Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Latham]

So obviously, the institution of marriage is a good thing. I do not ever want to stop people getting married. It is outdated to talk about people having children out of wedlock being a sin. If a girl becomes pregnant on her 16th birthday, she will not have the baby until she is almost 17—16 years and nine months—and she has to wait for only another year and three months until she can get married. In that time, she and the person that she has become pregnant by—whether that is by design or not—will, between them, be able to judge whether that is the right choice for them. Clearly, children being brought up in a loving household is obviously the best thing for everybody. Eighteen is the age at which marriage should happen, not before.

I have been long aware of and engaged in this issue through my association for more than a decade with Jasvinder Sanghera, who grew up in Derby and originally founded Karma Nirvana there. As I said, it is now run by Natasha Rattu in Leeds. I have been campaigning on this issue in Parliament for several years and proposed a private Member’s Bill in the 2019 Parliament, which fell at Dissolution twice. I am therefore delighted to be able to introduce this Bill today, and I hope that it will pass this stage of the parliamentary process and proceed towards changing the lives of young boys and girls who would otherwise have been subject to child marriage, whether in the UK or around the world.

I must acknowledge the help and support that I have had in bringing the Bill forward. The charities that form the partnership Girls Not Brides UK, which include Karma Nirvana, IKWRO—the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation—FORWARD—the Foundation of Women’s Health Research and Development—and the Independent Yemen Group, have been instrumental in providing me with data, campaign support and a never-ending source of inspiration to keep on pushing for change in this area.

Thanks must also go to those Members who supported me throughout the process, from the Bill’s birth as a ten-minute rule Bill to finally reaching Second Reading today. Like many of the best achievements in this House, it is a truly cross-party effort, and I pay tribute to the hard work and support of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and, not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). In particular, thanks must also go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who was drawn out of the private Members’ Bill ballot and kindly gave his support to the Bill, allowing me to take it forward in his place when he was appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

I also place on record my thanks to the Minister for the help and support that he has shown in getting the Bill to this stage. I look forward to working with him if the Bill passes Second Reading today. I have also had productive discussions with and support from the Minister responsible for safeguarding—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—and her predecessor in that role, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). I thank them both and the officials in their Departments for their hard work on getting this important piece of legislation right.

In conclusion, I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support my Bill, for three connected reasons. First, it will safeguard young people by establishing 18 as the legal age of marriage in this country with no exceptions, giving a clear message to everyone that child marriage is unacceptable. Secondly, the Bill criminalises anyone who causes a child to enter a marriage, whether or not it is in a legally binding ceremony. The data tells us that many of the cases of child marriage involve only a religious ceremony, so this is an absolutely crucial aspect of the Bill.

Finally, the Bill will help the UK to live up to its international obligations by banning child marriage in all its forms, and allow us to take that message to the rest of the world. We support the UN’s call to end child marriage, but we can do that only if we ban it in this country. Let us finally give our children time to mature and see what life can offer after their 18th birthday. There is so much on offer for everyone to enjoy. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure there was not somebody clapping then.

Security Update

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have agreed to the request from the Government to make a statement, as I believe this is a subject that the House will want to be informed about at the earliest opportunity. It is a subject on which all colleagues will have strong views, especially in view of the death of our colleague Sir David Amess. However, I remind Members that it is the case that a police investigation is ongoing. It is therefore important that Members do not say anything that might impede that investigation or any court case that might follow. I therefore ask Members please not to speculate on the circumstances around our great friend and colleague, Sir David death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Dr Lewis, let me say that, with the Home Secretary, we will be sending a letter to all Members of the House with a further update and we will try to keep the House informed as much as possible. I reassure the House that meetings between each of our offices have been going forward continuously to ensure that we are doing the right thing by everybody. I would add this to what the Home Secretary said. You are being contacted about doing service. Please do not do this because that gives information we do not want to give. The other part of that is: what will happen to the data that you are giving? It puts not just you at risk, but others at risk.

[Dr Lewis]

May I draw particular attention to the wise words of the Home Secretary in what I think was her penultimate point about the discussion of security measures that MPs decide they will or will not take? Most right hon. and hon. Members have ideas about ways in which their security can be improved. It is very unwise—is it not, Mr Speaker?—for us to state what those ideas are in public. I am sure that, like me, every Member present in the Chamber was contacted by local and national media asking, “How are you going to proceed in future? Are you going to continue with face-to-face surgeries? What changes will you make to your arrangements?” Does the Home Secretary agree that it is quite inappropriate for the media to ask such questions, and it is quite counterproductive, and indeed self-endangering, for us to answer them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

It is typical of my hon. Friend that he would gather his constituents together to give voice to their concern in this area. The message I would give them is that we recognise their distress and concern. As dog and cat owners ourselves, it is inconceivable to us that our pets might be stolen; the damage and trauma that would be caused to my family if that awful event were to happen is keenly in our minds. The policy development work on this offence has begun. As I said earlier, we hope to bring legislation forward as quickly as possible, so that he and the many other Members who are very interested in this subject and recognise the distress that has been caused in communities up and down the land by this crime can exercise their free democratic will and put the offence on the statute book.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Ian Paisley. He is not here. I call Crispin Blunt.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

4. Whether her Department plans to take steps to reschedule psilocybin to schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. [R]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are working across Government on these matters. I know that engagement is going on through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with the authorities that he describes. We have a proud record and tradition in this country of providing sanctuary to those who find themselves in desperate circumstances. That absolutely continues to be the case. That is a firm commitment of this Government and it is perfectly in line with this country’s proud traditions. People across our country would expect us to continue to do that, and that is exactly what we will do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I and my colleagues, from the bottom of our hearts, send our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of both Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire. It is fair to say that, in short, everyone knew Sir David and everyone liked and respected him, without exception.

I shadowed James Brokenshire as Immigration Minister in my first year in this place, and he made my job 10 times tougher, not only because of his mastery of the brief, but because he, too, was a person whom it was impossible not to respect and to like and we will sorely miss him.

At the last Home Office questions, the Home Secretary suggested that I had not read the Nationality and Borders Bill when I said that it would see Uyghurs, persecuted Christians and Syrians fleeing war prosecuted and sentenced to prison, but I have read it and that is precisely what clause 37 will do. I welcome the Minister to his place, but if he does not want to see Uyghurs, persecuted Christians and Syrians prosecuted and imprisoned, will he take that clause out of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and question. He is absolutely right, and I think all Members take pride in our constituency work and the ability for constituents to approach us and us to be approachable for them. A number of security reviews are under way right now and we are rightly looking at practical considerations to protect Members and the public to enable us to carry out our functions as democratically elected Members of this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Having expressed our condolences, can we also express our thanks both to you, Mr Speaker, and the Home Secretary for the work that is already ongoing to review and improve our security? I agree with the Home Secretary that we must make it our mission both to improve safety and to protect the close links between the public and their representatives, but does she agree that this must be true at all levels of democracy? I would mention in particular our local councillors, who are at the coalface and often doing surgeries alone week in, week out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)]

Unexplained wealth orders are a very important tool and, yes, we are absolutely making sure the resources are there to support their use.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Neale Hanvey—not here.

Violence Against Women and Girls: Police Response

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind all hon. and right hon. Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that cases in which proceedings are active, including where charges have been made, should not be referred to during questions. I am sure that all Members will wish to respect that resolution, especially where there is a prospect of court cases in the future. Nobody would want to put those cases at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Crimes of violence against women and girls are utterly despicable. They inflict profound and lasting harm on the victims and have a damaging impact on our society as a whole. That is why the Government are taking concerted action to crack down on these appalling crimes.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for providing me with an opportunity, as the newly appointed Safeguarding Minister, to outline our work in this area, and I very much hope to work collegially across the House. I know that every parliamentarian shares our concern about these serious issues.

The Home Secretary commissioned this report from the police inspectorate to help police forces strengthen their response. We are carefully considering the inspectorate’s findings, and we expect the police and others to take any necessary action. The Home Secretary has committed to considering the report’s full recommendations and will update Parliament when she has done so.

We supported the inspectorate’s recommendation in its interim report in July to introduce a full-time national police lead for violence against women and girls. I am pleased to say that Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth has been appointed to the role, and we look forward to working with her.

While the report shows that there is more to do, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have made progress. The report acknowledges improvements in the police response to these crimes, including better identification of repeat victims, improved techniques to collect evidence, and improved safeguarding measures.

Since 2010, the Government have taken significant action in this space, including introducing new laws to tackle stalking, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called revenge porn. Importantly, we have brought forward the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench, and to the Prime Minister for playing a vital role. We have more than doubled the safer streets fund, while our unprecedented police recruitment drive is putting more officers in our communities to protect the public and drive down crime.

We are determined to go further, which is why we published our new tackling violence against women and girls strategy in July, and we will publish a complementary domestic abuse strategy this year. Our new strategy will drive our effort to prevent these crimes, ensure that victims get the support they need, and bring perpetrators to justice. It details a number of steps, including immediate investment in measures to make our streets safer, more funding for specialist support services, and a multimillion-pound public behaviour campaign to challenge unacceptable behaviour.

Public protection is our No. 1 priority. Violence against women and girls has absolutely no place in our society, and we are committed to working with the police and other key partners to confront these crimes wherever they appear.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

[Ms Harman]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am really grateful to you for granting this urgent question.

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her new role and wish her well in it. I will support her in her work, but we need a greater sense of urgency. In just the last few days, there have been more horrific killings of women. In Sheffield, 35-year-old Terri Harris was killed together with three children, John Paul Bennett, Lacey Bennet and Connie Gent. In Greenwich, primary school teacher Sabina Nessa was only 28 years old.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of police, Zoë Billingham, rightly describes this as an “epidemic” of male violence against women, and the extent of the impunity of men for this violence is shown by the killer of Sophie Moss saying that it was just “rough sex gone wrong” and literally getting away without a murder charge.

All credit to the Government for commissioning this report. Will they now implement its recommendations in full? We have a woman Homey Secretary, and I believe that women in leading positions have a special duty to deliver for other women. Although she will meet the inevitable institutional objections and traditional resistance to change, she will, if she does this, have 100% support from this side of the House and, indeed, 100% support from her own side. It is not often we can say this, but this is something that the whole House wants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

It is a real privilege to be questioned by my right hon. Friend on this issue. She has been instrumental throughout the years in initiating the important work I am now talking about. She is absolutely right to highlight the fact that when women go to the authorities to seek help, they need to be listened to and they need to be supported adequately. That is a key part of the work we set out in the violence against women and girls strategy. We will be making sure that that takes place.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to the shadow Minister, Jess Phillips.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new Minister to her place.

The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services highlights the continued staggering failures by the Government to protect women and girls adequately. We should not make any bones about what it actually says. Since Sarah Everard was killed, a further 78 women have been killed by men, and I am sure that we would all wish to send our support to the family of Sabina Nessa this week.

The report tells the Government that there cannot be anything less than sweeping and fundamental changes across the board. There have been many reports, statistics and cases this year. After each one there has been an opportunity for concrete action, but each time we simply get a piecemeal response—a little review here, a pilot project there. Tackling misogyny and violence is on all of us, but primarily it is on the Minister. It is the Government’s job to keep people safe. The report is clear. In the words of Her Majesty’s inspectorate, these problems have arisen because of

“the continuing effects of austerity on policing and partner-agency budgets.”

The Labour party continues to call for a comprehensive violence against women and girls Bill. We also support all the recommendations in Zoë Billingham’s report. Will the Minister today commit to keeping to the very detailed action plan commanded by the report within the timeline it states? I will, of course, be checking. Will the Minister now take seriously our calls for the proper supervision and management of repeat offenders? Again, I quote from the report:

“there is no consistent and dedicated model in place for managing domestic abuse offenders”.

No model in place, Mr Speaker. I could actually scream. How can there be no model in place to deal with violent criminals? We have repeatedly asked for one. When can we expect it?

Will the Minister tell this House—I have asked this from this Dispatch Box before—when the Government will finally categorise violence against women and girls as a serious crime, just as they do with terrorism and serious youth violence? When I asked this question recently of the Minister for Crime and Policing, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is in his place, he said that local areas can do it if they want. That is exactly the kind of half-hearted effort that leads to patchy approaches that this report decries. It is not an acceptable response. Will they finally act? They have a chance to do it in the House of Lords in these weeks around us.

The safety and security of women is not some side-line, add-on issue; it is essential to a functioning society. It can no longer be a weight borne by women everywhere. Every day wasted waiting for the Home Secretary to decide if she wants to undertake the recommendations is another rape, another murder and another beating.

Salisbury Incident 2018: Update

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I should tell the House that I have reached a special agreement with the Home Secretary to extend the length of the statement, because I was given advance notice. I believe that the Opposition have been informed of this.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on today’s announcement by Counter Terrorism Policing that the Crown Prosecution Service has authorised charges against a third individual in relation to the 2018 Salisbury attack, an appalling event that shook the entire country and united our allies in condemnation. I thank the Opposition for their courtesy and support in allowing some of their parliamentary time to be used for the statement. The House will of course understand that this is an ongoing investigation, and that we are therefore limited in terms of what can be said about these three individuals.

In March 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia, commonly known as Novichok. Two officers from Wiltshire police who were involved in searching the victims’ home were also poisoned with the same agent. In July 2018, a further two members of the public were found unwell in Amesbury, both of whom had been exposed to Novichok. Tragically, one of them, Dawn Sturgess, died. An inquest into her death is ongoing. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the loved ones of Dawn today.

This House has profound differences with Russia. In annexing Crimea in 2014, igniting the flames of conflict in eastern Ukraine and threatening western democracies by, for instance, interfering in their elections, it has challenged the fundamental basis of international order. Although attacks such as the one in Salisbury are uncommon, this is not the first time Russia has committed a brazen attack in the UK. Today the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that it was responsible for the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko; that supports the findings of the independent Litvinenko inquiry. However, as the then Government made clear following the Salisbury attack in 2018 and as I reiterate today, we will not tolerate such malign activity here in the United Kingdom.

The UK, under successive Governments, has responded with strength and determination. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), then Prime Minister, announced in 2018, 250 detectives were involved in the Salisbury murder investigation, working round the clock to discover who was responsible. On 5 September 2018, the independent Director of Public Prosecutions announced that there was sufficient evidence to bring charges against two Russian nationals for conspiracy to murder Sergei Skripal; the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; causing grievous bodily harm with intent to Yulia Skripal and Nick Bailey; and possession and use of a chemical weapon, contrary to the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.

The two Russian nationals were known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, but the police believed these to be aliases. The then Prime Minister announced that the Government had concluded that the two men were members of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, and that the operation had almost certainly been approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state. I want to recognise the exemplary work of our emergency services, intelligence agencies, armed forces and law enforcement staff who led the initial response to this despicable and outrageous attack; I also pay tribute to the ongoing work to bring the perpetrators to justice. We will not let this go.

As Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dean Haydon has said, this investigation has been extraordinarily complex, and our country is fortunate that so many brave people do such outstanding work to keep us safe. As a result of those efforts, the police have evidence that Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov are aliases for Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga, and that both are members of the GRU. The CPS has now authorised charges against a third individual, known as Sergey Fedotov. The Counter Terrorism Policing investigation established that Fedotov had entered the UK on a flight from Moscow to London Heathrow, and had stayed at a hotel in central London between 2 and 4 March 2018 before returning to Moscow. While in the UK, he had met Petrov and Boshirov on more than one occasion in central London.

The CT Policing investigation has established that Fedotov is in fact Denis Sergeev, that he is also a member of the GRU, and that all three men previously worked together for the GRU as part of additional operations outside Russia All three are now wanted by UK police, and arrest warrants are in place for them. The police have applied for an Interpol notice against Fedotov, mirroring those already in place against the other two suspects. Russia has repeatedly refused to allow its nationals to stand trial overseas. That was also the case following the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, when a UK extradition request was refused. This has only added to the heartache of those hurt by these attacks, and, inevitably, has further damaged our relations with Russia.

As was made clear following the Salisbury attack in 2018, should any of these individuals ever travel outside Russia, we will work with our international partners and take every possible step to detain them and extradite them so that they face justice. After the attack in Salisbury, my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) put in place the toughest package that the UK has levied against another state for more than 30 years, consisting of diplomatic, legislative and economic measures. We continue to take robust steps to counter the threat posed by the Russian state. In 2018, 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers were immediately expelled from the UK. In solidarity, 28 other countries and NATO joined us, which resulted in the largest collective expulsion ever—of more than 150 Russian intelligence officers. That fundamentally degraded Russian intelligence capability for years to come.

The Government will continue to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with all the additional tools that they need to deal with the full range of state threats, which continue to evolve. In direct response to the Salisbury attack, we introduced new powers to enable the police to stop, question, search and detain individuals at the UK border to determine whether they are spies or otherwise involved in hostile activity. These vital powers are already helping the security services and law enforcement agencies to protect the UK from the very real and serious threat posed by states that seek to undermine and destabilise our country.

In July 2020, we published a full and comprehensive response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which addressed point by point all the key themes and recommendations raised by the Committee, but we are going even further and have committed to introducing new legislation to counter state threats and protect the United Kingdom. Earlier this summer, we held a public consultation on the Government’s proposals, to improve our ability to detect, respond to, and prevent state threats, keep our citizens safe and protect sensitive data and intellectual property. Responses to that consultation are currently being considered and we will return with comprehensive legislation.

Another crucial strand of this work is combating illicit finance. To secure our global prosperity, squeezing dirty money and money launderers out of the UK is our priority. We are at the forefront of the international fight against illicit finance, combating the threat from source to destination. We have introduced a new global human rights sanctions regime and a global anti-corruption sanctions regime. The National Crime Agency continues to lead UK efforts to bring the full power of law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites and their assets, including through increased checks on private flights, customs and freight travel.

In July and September 2020, working in tandem with the EU, we announced sanctions against the Russian intelligence services for cyber-attacks against the UK and her allies. We have also taken robust action in response to the poisoning and attempted murder of Alexei Navalny, enforcing asset freezes and travel bans against 13 individuals and a Russian research institute involved in the case. The Government will continue to respond extremely robustly to the enduring and significant threat from the Russian state. We continue to make huge strides to counter this threat and to increase our resilience and that of our allies to Russian malign activity. We respect the people of Russia, but we will do whatever it takes—everything it takes—to keep our country safe. We will work actively to deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia until relations with its Government improve.

I would like to end by paying tribute to the resilience of the people of Salisbury, who suffered a sickening and despicable act in their community, and to the people of Amesbury, who lost one of their own in the most dreadful circumstances. Our Government will be relentless in our pursuit of justice for the victims of these attacks and continue to do whatever is necessary to keep our people safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

The sub judice resolution means that, other than when legislating, the House does not discuss issues that are active in the UK courts. However, where in the Chair’s opinion cases concern issues of national importance, reference to them may be made. I am prepared to allow such references during the course of this statement.

Strategy for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for bringing Mrs Squire to meet me. It was an incredibly moving meeting. Indeed, Mrs Squire and parents of other women who have been murdered have set out very clearly the escalation of behaviours before such terrible, awful, horrendous crimes are committed.

We are doing a number of things. The right hon. Lady mentioned the public communications campaign—I know that was something that Mrs Squire was very interested in—but I hope that she will also see in the strategy that we want to review the police management of sex offenders to ensure that it is as effective and safe as it should be. She may note, too, that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are strengthening sexual risk orders and sexual harm prevention orders, which can be used to manage such offenders in the community.

However, the plea must go out that if you are the victim of a non-contact sexual offence—in common language, that means if someone flashes you, if they are following you, if they are masturbating in front of you, if they are making you feel unsafe in the streets, and it is sexually motivated—please, please, if you feel able to, ring the police so that we can get these crimes recorded and, hopefully, the police can start to find those serial perpetrators before they do something even worse.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I make no apology for addressing this Bill through a Scottish prism. Perhaps with the absence of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the voices that I have heard from the Conservative Benches have been really quite dispiriting.

There is a toast from the bard in Scotland that contains the phrase “Wha’s like us?” but that toast will never be proposed to the British nationalism riven through the heart of this tawdry Government, no more evidenced than by the tenor, tone and impact of this inhumane anti-refugee Bill. This Government never seek or seem to learn: Windrush; the PM’s betrayal of his own Brexit promises to our EU friends, neighbours and family; and a Bill that is hostile to the world from a Government hostile to Scotland but with the temerity to claim that they speak for us and that we are one nation.

If this Bill achieves anything, it will be to demonstrate how very different we are. What does it say to us in Scotland? It says, “We care not for your identity as a nation.” It says, “You will fall in line; you will fail to meet the refugee convention; you will criminalise asylum seekers for exercising their legal right to seek asylum; you will process traumatised asylum seekers offshore; you will pile pressure on to the judicial system while reducing access to justice; you will retraumatise victims; you will remove hope; and you will decrease protection and enhance exploitation.” It says, “You will do all this not because you want to, but because we say so; your international welcome is not valued by this Government and your international friends are no friends of ours.” Nothing makes the case for independence more strongly than such a murky piece of legislation.

The people of Scotland will reject the UK Government’s divisive, jingoistic nationalism and are revolted by the casual xenophobia it embodies. Successive UK Governments have had no qualms about hostility, invading nations, instigating conflict and supplying weapons to oppressive regimes the world over in the pursuit of wealth. Despite that profit, there is not a blush when they complain that those they have helped to displace seek refuge on these shores. Those are people in desperate need. They are victims recast as “us” and “them.” The response of providing needed help is not just a matter of basic humanity; it is a fundamental ethical concern. There is no “us” in humanity, and no “them” in humanity. There is no humanity in this Bill and no humility in this Government.

It is time for Scotland to face facts. We were dragged out of the EU against our will and Scotland is being dragged through the gutter by the Tory party yet again. The people of Scotland: wha’s like us? They certainly do not think that it is this shoddy Westminster Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent—perfect timing.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For those who were on the list and were not called—there were a few people left—can I just ask for your direction and help? Will those who were not successful today be called tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

First, I do not think that was quite a point of order. I think you want some clarification for tomorrow and, Jim, I presume you must be acting for others and not yourself when you ask that question. I would say that I think those Members who did not get in today will automatically be put on the list for tomorrow, and I hope those who do not want to be on the list will withdraw.

Racist Abuse on Social Media

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend highlights some of the very practical responses that social media companies can take right now; they do not need to wait for the online safety Bill. I read with some dismay and anger a report in the i paper today about how Instagram had applied its own rules—community rules—in relation to offensive emojis and indeed highly offensive words that were sent to players, but the social media companies themselves have to explain how exactly their community rules accord with the expectations and indeed the law of our country. May I, however, just make the point again that we are not alone in this? This is a challenge facing every democratic society in the world, and it is by working together, as we are doing with our voluntary principles on tackling terrorism and child sexual exploitation, that we are going to be able to make real progress against these companies and against this hatred.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

The disgusting online racism faced by England players is unfortunately overshadowing a fantastic tournament and a fantastic performance by an England team that has lately attracted admiration and perhaps even a little bit of envy.

Yes, we urgently need stronger online regulation. Content must be taken down faster, and platforms must no longer be allowed to support racist content through shamefully lax rules. We also need a debate on how we identify and punish those peddling this hate. Does the Minister agree that social media regulation is not a silver bullet, that online racism reflects offline racism, and that the Government need to take tackling racism, including structural and institutional racism, more seriously?

Whatever our disagreements, no one could say that the previous Prime Minister did not take tackling racism incredibly seriously. Why do we struggle to say the same about the current Prime Minister? Is it not because on his watch too many in his party have spent more time downplaying racism than tackling it, and more time ridiculing anti-racism campaigners than going after those who actually peddle racism? So yes, we will support action to clamp down on online platforms, but will the Minister support a change of attitude in her party?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Very much so. The Home Secretary has been targeted,, along with other Members on both sides of the House, and it seems that, sadly, women in particular—women of colour—are targeted by online trolls.

There are many, many people in our society who have to deal with this racism, not just online but, I am afraid, offline. I think that part of our national conversation should be about how each of us can show our complete support for the campaigns to combat racism, and how we can all ensure that we are doing everything we can, both individually and as a country, to tackle racist behaviour. I know that the Home Secretary feels very strongly about this, and indeed she has been particularly strong in her communications with tech companies throughout the two years for which she has been in office; but I also know that this is a feeling shared by many in the House, and, as I say, I am very conscious that there are others in this place who are victims as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us now go to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]]

On the Instagram profiles of England heroes this lunch time, there are still racist posts, including blatantly racist words and emojis, that have been up for more than 24 hours. I have challenged Instagram on this from the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly over the last few days. It told me this morning that using some of those emojis as racist slurs is against its rules, yet inexplicably, they are still up, and it is still taking Instagram days to remove these posts. Speed matters.

Can the Minister tell me what the Online Safety Bill is actually going to do to take action on this speed issue and to penalise companies for not moving fast enough? At the moment it looks as though that action will not happen. That is unacceptable. Keyboard cowards are being given a megaphone by these social media companies, and it has to stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

We all acknowledge the echo chamber that social media provides, and the fact that being available online across the world perhaps enables just a single person to have far more volume added to their voice than would be the case if they were known, as they usually are, to be sitting in their bedroom rather pathetically tapping away on their laptop or phone. We must build resilience among our young people in schools to prepare them to understand that torrents of abuse like this may represent only a tiny number of people, and very much build on education and the cultural attitudes that we are seeking to address through relationships, health and sex education in schools to ensure that people understand the principles of tolerance and kindness in being able to debate without hatred. There are many ways of tackling racism. I look forward to debating them in the months and years to come, but we do not need to take chunks out of one another while we are debating.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Question 1, I wish to inform the House that there is an error on the call list. Cat Smith’s Question 14 is listed as asking about the dismantling of county lines drug gangs. In fact, her tabled question was about steps taken to ensure that Border Force staff are trained on exemptions from requirements for covid-19 testing. I understand that Ministers have been informed and that the correct question will be answered when we reach that point.

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

If she will make it her policy to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission’s review of hate crime legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman has a long association with the trade union movement, which I know he has found rewarding in every sense of the word. As I said, we are not, as a Government, involved in pay bargaining for the fire service. There is a national joint council, where the Fire Brigades Union is represented 50:50 with employers. As I am sure he will know, the FBU has accepted a pay offer for the coming year that will be payable from the 1st of this month. There will be a White Paper looking at reform in the future and we will see what comes out of that consultative process.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think it is on good terms for the Minister to be sneaky in the way that he approached the answer. The underhand in there was a bit leading and I hope that we have a better relationship on all sides of this House.

[Kit Malthouse]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for that.

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to prevent young people from becoming involved in crime and violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the important points that he has aired this afternoon. He is absolutely right: both the Minister for Crime and Policing and I have been on a call this morning with police leads for football issues and the policing of football. As we have all said very clearly, there is absolutely no place for racism or violence whatsoever. Quite frankly, there is clear guidance and legislation: there are laws in place that we absolutely should apply and follow—that applies to the police as well—to go after the perpetrators and the individuals. My hon. Friend will of course be well aware of the Public Order Act 1986, but there is also the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and football banning orders, all of which play an important part in terms of the actions that everyone should be taking.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

  Jadon Sancho, Marcus Rashford and Bukayo Saka are incredible players and part of an incredible team that has made us all proud to be English, but, while they are the best of us, they have endured vile racism from the worst of us. On their Instagram profiles right now, there is still vile racist abuse, which has been up there for 15 or 16 hours or more, visible to everyone, including to children and young people who are there to support their heroes. I have spoken to Instagram this afternoon to urge it to take much stronger action. Has the Home Secretary done so, and, if not, will she do so and now speak to the social media companies to urge them to take this action? Will she also take the opportunity to condemn those who stood up in our stadiums and booed our brave players for taking a stand against racism and call on them to show solidarity instead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First and foremost, it is always important to recognise and understand the strength of feeling around this issue. I pay tribute to colleagues in the House who have discussed this issue over the past week; they have aired many not just concerns but approaches based on evidence and information.

My right hon. Friend is right that these are matters of conscience for all Members, but at the same time it is for Parliament to decide. The debate that she has been leading and much of the evidence that she has just touched on are a matter for consideration, which Governments absolutely approach in the right way, particularly with parliamentary debate at the right time.

[Mr Speaker]

May I say that there is a lot of disappointment that we have not gone very far on topicals? I have let them run for longer than I normally would. I am disappointed—we really have to get the Front Benchers working together to speed up those early questions; in the end, it is other Members who miss out.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

Let me say at the outset that I completely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has just said. We have not got enough time to properly debate the Bill and the many issues it engages.

I have four key issues, which are the subject of cross-party amendments and new clauses. One is to do with the crucial right to protest, which the Bill curtails. As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have tabled amendments on that. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) will get an opportunity to speak about protecting and enhancing the right to protest. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has also tabled a new clause on that, which has a great deal of support. Many other hon. Members will speak about the subject.

There are also concerns about the rights of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have tabled amendments on that and so have other Members, including the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers). My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) will speak about both issues from our Front Bench. I will therefore not speak specifically about the right to protest and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller rights, but I strongly support those from all parts of the House who will speak on those matters.

I will confine my comments to new clauses 1 and 2, which have support from across the House. They deal with the safety of women and girls on the street. Hon. Members will remember that, after the horrific killing of Sarah Everard, there was an outflowing on social media from young women and girls, even young schoolgirls, saying, “We are not safe walking on our streets at night. If we have to walk home in the dark after school, we will often find a man in a van kerb-crawling us with the window wound down, calling for us to get in the van, asking why we are not getting into the van, and following us home.” Often, they will take a longer route home, even though it takes more time, to go down busier streets, rather than the quickest route, where they feel less safe. Often, they will take a cab when they would really like to walk home, but just do not feel safe.

What has been shown is that this is not just a problem for some young girls and women; it is a problem for all. It is a universal, everyday experience. Sexually predatory men feel that they can harass and intimidate young girls and young women when they are on the street, especially after dark and if they are on their own. We simply have to decide whether we are going to protect and support the rights of men to do that, or whether we are going to say, “No, we support the rights of women and girls to be able to walk down our streets at night on their own, after dark in the winter, coming home from school, without being subjected to this sort of intimidation, menace and harassment.” I do not think we hear anybody arguing that in this day and age, women and girls should accept that. I remember that, back in the day when I, like everybody else, was subjected to it, if someone complained, people said, “But you should be flattered—you should be flattered that people find you attractive.” It is not flattering. It is menacing, it is unwarranted and it is unwanted, and we should not accept it.

I have tabled two new clauses. One is about kerb-crawling. Currently, it is a criminal offence to kerb-crawl a woman if someone is doing so to solicit her because they want to pay for sex. That was introduced many years ago to protect a neighbourhood from becoming a red light district and having endemic kerb-crawling, so we already have the basis in the law. What I am suggesting, with a lot of cross-party support, is that this should be a criminal offence without it being because the man is doing it to try to pay for sex; it is enough if he is kerb-crawling. He should not be able to do that. The punishment ought to be taking away his licence. If a man is going to lose his licence for his van or car, he will pretty soon alter his behaviour, which is exactly what he should be doing.

I also have a new clause on harassment in the street. At the moment, if a man harasses a woman and there is a course of conduct because he is generally stalking her, that is a criminal offence, but if he does it to a schoolgirl going home who he does not know and it is not a course of conduct but one-off conduct, she has no right of redress. I suggest expanding the stalking offence to include even a one-off, so we have two bespoke offences.

If we have two new crimes, women and girls will know that they do not have to put up with this and that they can complain, men will know that they are going to be called to account and end up in court if they do it, the police will know that they have to investigate it and prosecute it, and the courts will know how to deal with it. Then, we can end the shameful situation that women and girls find themselves in on the street.

The Government have said in Committee that they are in listening mode. That is welcome, but it does not go far enough. Women and girls want the Government not just to listen, but to act. It is about time that the concerns of women and girls were heard and acted on. If we do not support the new clauses and the Government do not accept them, they will be guilty of letting women and girls down. I hope that will not be the case. I press the Minister, who has been very generous with her time in meeting me, to say that this is the moment that we are going to change the law and make a new start.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind hon. Members that, if we do put a speaking limit on, it will be on the countdown clock, which will be visible on the screen. I am now going to appeal to everybody, without the time limit on, to please not force it. Let us be kind to each other—short and brief. Everybody, I believe, has a genuine contribution to make, so I really want to hear them.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will try to lead by example in that regard.

Part 1 of the Bill increases the penalty for assault on an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. Many other key workers are on the frontline, too. Indeed, shopworkers have borne the brunt of much of the abuse about mask wearing and social distancing in stores, on top of the existing problems associated with age verification for the purpose of alcoholic drinks purchases, drunken abusive behaviour, and of course shoplifting. Late-night shops are often run single-handedly, so the distress and trauma associated with assaults or threatening behaviour should not be underestimated. I am due to meet shortly with in-store workers from my local Tesco to see at first hand how this problem has affected staff in that setting. I hope the Minister can reassure me—either now or when she sums up at the end—that she is aware of the issue’s importance and that amendments may not be necessary to deliver the action we all believe is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

The hon. and learned Lady has a point.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just to say I really am up against the time. I want to hear a lot more free speech.

[Mr Davis]

I take your point, Mr Speaker. I will be finished in less than a minute.

I was the person who brought in the 10-minute rule Bill, the precursor to the Government’s Bill, but there is a balancing issue and the House must be precise about that balance.

Given Mr Speaker’s injunction, I will bring my comments to an end. The Bill does some important things, but it needs to get some things very much closer to right than they are now.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I must warn people that it is looking like speeches will have to be three minutes or a maximum of four minutes.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clause 91 and amendment 117.

Amendment 117 simply says that the Scottish Government reserve the right to amend the code of conduct governing data extraction if the UK code of conduct is not suitable for our distinct policing service. I cannot imagine why the Government would not just accept that amendment, so I look forward to hearing that they have.

New clause 91 will instruct the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the criminal offences set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Let us face it: after 50 years, it is high time. That argument is gaining traction across party and with good reason. One of my colleagues will be saying more about that later in the debate, so I will simply say that my support for it is wholehearted. Our approach to drug misuse and addiction should be a public health approach, because that is what saves lives.

Mr Speaker, I understand that I have unlimited time, but I can reassure you that I will talk as briefly as I can to allow other speakers to make their contribution. I will look at three areas of the Bill.

I have said before that the curbs on the right to protest are draconian and contrary to international law—it is not just me saying that, of course—and I know colleagues will say more on that shortly, but people out there need to be aware of how the provisions will impact on them. I always use the example of the WASPI women, the Women Against State Pension Inequality. I do that because, whether it is anti-war protesters, the Black Lives Matter movement or those who are desperately worried about the environment, there is always a cohort in here ready to tell us what is wrong with those protesters: how “dangerous” they are and how we need to clamp down on them.

Now, nobody is going to tell me that the Women Against State Pension Inequality are a threat to any of us. The opposite is true. These are older women who should be retired by now, but they have had their retirement stolen from them by the UK Government. So many times we have all gone across the road to join thousands of WASPI women and their supporters from all across the UK, but because of the exclusion zone to be thrown up around Parliament they will be prevented from ever doing that again. We are to hear and see nobody unless they agree with us. That is just one tiny part of the curbs on the right to protest. It is not what we expect from the so-called bastion of democracy.

I want to turn briefly to serious violence reduction orders. Members might ask why, given that they apply only to England and Wales, but here is why. I was quite shocked to hear the Home Office attempt to make a comparison between serious violence reduction orders and the work of the hugely successful Scottish Government-backed Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. The Scottish VRU adopts a public health approach to violence. I urge hon. Members not to be fooled by attempted comparisons. The underlying principle—