Tackling Spiking

Debate between Laura Farris and Nigel Evans

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I can provide my hon. Friend with that reassurance. The critical part of our response today is that we are working at every single level from the barman to the bouncer to the statute book. We recognise it as critical that people are protected when they are out at night and if they have cause to go to the police the following day. Our objective is to stamp out spiking.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to questions for over 40 minutes. I am now going to seamlessly hand over to Sir Roger Gale.

Bill Presented

General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to provide that an allegation concerning a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise may be considered by the General Medical Council irrespective of when the most recent events giving rise to the allegation occurred; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 26 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 142).

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Laura Farris and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) and so many hon. Members who have made thoughtful contributions. I will confine my comments to the intersection of new clauses 28 and 45 to 50 with the impact of online pornography on children in this country.

There has been no other time in the history of humanity when we have exposed children to the violent, abusive, sexually explicit material that they currently encounter online. In 2008, only 14% of children under 13 had seen pornography; three years later, that figure had risen to 49%, correlating with the rise in children owning smartphones. Online pornography has a uniquely pernicious impact on children. For very young children, there is an impact just from seeing the content. For older teenagers, there is an impact on their behaviour.

We are seeing more and more evidence of boys exhibiting sexually aggressive behaviour, with actions such as strangulation, which we have dealt with separately in this House, and misogynistic attitudes. Young girls are being conditioned into thinking that their value depends on being submissive or objectified. That is leading children down a pathway that leads to serious sexual offending by children against children. Overwhelmingly, the victims are young girls.

Hon. Members need not take my word for it: after Everyone’s Invited began documenting the nature and extent of the sexual experiences happening in our schools, an Ofsted review revealed that the most prevalent victims of serious sexual assaults among the under-25s are girls aged 15 to 17. In a recent publication in anticipation of the Bill, the Children’s Commissioner cited the example of a teenage boy arrested for his part in the gang rape of a 14-year old girl. In his witness statement to the police, the boy said that it felt just like a porn film.

Dr John Foubert, the former White House adviser on rape prevention, has said:

“It wasn’t until 10 years ago when I came to the realization that the secret ingredient in the recipe for rape was not secret at all…That ingredient…is today’s high speed Internet pornography.”

The same view has been expressed, in one form or another, by the chief medical officers for England and for Wales, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the Government Equalities Office, the Children’s Commissioner, Ofsted and successive Ministers.

New clause 28 requests an advocacy body to represent and protect the interests of child users. I welcome the principle behind the new clause. I anticipate that the Minister will say that he is already halfway there by making the Children’s Commissioner a statutory consultee to Ofcom, along with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and others who have been named in this debate. However, whatever the Government make of the Opposition’s new clause, they must surely agree that it alights on one important point: the online terrain in respect of child protection is evolving very fast.

By the time the Bill reaches the statute book, new providers will have popped up again. With them will come unforeseen problems. When the Bill was first introduced, TikTok did not exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford said a moment ago, and neither did OnlyFans. That is precisely the kind of user-generated site that is likely to try and dodge its obligations to keep children safe from harm, partly because it probably does not even accept that it exposes them to harm: it relies on the fallacy that the user is in control, and operates an exploitative business model predicated on that false premise.

I think it important for someone to represent the issue of child protection on a regular basis because of the issue of age verification, which we have canvassed, quite lightly, during the debate. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that the current system which allows children to self-certify their date of birth is hopelessly out of date. I know that Ministers envisage something much more ambitious with the Bill’s age assurance and age verification requirements, including facial recognition technology, but I think it is worth our having a constant voice reporting on the adequacy of whatever age assurance steps internet providers may take, because we know how skilful children can be in navigating the internet. We know that there are those who have the technological skills to IP shroud or to use VPN. I also think it important for there to be a voice to maintain the pressure on the Government—which is what I myself want to do tonight—for an official Government inquiry into pornography harms, akin to the one on gambling harms that was undertaken in 2019. That inquiry was extremely important in identifying all the harm that was caused by gambling. The conclusions of an equivalent inquiry into pornography would leave no wriggle room for user-generated services to deny the risk of harm.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) pointed out, very sensibly, that her new clauses 45 to 50 build on all the Law Commission’s recommendations. It elides with so much work that has already been done in the House. We have produced, for instance, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which dealt with revenge porn, whether threatened or actual and whether genuine or fake, and with coercive control. Many Members recognise what was achieved by all our work a couple of years ago. However, given the indication from Ministers that they are minded to accept the new clauses in one form or another, I should like them to explain to the House how they think the Bill will capture the issue of sexting, if, indeed, it will capture that issue at all.

As the Minister will know, sexting means the exchanging of intimate images by, typically, children, sometimes on a nominally consensual basis. Everything I have read about it seems to say, “Yes, prima facie this is an unlawful act, but no, we do not seek to criminalise children, because we recognise that they make errors of judgment.” However, while I agree that it may be proportionate not to criminalise children for doing this, it remains the case that when an image is sent with the nominal consent of the child—it is nearly always a girl—it is often a product of duress, the image is often circulated much more widely than the recipient, and that often has devastating personal consequences for the young girl involved. All the main internet providers now have technology that can identify a nude image. It would be possible to require them to prevent nude images from being shared when, because of extended age-verification abilities, they know that the user is a child. If the Government are indeed minded to accept new clauses 45 to 50, I should like them to address that specific issue of sexting rather than letting it fall by the wayside as something separate, or outside the ambit of the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The last Back-Bench speaker is Miriam Cates.

Management of the Economy and Ministerial Severance Payments

Debate between Laura Farris and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

Implicit in the wording of this motion is a rebuke, and I start by accepting it; errors were made during the tenure of the former Prime Minister. But I take issue with the Opposition in three parts: first, on the suggestion that the mini-Budget is responsible for the economic situation in which we find ourselves; secondly, on the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) should be treated differently from any other Minister, current or historic, in this Parliament; and, thirdly, on a suggestion that was not really developed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) in her opening remarks, which is that my right hon. Friend should pay some sort of compensatory amount of £6,000 and that there should be some form of atonement. That theme has been heard more than once from those on the Opposition Benches. I think it was the voices on the left who said it was not enough that Tony Blair should take the country into war, but that he should stand trial and go to prison, and in this case people are saying that my right hon. Friend should pay some kind of reparations, of a figure that has no basis in reality. I refute that and I will set out why. I know that Opposition Members will react if I suggest that some of the economic predicament we find ourselves in is a result of external forces, but when I say that the Bank of England base rate has been climbing all through 2022, I challenge them to name a country in the G7 where the base rate has not been doing that, just as every country on mainland Europe has suffered a huge inflationary spike as a result of the war in Ukraine and the energy blockade that has been the decision of Vladimir Putin. I challenge them to name a country in western Europe that has not suffered those effects. I also respectfully remind the Opposition that the 10 years we have had of unprecedented low interest rates were part of a one-off sustained emergency response by the Bank of England to the 2008 financial crisis that happened on their watch, and I will come back to that.

I wish to talk for a moment about the ministerial severance package. I have looked at the legislative journey of the law that underpins it. When the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991 went through the House, the Opposition did not vote against it. Section 4 of that Act said ministerial severance is paid irrespective of rank, length of service, performance in the role and the circumstances in which the Minister leaves. The Labour party did not complain when that was applied to more than 300 Ministers who served at one time or another under the Blair and Brown Governments, irrespective of their performance, even in the case of people such as Peter Mandelson, who got this twice in 24 months. When the last Labour Government saw fit—through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—to revisit the legislation in April 2010, six weeks before the general election, they made extensive changes to the terms of ministerial severance, but none to the qualifying criteria or the terms of repayment. There was no change even though the country was in the grip of the most serious economic crisis of my lifetime, even though there was, in the immortal words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), “no money left”—he will never be allowed to forget that—and even though they were responsible for the catastrophic economic decision to sell off our gold reserves. That was presumably because they were lagging in the polls, they were six weeks away from a general election and they were all looking forward to receiving their own pay-outs, which they did.

We are, in this debate, talking about a former Prime Minister, but I cannot let the moment pass without saying a few words about the former Leader of the Opposition, who, when he departed office, was entitled to an almost identical amount of severance despite his having led the once great Labour party into a sewer of antisemitism. I was recalling some of the main acts of his tenure. In 2018, the former Member for Liverpool Wavertree was hounded out of a party that she described as “institutionally antisemitic”. The serious and systemic discrimination that certain Members endured—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Did you inform Jeremy Corbyn that you were going to make reference to him?

[Laura Farris]

I did not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In which case, can I ask you to move on then, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I did not inform the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, but he has been referred to more than once.

I will confine my point to this: whatever the Opposition say about severance payments, it might be surprising to learn that the former Leader of the Opposition would have been entitled to exactly the same severance payment. The only reason he did not get it was that he was over the age of 65—it was timed out on age criteria—but I am not drawing an equivalence in any event.

Whatever mistakes were made by the former Prime Minister, and I conceded at the start that mistakes were made, the ambition was laudable—as, to be fair, it so often is for Leaders of whatever stripe when they are at the helm. She was seeking to create a rapidly growing economy for the good of the country, even if her execution in that ambition failed. It is an ambition that many of us on these Conservative Benches share, and it is an ambition that Opposition Members share, too, as shown by the wording of their next motion, which is all about economic growth. But Conservative Members do not spend our time calling for scalps, or jail sentences, or compensation, or unique terms because a politician has failed. Rather than wasting time seeking social media clips, we think government is about the serious endeavour of delivering for the British people and providing answers to the issues that matter.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If we are to get everybody in and move on to the next debate at 4 pm, wind-ups will have to start at no later than 3.40 pm. If everybody stuck to about eight minutes without my putting the clock on, that would be helpful.

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Debate between Laura Farris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I think I understand the hon. Lady’s implication. Of course I am not suggesting that the backlog is dealt with, but the critical point is the progress that we are making through the backlog rather than the number itself. It is right to say that disposals now outstrip receipts and we are reducing numbers, which is something that I think we should be very proud of.

I also think that there is real cause for optimism in how remote hearings have been used. From a standing start, we saw courts embracing nascent technology, and in 12 months they have delivered everything from a 12-week trial in the High Court to a complex jury inquest in Kent, all of it online. These changes are becoming embedded. In the future, we will be delivering justice in a way that is more efficient, more economical and crucially, I hope, more swift.

I would like to spend a moment on the issue of justice for women. I echo the remarks of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), in that I think we do women a disservice if we reduce these questions to a political tit-for-tat, although I think the mood has shifted a little bit since the start of this debate. There are Opposition Members for whom I have a lot of respect on this issue, and they know that.

The Government have made good progress. Stalking, choking, revenge porn and rough sex are ugly crimes that have found their way on to the statute book, where they did not previously exist. Of course, we are not there yet, and it is a raw feeling to be speaking on this in the week when Wayne Couzens admitted to the abduction and rape of Sarah Everard, but that crime did not happen because of an absence of laws. In fact, Harriet Wistrich from the Centre for Women’s Justice gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, where she said that the fact is we do not need more legislation. Her concern, which she expressed powerfully, is that the police are failing to implement what is already there. Very respectfully, when I read the Labour Green Paper, I saw almost no reference to police failings at all.

I also think that we as a House have to be honest. While young people can pick up a phone, click a few buttons and watch rape porn, we have a problem. While schools and universities, and even workplaces, tolerate or at least turn a blind eye to misogyny and harassment in their midst, we have a problem. When young people are living in families where they see perhaps violence and misogyny exhibited in the home, we have a problem. The justice system is the end point, but if we are serious about violence against women and girls, we owe it to the victims to work seriously and collaboratively on the causes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There is now a three-minute limit. I remind everybody—I do not know what has been said before from the Chair—that if anything is before the courts and is sub judice, please do not make reference to it.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Laura Farris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]]

There is nothing inevitable about high unemployment. Even when the storm has raged as violently as it has in the last 12 months, we have seen what the Government can achieve. Twelve months ago, the term “furlough” was completely unknown to us. Today, more than 30 million people have had most of their wages paid by the Government for most of the year.

To me, the most moving part of the Chancellor’s statement earlier was from the OBR—that it had revised its forecast that unemployment would peak at 11.9% and estimated that Government action had saved 1.8 million jobs in this country. That matters to me personally because, when I made my maiden speech on 24 February last year, I closed by saying that the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents would

“guide my work in this House.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 88.]

That has not changed.

There are three issues I want to touch on this evening. First, I want to talk about what this Budget means for female employment, which I have looked at carefully in my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women and work. There are different reasons why women’s employment has been particularly affected by the crisis, but some of it is sectoral. Hospitality, retail, leisure and the beauty industry employ disproportionate numbers of women and have been particularly hard hit. In this Budget, every business in those sectors can claim a restart grant of some kind, whether it is £6,000 or up to £18,000. Taken together with the continuation of the furlough, that will be a huge factor in sustaining and rebuilding opportunities for women in the labour market.

The second point I want to raise is linked to training and apprenticeships. The kickstart scheme, which we heard about last year, was directly focused on young people and their opportunities, but today’s announcement went wider. It links apprenticeships to the lifetime skills guarantee and incentivises businesses to offer apprenticeships irrespective of age. That is hugely significant. It is fair to say that, whenever long-term structural unemployment has taken root in any period since the second world war, Governments of whatever party have tried and failed to tackle it. The reason for that has always been the long-term attrition of workers’ skills. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that any Government have put training and skills at the front and centre of the recovery package, and I welcome that.

The jobs that exist in 10 years’ time will depend on our choices today, their impact on the labour market and our readiness to react to changing circumstances. The super deduction, the offering to innovators through R&D tax credits, the visa reforms for highly-skilled workers and the work on productivity through the Help to Grow scheme are all welcome. I represent a part of the world that sits at the heart of the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry Laura, but we have to leave it there.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Laura Farris and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill knowing that I may well be a turkey voting for Christmas. I am a new MP, but I am reliably informed by my predecessor that when the boundary commission previously turned its attention to my seat, of its various proposals, none helped. Perhaps that enhances the force of my support for the Bill, because I give it without much to gain.

In the six months I have been a Member of this House, I have thought carefully about what it means to represent and what it means to be represented. Before consideration of this Bill, I had not been fully aware of the extent of the population disparity between the various seats. It is striking how closely the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) resemble my own. I did not know that the seat of Ashford, with its 90,000 constituents had more than double the constituents of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross seat. I acknowledge the sensible remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) that there are important geographical considerations, but we cannot avoid the fact that a vote in Caithness has twice the value of a vote in Ashford, and to me that distorts representation. When he wrote “Of true and false democracy”, John Stuart Mill said that in a “really equal democracy” every community is represented in equal proportion. Without this, he added, there are those

“whose fair…share of influence in the representation is withheld from them…contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality at its very root”.

For that reason, it seems right to me that we equalise seats based on number and that the margin for variation is deliberately circumscribed.

My second point relates to the retention of 650 seats, rather than the reduction to 600. All the way through, three issues concerned me. First, I had grave concerns about whether the new super-constituencies could offer the sort of quality of representation that people deserve, just at the time we were losing the Members of the European Parliament. I was glad to see that reflected in the impact assessment prepared on 4 May. Secondly, one thing I knew about my own seat is that the 600 seats proposal lacerated some of our communities, cleaving villages from towns that had deep historical links. I hope—I will make submissions as the Bill proceeds—that we can use the preservation of 650 seats to put that right.

Thirdly, I welcomed the coalition Government’s intention to manage the cost of Parliament, but I felt it was directed at the wrong Chamber. The other Chamber comprises 783 Members and costs the taxpayer less but almost as much as our Chamber. If the Members of this House spoke honestly to their constituents and asked them how many Members of the Upper Chamber they could name, they might find that some could name none at all. I know that some Members of that Chamber are brilliant and bring expertise; I know that some of them serve in the Government and in the shadow Cabinet, and are very active in that Chamber; and I know that the vast majority adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct. But when they fall short—and some do—there is absolutely nothing the public can do, and to me that conflicts with the whole principle of parliamentary democracy.

As Ted Heath once said, those who have been appointed to or inherited seats have done in the main

“a tremendous task and we owe them a great deal”,—[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 761.]

but I hope that in this Parliament, we will make the move—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to move on to the next speaker.