories to this debate across five political parties, so I know that there is broad support across the House to create a stand-alone law. This situation demands determined action. Will the Government stay true to their legal obligations and publish their report on spiking? And please, Minister, do not give me the kicking-it-into-the-long-grass response of, “Yes, but shortly”—just tell me when. Will the Government finally do the right thing and recognise spiking as a criminal offence in its own right? There can be no ambiguity here. Now is the time to act to defend the innocent victims of spiking and ensure that these vile perpetrators face the consequences of their serious crimes and feel the full force of the law.
Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to contribute they should bob.
Judith Cummins
Belatedly, I will say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
I thank Members for their contributions and interventions; I am very grateful to them. I reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for this debate today and to my co-sponsor, the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for all her work in helping to secure this debate.
I also thank, once again, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for all his hard work on spiking and I commend the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), for her outstanding work on spiking.
I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for speaking so movingly about the experience of her constituent, about the right of women to enjoy a night out without having to worry about spiking, and about the need to update the law.
I thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is no longer in his place, for his intervention, in which he spoke about the need to legislate for the protection and safety of women in public spaces.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke about his long-standing support for a stronger law on spiking, his constituent’s awful experience of spiking, his worries on behalf of young people everywhere, and—importantly—the need for a cross-departmental approach to student safety.
I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester again for speaking about the widespread prevalence of spiking and the sheer volume of victims, including those he had personally spoken to, and the drive of the perpetrators of spiking to “humiliate” their victims. But he also spoke about his optimism that change could be achieved, including the creation of a specific offence of spiking.
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North has so ably multitasked today, demonstrating both her chairing and speaking abilities. She spoke about the need to update the outdated laws and about the gold standard of safeguarding at Glastonbury, which is very important. It is unfortunate that other festivals do not emulate that gold standard and will not do so without legislation. She also spoke about the need for data to drive good law, which is another very important point.
I reiterate that this Government must abide by their statutory duty to publish their response to the report on spiking immediately. The Minister saying “shortly” again is not good enough, because it has been “shortly” for quite a long time now. It is clear from this debate that there is cross-party support to engage in legislative reform to make spiking a criminal offence. We must work to ensure that the trend of rising reports of spiking and lower charge and conviction rates is reversed, and that spiking is ultimately halted.
Now is the time for legislative action, now is the time to eliminate any ambiguity in our legal system that prevents understanding of the scale of this issue, and now is the time to create a specific offence of spiking, so that victims can have the confidence that they are protected by the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of spiking.
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We must move now to topical questions.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
My mission and that of this Government, on behalf of all people in this country, is to secure our borders and keep people safe from crime and terrorism. Good progress has been made in driving down crime and stopping illegal small-boat arrivals, but there is, of course, more to do. The Home Office has been considering further measures to mitigate migration, including by preventing the exploitation and manipulation of our visa system and clamping down on those who take unwarranted advantage of the flexibilities we provide. We will announce further details on these measures in due course. Tomorrow, we have Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, which will give police the powers they need for longer sentences for those who would harm others and will increase the trust in policing.
Judith Cummins
In my constituency, the antisocial and illegal use of fireworks continues to affect law-abiding citizens and our pets. Will the Secretary of State commit to reducing the legal limit for commercial fireworks from 120 dB to 90 dB or less?
James Cleverly
I have not yet had the opportunity to read into that issue—it was not the angle I was expecting in this question—but the proposal seems a thoughtful one. I will give it due consideration, but I cannot make a commitment at this point.