Public Services

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to follow the distinguished hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and to be able to say a little in response to the Queen’s Speech on behalf of my constituents in Stalybridge and Hyde, Mossley, Dukinfield and Longdendale.

If I were to begin by saying something positive about the Queen’s Speech, I would say that it is good to have the opportunity to discuss some issues other than Brexit. Brexit is clearly very important, but in itself it does not solve any of the pressing issues in my constituency, and the neglect by Government of other issues in the last few years is now evident. But that is where my praise ends because, as I listened to the Queen’s Speech, I did not feel that this was a serious, considered programme for the future of the nation. It felt like something between a publicity stunt and a response to what people in focus groups list as all the things they dislike about the Conservative party. The last Conservative Government were notorious for being pretty soft on crime and reducing the number of police officers to unsafe levels, so this Queen’s Speech says, “We will recruit a load of police officers, even though there is no basic guarantee we will go back to the levels we had before we first came to power.”

The last Conservative Government presided over some of the most miserly funding settlements for the NHS—since 2010, there have been very low funding settlements by historical standards—so this Queen’s Speech says there will be 40 new hospitals, although apparently the number now is barely six.

Many Conservative MPs have mentioned school funding today. The figures for my constituency are very depressing and I have just had an email telling me that 83% of schools in the country will have their funding reduced, effectively, next year, so I am afraid I am not convinced on that point either. I feel that the British people will see through all this.

Of course I recognise, and am pleased, that there seems now to be a recognition that austerity must end and that it has caused real damage, pain and suffering, but I do not just want the Government throwing money around to address their brand negatives; instead, I want it spent on the things that will make a difference, and for me that has to start with in-work poverty.

The number of people in Britain in work who are in poverty is a disgrace. I want us to spend money on some of the burdens that working families have difficulty with, whether it is school meals, uniform costs, prescription charges or in much bigger terms the social care bill when you need support as an older person. If we have money to spend, we should spend it there, and then I want to see us target resources on measures that will raise investment, productivity and wages.

That means acknowledging that the Government’s strategy of cutting corporation tax to the bone to stimulate private investment has not worked. Other countries with considerably higher rates of corporation tax than us have much higher levels of corporate investment. What we have now is a tax base that is simply insufficient to meet the kind of public services that people in this country expect, because we need to invest big money in some areas. For me there is no bigger area than transport. We need new rail infrastructure and subsidies to build urban transport networks that are comparable with what this capital city has—every morning my constituents tweet me pictures of the overcrowding on the railways—but instead of that every day what we get is a daily menu of possible cuts to HS2.

Although I appreciate this is probably unlikely from a Conservative Government, I also think that there has to be an acknowledgment that, while the gig economy has many upsides, for too many people it makes them vulnerable because they have a fundamental lack of power and control over their own working lives. Whenever we on this side of the House propose an increase in employment rights, we are accused of wanting to return to the winter of discontent in the 1970s. I was not yet born during the winter of discontent, but I was a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee when we did an inquiry into the working practices at Sports Direct, and I will never forget the evidence we received in confidence from members of staff: workers not being paid the minimum wage, one woman who had to give birth in the warehouse toilets, and young female employees explaining that they were promised full-time employment contracts but only in exchange for sexual favours.

I am not in favour of a return to the winter of discontent, but I am in favour of making sure that such employment practices have no place in modern Britain, and that requires fair and independent representation in the workplace.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

This is one of the most shocking abuses I have heard of late. People in my constituency are losing 15 minutes of salary every time they have to leave the floor to go to the toilet. One of my constituents has been deeply distressed as a cleaner because, on emptying a bin, she found it was full of faeces and urine; people were using the wastebaskets rather than lose salary. That has to stop.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That is completely unacceptable and I would hope there was agreement across all sides of political opinion on that, but the question I have is: will this post-Brexit free trade world deliver the employment rights that will combat that? At the minute I am, frankly, unconvinced.

I would also like to have seen some action in this Queen’s Speech on absolute poverty. I have no problem with universal credit simplifying the benefits system and I want a system with a taper mechanism that makes it cost-effective for people to increase their working hours if they can do so, but the five-week wait is pushing too many people into a level of destitution that is unconscionable by any reasonable standard. The charities say so, the Churches say so and, frankly, most of us say so, too, and I do not know what more evidence or arguments the Government need to see or hear before they are willing to treat people with the minimum level of dignity they should reasonably be able to expect.

Due to time constraints, I want to make just one more point about something that is in the Queen’s Speech: the proposal to introduce photo ID to cast a vote in elections, which risks being an injustice of significant proportions. It has already been said in this debate that 3.5 million people do not have access to photo ID, and if it is restricted to a passport or driving licence the figure is 11 million.

Far-right Violence and Online Extremism

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been listening and has been making representations on that. At the last police funding settlement, we found enough money, plus the precept, to give the police more funding. The calls are being heard, and we will see what we can do.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Is it not time to talk to the general public about how extremism, both on and offline, is there to generate hate, conflict and division, and is sometimes funded, supported financially and generated by foreign states, terrorists and non-state actors, as well as political extremists? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has shown that we are 77% more likely to forward and project forward something that disgusts or shocks us. Is it not time to talk to ordinary people about the importance of not sharing, but reporting and deleting?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady has made the incredibly wise observation that some of this funding, and some of the influences on extremism, are coming from outside this country. Some of it is deliberate, and is done by states and groups, and we should definitely explore what more we can do. One of the best ways to deal with it at this level is through transparency on where money comes from and where it is going. I have always campaigned for that, and we need more of it.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome the raising of this important issue, because it is important that we constantly look into how we can improve our detention policy to make sure that at all times it is seen as fair and compassionate. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has raised this issue, his concern about which seems to be shared by other Members. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to discuss the issue further with my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about it. It is important that we continue to look into the policy and see what more we can do to improve it.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

How can we talk about fairness and compassion? My Bridgend constituency office takes on very few immigration cases; most of the immigration into Wales comes from England. Where I have problems—despite the English—is in cases in which my constituents have married abroad and cannot then get their partners and children back into the UK. One of my constituents, Mr Jenkins, has been told that his wife will have to leave when their youngest child reaches their 18th birthday. How can that be fair and compassionate? How can I tell EU citizens in my constituency to trust the new legislation when we do not even know what it is?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady refers to the policy on family reunion or bringing spouses to this country. The rules, which include a minimum income requirement, are the will of the House. They are what the House has previously decided in legislation, and I think it is fair to have rules on bringing spouses from abroad into this country and on family reunion. That is right, but it is also right that we constantly review the rules to make sure that they continue to be fair at all times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Our food and drink industry is vital to the success of our economy and I know that many Cornish businesses are very successful in this sector. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will be taking these issues very seriously as we develop our new immigration system.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

T3. My constituent, Mr Jenkins, was born and bred in Bridgend. His wife of more than 20 years has been told that she has to leave the day before their child’s 18th birthday. Why? What sort of hostile environment destroys family life in that way?

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Lady would care to write to me, I will look closely at the case that she has mentioned.

Drugs Policy

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

It is really important that policy be evidence-based. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), many of whose concerns I share, shooting galleries do exist. We might not like it, but they exist, unauthorised and under no medical supervision, in our communities, in private dwellings, in derelict properties, in residential areas, near schools and behind shops. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes if there is one vote, or 25 minutes if there are two. We shall resume as soon as hon. Members return and Grahame Morris is in his place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. I now call Jim Shannon, but seven Members still wish to speak before I call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.54 pm. Could we please have restraint from hon. Members, so that we can hear from as many of those who put their name forward to speak as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this debate, and I am sympathetic to many of the points he made. He rightly highlighted the links between the use of drugs, drug dependency and deprivation, the challenges that many people who are dependent on drugs face, such as in housing and employment, and the fact that the current criminal justice approach does not work as we would like. We should help people with drug dependency to access the appropriate health and care support they may need, and we must think seriously about whether the current prohibition on drugs is the right way forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) made a factual point about naloxone and drug use. The policy is widely used in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and all over the world. He might be interested to read a 2017 review paper by McDonald, Campbell and Strang, entitled “Twenty years of take-home naloxone for the prevention of overdose deaths from heroin and other opioids—Conception and maturation”. That paper effectively concludes that take-home naloxone coverage is insufficient—that may chime with something my hon. Friend said—and that greater public investment in such schemes is necessary if we want them to succeed. Opioid deaths and their causes are multifactorial, and a considerable body of international evidence suggests that if naloxone is given to people who are at risk of an overdose, it can save lives; many review and study papers indicate that. I believe it is a step in the right direction for the Scottish Government to confront that issue and to say that there is a good body of evidence, but unfortunately dealing with opioid deaths is not as simple as just handing out naloxone, which we know is in itself an effective measure.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the case against the end of prohibition on drugs. If we look at the wider public health issue, it is fair to say that if something is decriminalised or legalised, more people may well use that substance because it could be seen as something that is okay or acceptable to use, but I do not think anyone in this debate is suggesting that if there was a broader approach to the decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs, there would not be a public health campaign, just as there is with legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, to suggest that there are adverse health outcomes associated with use.

Many substances that are classified class C or even class A have a lower public health burden than alcohol—for example, MDMA or ecstasy. Alcohol, the legal drug that many people—not me—in Parliament and elsewhere consume, is the substance that causes the biggest public health burden. We must be realistic and recognise that if we move to a position where people are able to make a more informed choice about whether they want to consume drugs in the future, that informed choice involves telling people that taking certain substances has consequences, as we do with alcohol and cigarettes today.

On the current approach to drugs, I would like the Minister to pick up on a couple of points. First, there is the challenge of improving the care that we provide for people who are dependent on drugs. This is not an issue for this Minister, but it may be a conversation to be had with the Department of Health and Social Care. The current commissioning landscape in England for drug and alcohol services is fragmented and completely divorced from mental health. We have to recognise that mistake, which we made in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That needs to be addressed if we want to improve the quality of care available to people who are dependent on opioids in particular, as well as alcohol or any other substance.

It is important to recognise that improving care for people who are dependent on substances is about taking a holistic approach. It is about law enforcement working together with healthcare, housing and social care, and about finding employment and retraining solutions for people. The way existing law is framed, alongside the criminal justice prism through which drug laws are seen and enforced, often drives a wedge between different agencies, preventing them from working together effectively for the benefit of people who are dependent on illicit or street drugs. I hope the Minister can look at that point. Many opioid users are struggling to get treatment. In recent years, there has been a rising trend in the number of opioid deaths, yet the number of people with addiction to heroin and opioids accessing treatment has fallen in the last 10 years or so. There is a problem here that needs to be addressed.

We often talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—I think a former Prime Minister said that, and it is something we can all agree with. What good treatment for people affected by substance misuse is not about is being tough on crime and being tough on addicts. That does not work, it has not worked, and it is driving a wedge between the health system and the people it is trying to support. I hope that we can recognise in our broader discussions about prohibition that the current policies are a barrier to people with drug dependence receiving the care and support that they need.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

I am keen to make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak. I suggest that people have a self-imposed speaking time of three minutes. That will leave a little less time for the Front-Benchers, but I would like to make sure that everyone gets the chance to air their view. I call Jeff Smith.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

I will be as brief as possible, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing this debate and on his long and strong advocacy on these issues. I am tempted to say only that I agree with everything that he said, because I do, but I have a few brief comments to add.

First, I want to say how disappointing it is to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places today, not because I have anything against either of them personally, but because I hope that one day we will have a debate on drug policy where a Health Minister and shadow Health Minister answer the debate. For too long, we have treated drug policy as a Home Office and criminal issue rather than the health issue that it should be.

My starting premise is that we will never stop people wanting to take drugs. Humans have taken psychoactive substances for thousands of years. Our brains like them—it is not our fault; they just do. If we are honest, people take drugs because, often, they are enjoyable, whether it is alcohol or one of the illegal drugs. Most people enjoy taking them. Most people take them without problems most of the time. Sometimes, however, use becomes problematic, whether it be of alcohol or illegal drugs. We do not tackle problematic alcohol use by banning alcohol. That would be absurd, so why is it any less absurd that we ban drugs that cause problems when used wrongly? We need to make a distinction between problematic use and recreational use that causes no harm. We have a drug policy that is not working, as has already been said.

Is the clock counting down the time for my speech?

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

It is counting up.

[Jeff Smith]

It is counting up. Have I really had all that time? I cannot quite believe how long I have been speaking for.

Not only does our drug policy not work, but it causes problems, not least through unnecessary criminalisation. In 2017, nearly 38,000 people were unnecessarily criminalised, which leads to poorer life chances and a cycle of prison. Then there is the cost: if we include all the costs of policing, healthcare, the judiciary and so on, it costs £10.7 billion to deal with illegal drug use. The policy is not working. Drug supply is in the hands of organised criminal gangs and that leads to an arms race in violence, trafficking and organised crime. Then there is the stigma, which has already been referred to, which prevents people from seeking treatment.

We need a change. We need to base our drug policy on the evidence of what works. As the Home Office itself found, there is no evidence that tough law enforcement reduces drug use. Change will not to be easy and I will not pretend otherwise; we have had a war on drugs for 50 years and it is ingrained in the political narrative. For too long, though, we have treated this problem the wrong way. For too long, politicians have been part of the problem. It is time that politicians started being part of the solution.

Health, Social Care and Security

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work in this area. I reassure him and stakeholders who are, I hope, interested in what we are trying to do that we will be consulting widely to make sure that we get the Bill right, so that it delivers the strength of purpose he refers to. The fact that it will create a legal definition of domestic abuse to help to ensure that it is properly understood means that we will not have the same situation of isolated pieces of domestic violence not being added up into a pattern of a really grotesque form of domestic violence that some women have been subjected to.

The Bill will also create a new domestic abuse prevention and protection order regime. A new order to specifically tackle domestic abuse will lead to better protection and better prosecutions. It will ensure that if abusive behaviour involves a child, the court can hand down a sentence that reflects the devastating and lifelong impact that abuse can have. In addition, it will establish a domestic violence and abuse commissioner, who will stand up for victims and survivors, raising public awareness and holding local authorities to account.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary also include in the commissioner’s remit the ability to look at those victims of domestic violence who are subsequently subject to a new form of abuse, namely being constantly returned to court by ex-partners demanding extra access to the children? That is a way to intimidate, bully and impoverish many of those who have the children in their care.

[Amber Rudd]

Absolutely. That is exactly the sort of issue that I would expect us to look at in the domestic violence Bill, to make sure that that sort of abuse does not take place. We want to be a society where domestic abuse is not tolerated, victims feel safe and supported and perpetrators are punished, and we look out for situations such as that raised by the hon. Lady. Victims deserve the best treatment and justice, and we will make sure that they get it. I very much hope that the Opposition will support the Bill.

Turning to health, as the Government continue to strengthen the economy, we can continue to invest in the NHS, supporting that public service on which we all depend. As we set out in our manifesto, we will increase health spending by a minimum of £8 billion a year in real terms by the end of this Parliament. We know, however, that wellbeing is about being strong not just in body, but in mind. This Government recognise that mental health should be given equal priority to physical health. That is why we will consider reform of mental health legislation and ensure that mental health is prioritised in the NHS. We will look at the Mental Health Act 1983 to make sure that the law is working for those who need support, and we will also publish a Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, to make sure that best practice is being applied and there is sufficient access to support.

In 10 years’ time there will be 2 million more people over the age of 75. It is essential that they are able to live well and get the care that they need. The Government have already invested an additional £2 billion in social care to relieve pressure, but more needs to be done. That is why the Government are committed to listening to people’s views about how to reform the system. Full plans will be consulted on in due course.

This is a Government with purpose, determined to deliver the best Brexit deal to secure a strong future as we leave the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I have at least benefited from a few extra seconds as a result.

There is plenty to welcome in this Queen’s Speech, from the prioritisation of mental health to the forthcoming visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain, which will give us all a chance to show that our friendship with that great country is as enduring and immovable as the Rock of Gibraltar. I will touch, however, on two other aspects of the Queen’s Speech, and they will not come as a surprise to colleagues who know of my areas of speciality.

The first is the reiteration of the Government’s pledge to continue to meet the NATO commitment to spend at least 2% of national income on defence. I am sorry to say that it is not enough. One of the things that the Select Committee on Defence managed to establish, through a great deal of hard work and original research by its professional and dedicated staff, was a comparison over the decades of what happened to defence with a graph showing something very different for other high-spending subjects. We found that in the early 1960s we spent similar sums—about 6% of GDP—on welfare and defence. Now we spend six times as much on welfare as we do on defence. In the mid-1980s we spent similar sums—about 5% of GDP—on education, health and defence. Now we spend two and a half times as much on education and nearly four times as much on health as we do on defence. In every year from 1981 until 1987, at the height of east-west confrontation, we spent between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence, yet even after the cold war had finished, even as late as the financial year 1995-96, we were spending 3% of GDP on defence—a total that does not include things such as war pensions and Ministry of Defence civil service pensions.

[Mrs Moon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will happily give way to my fellow former member of the Defence Committee.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the former Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. He, like me, was at a dinner last night at which it was pointed out that at 2%, without pensions and all the other bizarre add-ons that the Government add to get this country to 2%, France will be spending €56 billion on defence; Germany, when it gets to 2%, will be at €70 billion. We are at £36 billion. How can we hold our heads up high and say that we can defend ourselves with sums like that?

[Dr Lewis]

The hon. Lady is a staunch defender of everything to do with the defence of this country, and she is absolutely right. It is a measure of the management downwards of our expectations that we are supposed to ring the church bells in triumph at our not falling below the bare minimum that NATO members are supposed to achieve. We really have to rethink this. We really should be looking at 3% of GDP, and not this bare minimum of 2%.

I want to turn mainly to what is said in the Queen’s Speech about the creation of a commission for countering extremism,

“to support the government in stamping out extremist ideology in all its forms, both across society and on the internet, so it is denied a safe space to spread.”

That implies, although it is not explicit, that the new body will be some form of executive agency. I want to hear from the Front Bench that that will be the case, because we are approaching a key point: it looks likely that the territory seized by ISIL/Daesh will be retaken from it. That will rightly be hailed as a considerable achievement, but we need to remember that only a few years ago no one had heard about ISIL/Daesh, and everybody was overwhelmingly concerned with al-Qaeda. It was unusual for a terrorist organisation to seize territory, because by doing that, ISIL/Daesh gave up the advantage of invisibility, which is what most terrorist organisations make maximum use of. However, I venture to suggest that when it has been removed from its territory and its moment has passed, there will be other groups that take its place, perhaps fighting in different areas and perhaps not trying to seize territory. This will go on and on, as long as there is no effective response to the underlying ideology.

This is not the first time that there has been talk of commissions of this sort. Back in 2013, David Cameron had a taskforce on tackling radicalisation and extremism. On that occasion, too, evidence was taken, but I believe that any future successful plan needs to draw on the similar threats that we faced and overcame in the past.

As I said in an earlier intervention, huge agencies were called into existence to counter other totalitarian ideologies. This rather massive book was never really meant to be published. It is called “The Secret History of PWE”. PWE was the Political Warfare Executive, and the book is a classified history of all the work that it did to counter fascist and Nazi ideology. It was published as recently as 2002. Another organisation, the Information Research Department at the Foreign Office, worked on a grand scale to counter the poisonous ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

What we need today is an organisation that is equally wide-ranging, equally proficient, and equally capable of answering the thoughtful interjection of the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on the subject of the vocabulary that we should use—whether we should use the terms “Islamic”, “un-Islamic”, or simply “violent extremism”. We need an agency to do that. Until we have such an agency, and until it operates to scale, groups will continue to crop up to implement the ideology, and we do not want that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker—and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton)—on your election to a fantastic role in which you will support the Speaker. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on a confident maiden speech. He made a good impression on the House today, and I am sure that he will do so again in the future. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and congratulate him on his maiden speech. He will bring great knowledge to this House. As his seat was a Labour gain in this election, I am particularly pleased to see him in his place.

This was the eighth election that I have fought in Delyn constituency, and the seventh that I have won, so I am certainly pleased to be back. I have never gone into an election knowing that I would win, and this one was particularly tough. It is important that, having returned to this House, I represent all the people of my constituency and ensure that the issues that are important to them are raised.

The Prime Minister called this election on Brexit. The Queen’s Speech is largely about Brexit, but the issues that my constituents brought up on the doorstep were anything but Brexit, most of the time. They were arguing about jobs, security, public spending, austerity and, particularly, security and policing. I wish to focus on the latter, not least because in the middle of this general election campaign we had the horrific events in Manchester, Borough Market and, latterly, Finsbury Park. We also remember the incident in this House earlier this year, when a brave police officer lost his life defending our liberties.

It is important that we focus on security and policing, and I will touch on four areas. I want to know how the Government intend to increase police numbers and change their policy—an issue also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Our focus on policing has changed following those incidents and the acceptance that austerity has been a difficult challenge for the community. I want to know what progress is being made in improving the number of armed police. I want to know what happens in relation to Eurojust, the European arrest warrant and Europol, to which the Government have not made any commitment in discussions to date. I want to know what plans they have to look at terrorism legislation as a matter of course. Policing has changed dramatically over the past seven years of this Government.

We know the figures, but they are worth repeating: we had 144,235 police officers on the streets of Britain in 2010. We have lost 21,376 officers since then. We had a reduction of over 6,000 police community support officers in that period. The number of firearms officers, which the Home Secretary seemed to trumpet in her contribution today, has reduced by over 1,337 in that period.

Those reductions are important because we need to focus on how we re-embed the police in this country. Police on the ground help reassure communities, help strengthen neighbourhood policing, and help with the big challenges of terrorism. Police embedded in the community pick up intelligence and recognise some of the challenges of vulnerable adults—challenges posed by both the fascist right and, at the other end of the spectrum, extremist Islamist terrorist potential. That policing on the ground makes a difference. Looking at the current challenges, we should never forget that police officers, in their reduced numbers, are significantly stretched.

[Mrs Moon]

My right hon. Friend, having served as a Minister with responsibility for policing, will remember the inputs of the Ministry of Defence police in providing security and stability for much of our most important national infrastructure. Is he aware that there is to be a £12.5 million cut in Ministry of Defence policing in this year, which means that fewer armed police officers will be available to support Home Office police?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I am honoured to follow that amazing speech by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). To say that addressing the corruption of Liverpool CCG should be a Government priority is an understatement. It is an example of privatisation by stealth and corruption that has no place in this country.

Throughout today’s debate there has been a lot of talk about British values, but what do we mean by British values? Do we mean the bravery of those doctors, nurses, firefighters and police officers who ran to help those being attacked by terrorists? Do we mean those who ran into Grenfell Tower to help people at a time of distress? Do we mean those we have been insulting with a 1% pay rise, year on year, driving them into poverty? Do we mean those NHS workers who between 2010 and 2016 have lost £4.3 billion in cuts from the NHS staffing budget? Is that who we mean when we talk about British values? Or do we mean the 42% of NHS workers who do unpaid overtime to keep the NHS going?

Perhaps we mean the teachers and teaching assistants who have been trying to subsist on that 1% pay rise. We rely on them to teach British values and to tell our children about the need for reflection and decision making based on the analysis of facts, not personal gratification, and to make judgments based on equality, fairness and opportunity for all. Yet today disadvantaged children in this country are, at 173 percentage points, not ready for school at age 5. The gap grows at every stage in life, from play group to university. How can that be part of the British values espoused and promoted by this House?

British values used to be espoused by our pride in our armed forces and their capacity to provide security around the globe, but they have now been hollowed out. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), my colleague on the Defence Committee, has addressed the massive underfunding of our armed forces. We fudge our 2% commitment to NATO by including in it pensions, GCHQ funding and even overseas broadcasting. The gap in our defence budget is between £10 billion and £20 billion. Our armed forces are being bled dry and our capability to defend this country is diminishing day by day. We need a rapid review and a new assessment of the capability of our armed forces and of how we intend to fund them and keep our place in NATO. Our place there used to be critical and highly respected, but now, sadly, it is viewed as offering little to our allies. Yesterday at the land warfare conference in London, we were told by American invitees that

“your military is too small. There is no question about that”.

That is to our lasting shame.

Police Widows’ Pensions

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered police widows’ pensions.

This important issue was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine, Diane, who sadly lost her husband in the line of duty when he was serving as a police officer. Years down the line, Diane met another man and fell in love. The couple decided they wanted to be together. They found that the position was that Diane had to choose between their future happiness and maintaining her eligibility for her late husband’s pension. She is not alone in her predicament; hundreds of other widows and widowers are left to make the same decision.

Fortunately, in 2014 Cathryn Hall, who is here today, started a petition entitled “Grant Police Widows Pensions for Life—Don’t Make Them Choose Between Future Happiness and Pensions”, which says it all. Cathryn has bravely shared her story so I am not breaching any confidentiality in recounting it. She became a widow at 24 years old following the death of her husband Colin, who served in the West Midlands police force for 21 years. Some years later, Cathryn was left with a difficult decision: should she maintain her eligibility for the pension, into which her late husband had contributed 11% of his salary, or move in with a new partner and lose it?

The petition gathered more than 115,000 signatures, so I am here to ask yet again why so many women such as Diane and Cathryn are forced to choose. The reason is that individuals widowed between 1980 and the early 2000s are covered by the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 and lose access to their spouse’s pension if they remarry or cohabit.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I, too, have constituents who feel strongly about the matter. Does she agree that campaigners also feel that there is injustice in the lack of parity of approach across the United Kingdom?

[Mrs Moon]

The hon. Gentleman is moving me forward in my speech, but yes, that is a major issue. The people who serve in United Kingdom police forces expect that should they lose their lives in the line of duty, all their families will be cared for in exactly the same way. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out a major cause of injustice, which we have come here today to rectify.

There was a welcome breakthrough in 2015, when reforms were introduced. I acknowledge that. The widows, widowers and civil partners of police killed in the line of duty and covered by the 1987 regulations now receive a pension for life if they were in receipt of a special augmented pension, remained unmarried and were not living with a new partner by 1 April 2015. That is a large number of caveats: what of those not covered? The inequality comes over loud and clear.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The recommendation of the 2011 Hutton report—the report of the independent public service pensions commission—related to all armed services. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a matter of implementing equality across generations, in all the armed services, as the report recommended?

[Mrs Moon]

I can say only that the Welsh think alike no matter their political party, because that is another thing that I intend to cover in my speech.

When we ask individuals to put their lives on the line, we should expect that exactly the same care and responsibility will be shown towards all their families, should they make the ultimate sacrifice. Why, then, should a widow or widower lose the financial support from their late husband or wife when they decide to remarry or cohabit?

I should like the Minister to explain where the money is going. If the widow or widower is ineligible to receive it, who has it? What of their children? No father or mother wants their children to be impoverished; nor do they want the money that they set aside to protect their children in the event of their death, and to prepare for their future, to go somewhere else. So what are the Government doing with the money? Why are the widows, widowers and children penalised? Campaigners rightly argue that no Government should seek to profit from the withdrawal of a small and immaterial number of police widows’ pensions, and the condemning, in the process, of 22,000 widows to a life of loneliness and isolation. That is what is happening at the moment.

We are not asking for extra money. The Treasury is not being asked to find new money. The families just want what they are entitled to. I shall set out the figures. The police officers pay 11% of their wages into the pensions. Generally speaking, the widows or widowers receive 50% of the pension. In 2012 there were 22,000 widows in receipt of a police pension. Between 2008 and 2012 in England and Wales, there were a mere 131 cessations because of remarriage or cohabitation. That is a large number of people who are being forced to face a life of isolation and loneliness to maintain their financial security.

On the figures, approximately 0.5% of police widows are being unfairly denied financial support that would have been available to them from the pensions. It is hard to put an exact figure on how much individuals are losing, because that is personal and depends on the husband’s or wife’s age at death. My constituent estimates that she has lost about £135,000—a not inconsiderable sum. The numbers are small: to grant all police widows a pension for life, regardless of their status, would, according to the response to a freedom of information request, cost £50 million. As I have said, that is not new money; it is money already in the system.

I want to tell the Minister about a couple, aged 75 and 80, whom I will not name as they want to remain anonymous. One is the widow of a police officer. They are forced to live 100 miles apart because the loss of the widow’s income should they cohabit would be impossible to bear. That means that they are not there to support each other every day through the inevitable illness that old age brings. They want to spend their twilight years together without financial penalty. Why are they denied that right?

Announcing the changes in 2015, the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, told the House:

“We will reform the scheme to ensure that the widows, widowers and civil partners of police officers who have died on duty do not have to choose between solitude and financial security.—[Official Report, 12 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 18.]

However, that is happening. The average age of a police widow is 74. The petty injustice that I am describing could cost the taxpayer more: as the group gets older without the income from their deceased spouses’ pensions they are more likely to have recourse to the state. Does the Minister think that a sensible use of public money?

This injustice forces widows and widowers to choose between love and money. Many feel that the financial cost is too great, particularly when their children are affected. If they choose personal happiness, they face financial insecurity through no fault of their own. They will also be asking their new partner to take on full financial responsibility for their children, who will lose the money that their father or mother had put aside for them. I cannot understand that.

Just over two years ago, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) raised this issue, and he and I debated it in this Chamber. We are no further forward now; the situation has been made more baffling. I am particularly pleased to see hon. Members here from Northern Ireland and Scotland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

That was set up, Mr Chope; you probably realised that. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the debate. It is not only the Welsh who think alike; it is the people of Northern Ireland as well.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary faced a very different kind of day-to-day work from that of colleagues on the mainland. The grief of loss is the same for families no matter where they live, and the pension rules must therefore also be the same. Does the hon. Lady agree with the widows in my constituency who feel aggrieved and demand and expect this injustice to be rectified—their pension rights to be secured? I look forward to the Minister’s response; I hope it is a good one.

[Mrs Moon]

Everyone expects to be treated the same. People might face different stresses and strains within the police force, but the risk, ultimately, is that every day someone will be determined to take the life of a police officer. If an officer is lost to their family, and if they have made appropriate plans to protect their family, it is right that the state honours that commitment. We pay great tribute to families when they take on these roles and responsibilities, and we should maintain that commitment.

Changes have been made in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I commend those Administrations. In Scotland, the Government announced the same amendment to the pensions paid to the survivors of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty. I think those pensions have been reinstated and backdated to 1 October 2015.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. One of my constituents was affected by this issue, but the Scottish Government’s decision to reinstate the pensions has resolved that injustice for him. This is one area on which we are happy to express solidarity across the UK. Governments across the United Kingdom should be aiming for the highest possible standards, to pay respect to our officers killed in the line of duty.

[Mrs Moon]

As I have said, police officers face the same risks every day. They deserve the same pension rights, and their families deserve the same financial protection. Comparisons have already been made between police officers’ widows and widowers and their armed forces counterparts, with Ministers often seeking to differentiate between the two as a way of justifying the cessation of pension rights for police officers. However, as has already been commented on, the 2011 Hutton Report made it clear that

“there is a need to recognise the unique nature of the work the uniformed services (the armed forces, police and firefighters) undertake.”

They put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. Is it not now time for England and Wales to join the rest of the United Kingdom in ending this injustice? Will the Minister undertake to meet the campaign group? Many of them are here today and will be happy to discuss a way forward with the Minister.

I ask the Minister to end this incomprehensible, unfair and, quite honestly, blatant inequality. Let us give the families back the money they are due. All these men and women are asking for is a level playing field instead of a harsh financial penalty. For me, this boils down to a simple issue: we have to stop putting a price on love. The Government have to make sure that widows, widowers and their children have access to the pension rights that were put there to protect them in the future. By right and by legitimacy, they should have them.

Child Abuse Offences (Sentencing)

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Before I call Catherine McKinnell to move the motion, I remind Members that the House’s sub judice rule precludes reference in debate to cases before the courts. In criminal cases, that means from the time when charges are brought until the verdict and, if applicable, the sentence. The resolution also applies to active appeal proceedings. I call Catherine McKinnell.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 166711 relating to sentencing for child abuse offences.

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, although the subject that we are discussing is possibly one of the most difficult that I have ever held a debate on or spoken about in Parliament. Entitled “April’s Law” and signed by over 126,500 people, the e-petition reads:

“We the undersigned call on the prime minister to make all sex offenders remain on the register for life no matter the crime, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images and harder sentences on those caught with indecent images of children.”

Before I consider that, I want to reflect for a moment on the tragic and appalling events that led to Jazmin Jones, April’s sister, setting up the online petition. I imagine that all of us here remember watching the story of April Jones’s death unravel on the news. Only five years old at the time, she was abducted in October 2012 outside her mid-Wales home and later murdered by Mark Bridger in a crime that deeply affected people up and down the country. As a parent of three young children, I cannot even begin to comprehend the heartbreak of losing a child in such terrible and violent circumstances. What made the crime even more horrifying was that Mark Bridger had been looking at indecent images of children on the day he committed the murder, and he had at least 100—but it is thought that there were nearer 500—indecent images saved on his laptop. That is where the April’s law petition comes in.

I particularly want to recognise the efforts of Jazmin Jones, along with the rest of her family. They all deserve to be commended for their efforts in seeking to ensure that what happened to April does not happen to anybody else. The petition that April’s family established calls for all sex offenders to remain on the sex offenders register for life, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images, and for harsher sentences for those caught with indecent images of children. All of us here understand the absolute depravity of indecent images of children and those who produce or look at them, as well as the severity of the crimes that we are talking about and their lifelong impact on those affected. I will start by addressing the issue of sex offenders remaining on the list for life.

As many right hon. and hon. Members are aware, part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides various measures that enable the police in England and Wales to monitor and manage sex offenders living in the local area. Certain sex offenders, including those convicted of rape, assault by penetration, serious sexual assault, sexual assault of a child under 13 and other child sex offences, are automatically required to notify the police of personal information such as their name and address and to update the police whenever that information changes. Those notification requirements are commonly referred to as signing or being on the sex offenders register. As well as applying automatically to a number of sex offences committed in the UK, the notification requirements can also be imposed on sex offenders who have been convicted overseas. They are imposed for a fixed or an indefinite period, depending on the severity of the sentence received.

Controversially, sex offenders who are subject to an indefinite notification period can apply to the police for a determination that they no longer pose a risk and should therefore no longer be subject to notification requirements. However, the earliest point at which they can do so is 15 years after the date of their first notification —or eight years in the cases of those aged under 18 when they were convicted.

I completely understand the fear about the fact that dangerous men, and indeed women, who could pose a risk to our children and society at large are able to come off the sex offenders register. I particularly understand the concern that those convicted of the gravest offences may be able to overturn a previous decision that they should be on the register for life, following the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that indefinite sex offender registration without the right for review was incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. However, as I am sure the Minister will explain, the latter group of offenders must go through an extensive process before they are removed, with anyone deemed to remain a threat remaining subject to ongoing notification requirements.

Having implemented the Supreme Court ruling that a review mechanism of indefinite notification requirements must be in place, the Government have strengthened reporting measures by making it mandatory for all registered sex offenders to notify the police of all foreign travel; their whereabouts on a weekly basis when registered as having no fixed abode; when they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18; and their bank account and credit card details, as well as information about their passports or other identity documents. Yet I also understand the need for the public to be reassured that those who have possessed indecent images of children, or who have been involved in sexual offences against children, will remain on the sex offenders register for life.

I would therefore appreciate it, as would those following the debate, if the Minister clarified the circumstances that allow someone to be taken off the register and whether any monitoring of activity is undertaken for those who are no longer subject to notification requirements. Is she aware of the number of people who have left the sex offenders register who have gone on to commit further sex crimes? Indeed, just how many sex offenders have had their indefinite notification requirements overturned on review following the Supreme Court ruling? What certainty can she provide to April’s family— indeed, to all the families up and down the country whose lives have been torn apart by sex offenders—that the Government are doing everything in their power to stop those criminals from posing a danger to society?

E-petition 166711 also calls for search engines and internet service providers to be better policed on child abuse images. We have seen some progress in recent years with Google, for example, reporting an eightfold reduction in child sexual abuse image searches since it changed its algorithms to ensure that indecent images and videos do not appear in results. However, we can clearly do more to pressure organisations to avoid becoming complacent.

An organisation that works tirelessly on this issue is the Internet Watch Foundation, set up in the UK in 1996. It is world-leading in its work to eliminate child sexual abuse imagery online and to ensure that we continue to make progress. Europol has stated:

“IWF is one of the most active and effective European hotlines fighting against child sexual exploitation. The work developed by IWF in the process of notice and takedown, in close cooperation with Law Enforcement, is an example to follow.”

IWF’s work has meant that only 0.2% of child sexual abuse content is hosted in the UK, that 100,000 reports of sexual abuse images or videos have been processed and that an international reporting hotline has been set up. One of the most impressive IWF advances has been an “image hash list”, which allows companies automatically to find indecent images or even to prevent them from being uploaded. In a world now dominated by social media, it is somewhat reassuring that Twitter is also using the technology. Twitter has commented that the hash list system

“has added significant capacity to our ability to detect, remove and report”

child sexual abuse images.

I strongly believe that we should commend the Internet Watch Foundation for working tirelessly to make our internet safer. However, more can undoubtedly be done, as was highlighted only recently when the BBC reported that it had alerted Facebook to 100 images on its website that appeared to break the social media site’s guidelines, including: pages explicitly for men with a sexual interest in children; images of under-16s in highly sexualised poses with obscene comments posted beside them; Facebook groups with names such as “Hot XXX Schoolgirls” containing stolen images of real children; and an image that appeared to be a still from a video of child abuse, with a request below it to share child pornography.

Facebook’s initial response was to report the BBC journalists involved to the police and, most disturbingly, to remove only 18 of the 100 images because the other 82 apparently did not breach its “community standards”. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said:

“Facebook’s failure to remove illegal content from its website is appalling and violates the agreements they have in place to protect children. It also raises the question of what content they consider to be inappropriate and dangerous to children”.

I agree, and I believe that the case raises a number of troubling questions. How easily can adults access and share images of child sexual abuse via social media and other sites? How easily can our children be groomed on that site, given that children as young as 13 years old can create a Facebook account? Finally, how easily can our children stumble across indecent images of other children being sexually abused—and perhaps even think that that is somehow normal or acceptable behaviour? Facebook executives must take the issue more seriously, and UK law enforcement needs to clamp down when companies do not remove content. What engagement have the Government had with large companies to ensure that indecent images of children are proactively policed and taken down by the companies themselves, especially given that those on Facebook had to be reported to Facebook by the BBC?

As I outlined earlier, the UK hosts 0.2% of sexual abuse content. That is, of course, 0.2% too much, but it also means that more than 99% is hosted internationally. In 2014, the UK held the first WeProtect summit, which brought together representatives from more than 50 countries, 26 leading technology companies and 10 non-governmental organisations. At the summit, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged to donate £50 million over five years to the UNICEF global protection fund, saying:

“This is money that will help put those lives back together again and I’m proud that Britain is pledging it and once again leading the way.”

Can the Minister confirm that Britain is still leading the way and is continuing to contribute to UNICEF’s global protection fund? I ask not least because child sexual abuse images and videos created abroad are viewed by paedophiles in the UK. We owe protection to children, regardless of where they are from, from such appalling crimes. We must not turn a blind eye to vulnerable children around the world.

We must also not turn a blind eye to people accessing indecent images of children that are produced in Britain. The Marie Collins Foundation said:

“All too frequently, we hear the people who view images of child sexual abuse defending themselves by saying: ‘I only looked at pictures, I didn’t actually hurt anyone.’…Every time an abusive image is viewed it means that the victim in the image is re-abused. No victim should have to suffer in this way.”

The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, commented recently that paedophiles accessing such images should not be charged or prosecuted, and therefore not imprisoned, unless they pose a physical threat to children. Such comments massively threaten to downgrade the impact on the victims in those images. The case of Mark Bridger clearly demonstrates that people who look at images of child sexual abuse can be an enormous risk to our children.

What is more worrying is that one of Britain’s most senior police officers cannot identify a feasible solution to the growing numbers of people accessing such images online. Chief Constable Bailey made his comments in the context of an 80% increase in the number of child abuse reports over the last three years, and 400 men arrested by the police and the National Crime Agency every month for viewing indecent images of children. He states that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Estimates also suggest that there are around 500,000 people sharing indecent images of children, but I believe that we cannot remove the threat of prison without devaluing the crime, even though our prison population now stands at more than 85,000.

Rights of EU Nationals

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I am going to make some progress.

Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will attend her first European Union summit in Brussels. I very much hope that it will not be her last. Britain’s position on EU migrants will be a central issue. Now is the opportunity for the UK Government to do the right thing, so the Scottish National party calls on this House today to recognise the contribution that EU nationals have made to the UK. We also call on the Government to ensure that all EU nationals who have made this country their home retain their current rights, including the rights to live and work in this country, should the UK exit the European Union.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I asked the Home Secretary how an EU citizen demonstrates that they have lived in the UK for five or more years, how citizenship is claimed after six years, which Department will be responsible for confirming the right to remain, what citizenship they will be able to claim, what certification of these rights will be provided and what the estimate is of the costs of going through this process. In reply to that parliamentary question, I was told:

“The Home Office has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period.”

Is it not time we got our act together as a country and gave people who have given their lives and their taxes to this country the security of knowing that they can remain?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are all very serious and worthy interventions, but they suffer from the disadvantage of being too long. This must not continue. We must try to restore some sort of order to this debate. I do not want to embarrass him unduly, but if Members would model themselves in terms of brevity on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—or on the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—they would serve the House well.

Online Child Abuse

Madeleine Moon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I do, but given the proliferation of such abuse, we are always lagging behind. There are twisted people with the life mission of abusing children and sharing these images. Sadly, we are always playing catch-up to them, which is why we always need to send out the strongest possible message: “This is not tolerated. We will come after you, and we will prosecute you.”

We also need to accept an uncomfortable truth. A survey by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that one in five indecent images were actually generated by children themselves. I would like to explore two parts of that issue. The first is sexting. Young people are sexually curious—they always have been and they always will be—and we should celebrate that; it is part of developing. However, they need guidance on the consequences and boundaries of that and the long-term impact of putting something into the ether of the internet.

There is a lot of pressure on young people to upload more and more explicit images. The young girls I have spoken to in particular do not realise that there are perpetrators out there who go through Facebook or chatrooms harvesting images, and a large proportion of those images actually appear on paedophile websites. When a girl sends a picture to her boyfriend and he uploads it as a “joke”, it is very likely that it will not just be her boyfriend who sees it, but there will be a vile old man in a room somewhere looking at it. That is one of the things that we need to get across.

Esther Rantzen is doing some fantastic work on this issue and is looking to create an extension of ChildLine, specifically for teenagers, called “Is that okay?” Young people are saying that they are not quite sure what the boundaries are or what is appropriate, so we need to step in and tell them—probably through the internet, because that is where they get all their information from—what is okay and what the consequences are.

One of the things that started me on this crusade to do something to make people aware of the threats on the internet was that last autumn a mum came to one of my surgeries absolutely distraught and devastated because she had found that her 12-year-old was uploading very sexually explicit videos of herself to a chat website. She was getting a barrage of responses and an awful lot of pressure to keep uploading images. When the mum spoke to her daughter, the daughter said that it was fun, it was up to her, she could do it herself, there was no harm in it and the man was her boyfriend. The mum tried to explain the consequences, but the 12-year-old was not listening, so the mum went to the police. The police said, “Well, it’s just a bit of fun, and she’s choosing to do it.” The mum went to social services, and they did send round a social worker, who met with the girl and explained some of the dangers. Both services then backed off.

The uploading of the videos got more extreme. The mum telephoned round again and was told to take the phone off the daughter. As the mum explained, “That’s all very well—I can take the phone off her—but what about her friends who have phones? What about the iPad that her brother has? What about the computers at school?” The mum had come to me because she was desperate. She said, “I don’t know what to do. I don’t know how to stop this. I can’t find any advice.” I created a website called Dare2Care, where we have brought together all the information about this issue. Parents are crying out for the tools and the understanding to protect their children online, and I urge the Minister to do all that she can to circulate that information.

The mum tried to take the phone off her daughter and, lo and behold, the daughter stole her phone and hid it. It was only when the mum went to the police with some of the images and videos that her daughter had taken and said, “This is what she’s doing,” that the whole child protection system suddenly swooped down. It swooped down to protect the child, but I have a mum who is devastated that she let her child down, and I am devastated that as a country we let that mum down. That mum will be representative of mums around the country. That is why I urge us to make sure that all parents and professionals are aware of this issue.

Why is this happening? The internet is a relatively new phenomenon. Sadly, we have always had paedophiles, but whereas before they might have taken a couple of years to groom a couple of children, now they will have a phishing exercise. They will chuck out a thousand emails to children, and they will target the one or two who are vulnerable. That process, which used to take years, now takes days or hours. Paedophiles’ reach has become enormous.

Another thing to which I draw hon. Members’ attention is online porn. Again, we have always had porn, but the internet is giving it a new, more sinister overtone. The NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner surveyed 1,000 children aged between 11 and 16, and found that at least half had been exposed to online porn, with 94% having seen it by the age of 14. A Girlguiding survey found that among girls aged 11 to 21, seven in 10 feel that the increase in online porn contributes to women being treated less fairly than men, and 73% believe that pictures such as those on page 3 have that effect.

Again, I give my own story: when I was 14, a gang of us had a porno mag that we kept in our den. Looking at an image of a naked woman is very different from looking at a video of someone being gang-raped, and that is what our children are finding. There is no suggestion or imagination; this is basically an online manual of how to abuse a woman, and it is predominantly, by far, the abuse of women that is happening in porn.

From a child’s perspective, they are curious about relationships, they try to find out and they find out by going online. What do they find? Porn. I have had boys in my constituency who are really anxious about having sex because they do not want to strangle their girlfriend, and they think that is what they have to do. I have girls in my constituency who are terrified about having to endure the violence, but they want to have a boyfriend so they think that is what they have to go through. They have no background to let them see that as a fantasy. They have no background knowledge of consent, of respect and of the ability to say no.

What is the solution? Basically, it is to give all children understanding around resilience and relationships. Currently, children are not learning about the dangers of the online world, or about respect, sex or consent. Sex Education Forum found that 53% of pupils have not even learnt how to recognise grooming or sexual exploitation. Charities, experts and survivors of abuse are all united in saying that improving children’s awareness of respect for relationships from a young age is the best way to prevent child abuse. Introducing compulsory, age-appropriate resilience in relationship education in schools would show that the new Prime Minister, the new Education Secretary, the new Home Secretary and the new Minister are serious about acting to prevent more child abuse.

What I am saying is that we need to give the children the tools to protect themselves. I urge that to happen from the youngest age. For example, as soon as children go into school, I want them to be taught about “No means no”. If someone wants them to keep a secret that makes them uncomfortable, they should tell someone else and they should be listened to. I want them to understand that there are people who are bad out there and that they can tell people if they feel uncomfortable.

I am not talking about teaching five and six-year-olds about sex—nothing about that—but when two-year-olds start to go to playgroup, we teach them not to snatch toys and not to push children over, so why can we not also teach them about respecting themselves and other people in the language they will understand? The NSPCC runs the fantastic PANTS campaign, which teaches about just that: what is in your pants is yours and is private. That is a very simple message that we can get across.

The other key thing is to ensure that parents and professionals know and understand the signs and symptoms and how to tackle the suggestion and the actual online abuse that is happening. We need to arm them in advance, because as I have said, this is a generational crime. We are not, and have never been, in that submersive environment as young, malleable children, so we need to ensure that everyone who is there to protect our children understands the effects of that and also how to prevent them. I have to say—not least because we have a Select Committee Chair in the Chamber—that the Select Committees on Education, Health, Home Affairs, and Business, Innovation and Skills all recommend statutory relationship education.

I have three asks of the Minister. The first is a public awareness campaign. I have mentioned my campaign, Dare2Care, which she is free to take and use. All the major charities and academics have contributed, as well as survivors and campaigners, so all the information about preventing child abuse is there. Secondly, she knows that there is already a good e-safety course, which goes to all children in all key stages, but it focuses more on data protection and personal security than on recognising and dealing with abuse. There will be some fantastic teachers who will ensure that online safety in its broadest sense is happening, but I urge the Minister in her guidance to ensure that that is a serious component. The other, final point is about relationship and resilience education for all children to prevent online abuse. I also say to the Minister that we need to focus on literally all children, whether they are home schooled or not and whatever sort of school they go to.

The Government have done quite a lot in this area, but they need to do more, because I do not think they recognise the scale of online abuse that is happening and the potential dangers to our children. I ask the Minister to please take up this campaign, because our children depend on her.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

I advise Members that I will go to the Front-Bench speakers at 5.18 pm at the very latest and that the debate will end at 5.38 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I welcome you to your post, Mrs Moon, and I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister to theirs. It is excellent to see strong and confident women in those positions and I am sure they will take their challenges and responsibilities seriously. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate on an issue that she has worked and campaigned tirelessly on, not least through her work on Dare2Care. It is fair to say she has gone above and beyond her public duty to tackle this issue. She takes it incredibly seriously, which I am sure all hon. Members in the Chamber also do.

This is a broad debate. Online abuse covers any type that happens on the web. We have already heard about the role of social networks, messenger services, chatrooms, playing online and mobile phones. Anecdotally, as one of the younger Members in the Chamber, I received my first mobile phone at the age of 13. It was a Nokia 2210, on which someone could play snake or push their luck by texting home and asking if they could stay out late.

That was what mobiles meant to me and my generation but times have certainly changed, with 24/7 social media online. I cannot even keep up with the current trend of Pokémon Go, and I am obviously too busy to play it. Through social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, online abuse is a new and growing phenomenon. With the increasing use of the internet across the UK and the world, and with the advent of smartphones, our young people are now more vulnerable than ever before, and traditional understanding of child abuse has been deepened and compounded by that fact.

At this point, it is important to recall the words of the hon. Member for Rotherham and many others who have contributed to the debate highlighting the instances of bullying, in particular of the LGBT community; the rates of suicide and self-harm, which cannot and must not be ignored; the influences of apps, games and other online devices; and the role and increasing accessibility of online pornography. It is fair to say that this is a very different world from the one I started in, and future generations will come into a very different world still, so our resilience, understanding and approach are absolutely vital.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) —I have the honour of serving on the Committee of which she is the Chairwoman—highlighted the need for protections in the design and build of apps. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I hope she forgives me for terribly pronouncing the name of her constituency—highlighted the need for databases, but how many instances go unrecorded? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) highlighted the role of dating apps and the potential for fake profiles. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) recognised with his always measured and reasonable approach the need to strike a balance, and the need for all of us to work collaboratively across devolved nations and reserved competencies to ensure we tackle the issues head on, and that we do not underestimate the challenges we face.

Children, as we have heard, experience cyberbullying, grooming, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and emotional abuse through devices and services that have become integral parts of their social lives. We need to look only at the Channel 4 documentary “Cyberbully”. “Game of Thrones” star Maisie Williams highlighted to me and to many parents out there the challenges and difficulties that young people face simply by sitting in front of a PC, laptop or mobile phone. In this day and age, the internet gives abusers unprecedented access to children and the ability to contact them at any time, day or night. It erodes traditional safe spaces. Children can be at risk of online abuse from both strangers and people they know.

The NSPCC has outlined some of the difficulties for children facing online abuse. Children will often not tell anyone about online abuse because they feel guilty or ashamed. When they would like to tell someone, they often do not know who to go to, and many will not even realise they are being abused. According to Ofcom, one in five eight to 11-year-olds and seven in 10 12 to 15-year-olds have social media profiles. The number of children who are at risk is increasing and we must do more to safeguard them.

The scale of the problem has not been pinned down by any definitive or official figures. The fact is that we simply do not know the scale of the problem, but that does not mean we cannot put protections in place to tackle it. In 2014, studies found that one in four children between the ages of 11 and 16 had experienced upsetting or abusive language online while on social networks, and one in three children had been the victim of cyberbullying. Youth engagement organisations such as DoSomething.org suggest that nearly 43% of children have been bullied online. More worryingly, in 2015 the Internet Watch Foundation identified 68,000 websites containing child abuse images.

If we dispense with the statistics for a moment, it is fair to say that we do not yet know the full scale of this issue, but we know we must do more to tackle it. It is hard to underestimate the work that must be done and is already being done by many charitable organisations to tackle child abuse. The information and statistics supplied by the NSPCC and other charities and organisations are up to date and highly informative in dealing with abuse.

I want to highlight the work of the Scottish Government—I say this not to be political, but simply to enhance the debate. Since 2009, online safety has been monitored by the Scottish Government-led stakeholder group on child internet safety, which has made a number of recommendations. In recent years—as early as 2014—those recommendations resulted in a refresh of national guidance and child protection policies. Recent developments such as the national action plan for tackling sexual exploitation and the cyber-resilience strategy outline that Scotland takes this issue incredibly seriously. The Scottish National party condemns all instances of online abuse and welcomes any efforts to strengthen legislation in order to tackle it. The Scottish Government firmly believe that online abuse is unacceptable. Scotland’s anti-bullying services—

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is eating into the Minister’s time. Can she bring her remarks to a conclusion? She has had more than her allotted five minutes.

[Angela Crawley]

Forgive me, Mrs Moon. I will close by simply saying that, to tackle this problem and the scale of it, we must collaborate and co-operate with one another.