Migration

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not believe that the Rwanda policy is immoral. I do not think that there is anything ethical about allowing individuals to cross the channel illegally, risking their lives and those of their children. We want to create a system that is suffused with deterrents so that people do not make the crossing in the first place and so that if they want to claim asylum, they do so in the first safe country that they enter. France, of course, is a perfect choice.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

When our own citizens, never mind visitors, come to this country, they dutifully form a queue and present their passport at border control. Does the Minister agree that it makes a complete and utter mockery of our border control systems when people arrive illegally, thereby committing a crime, and are then put up in hotels across the country, where they are fed and watered and do not have to pay energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) spoke about cases going on for 400 days; I know of others that have gone on for years and years. When will we implement the Rwanda plan? When will we push back? When will we return people to France directly? Deterrence will be the main thing that stops them crossing in the first place.

[Robert Jenrick]

I totally agree. Deterrence must be the test to which we hold all aspects of our immigration policy. We will implement the Rwanda plan as soon as it has passed through the courts, and I think it will make a significant impact on deterring people from making this dangerous crossing.

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is right. My first priority was to ensure that the Manston site was operating legally and appropriately, which meant that the Home Office had to procure accommodation at pace. We are now moving into the next phase, which will involve ensuring that we have better communication and engagement with local authorities, so that we can hear their concerns; that we provide them with the support that they might need; and that we choose locations together that meet sensible criteria in terms of safeguarding, community cohesion and the availability of public services. It is also extremely important that we work closely with local authorities on issues such as child protection and the appropriate dispersal of children and families across the country.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

We have heard about international law and how we cannot break it, and about the European convention on human rights, but in 2005 and ever since, we chose to ignore the ECHR and an EU diktat requiring us to give people in prison the vote. In other words, we ignored international law because we respected our people’s wishes. Why can Italy and other EU nations do the same today, and we do not, when it comes to foreign criminal gangs and people smugglers arising from illegal immigration? Why do we not protect our borders and our people?

[Robert Jenrick]

We will do everything in our power to protect our borders. I have already set out that we will do that on a number of fronts, including through law enforcement and robustly tackling the criminal gangs on the continent. We will also do it through better diplomatic relations with our nearest allies, such as France; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is having one of those conversations this week with President Macron. We will work with countries such as Albania that are demonstrably safe and where economic migrants in particular should be returned swiftly. If further legal changes are required, we will consider making them, because treaties to which the UK is a signatory should work in the best interests of the British people.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I would be very glad for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue in detail. My review is looking into the process of identification of hotels around the country. We are seeing a real geographical imbalance in where they are located: there is real pressure in certain places, while other places are not taking people. We need to bring some equivalence to the process, and ultimately we need to bring it to an end. We need to make it more cost-effective, but ultimately we need to be processing people more quickly.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

We have heard yet again today that Opposition Members want to prioritise the welfare of illegal immigrants. My priority and, I believe, the priority of Conservative Members is our constituents who are desperate for social housing or who are sofa surfing. Many of them are women and children. Is it not an outrage that we are spending £2.5 billion a year when we will soon be asking those very same people to share the burden of further cuts to public services?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The fact is that we are receiving an unprecedented number of people coming into this country, many of whom are coming illegally. They require accommodation. That is putting excess pressure on our current housing stock, whether it is hotels, the private rented market, or beds in other sorts of building. Ultimately, we do not have enough space for these people and we need to find it quickly. It is very difficult. It will be done, but it will take time.

Public Order Bill

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I wish to start by expressing my strong support for the provisions that the Bill brings forward. In my life before Parliament, as a local councillor and as a magistrate, I had cause to engage with many of the issues the Bill seeks to address. It seems to me that on the whole it is a sensible and proportionate way of bringing forward new police powers and new laws to ensure that our constituents lives’ are not unduly and unfairly disrupted.

In particular, I wish to place on the record my thanks to constituents, such as the late Roy Parsons, who over the years have contributed a huge amount to law and order in the community. Their efforts have helped to illuminate my thinking as a Member of Parliament about how some of these challenges need to be addressed.

My constituency is very much a place of commuters, with people travelling to work by road, rail and bus. I am conscious that especially for those who are part of the lifeblood of the economy of our capital the disruption that has been caused to their lives by protests that seek to test existing laws to the very limits is considerable. There is a cost to people’s businesses and people’s jobs, and it creates a great deal of nuisance for those seeking to attend hospital appointments and, in some cases, to respond to emergencies. It is therefore absolutely right that the Government listen to the voice of the law-abiding people who are part of the lifeblood of our capital city and seek to address the changing tactics that we have seen from protesters over the years.

I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who was absolutely right to refer to the plethora—the patchwork—of existing laws. The challenge I have heard about—not least from those responsible for leading policing in the capital and in my local area—is that there is often not the required specific power available as protest groups seek to change and update their tactics. I listened to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I am sure that he recalls the moves by a particular organisation to sell single square feet of space in a field adjacent to Heathrow airport, with a view to using the due process of law to frustrate the legal processes that were being gone through at the time in the context of Heathrow expansion. Although I agree entirely with the purpose, it is absolutely right that that should have been frustrated. We have seen those tactics beginning to create disruption in what should be a legal and democratic decision-making process, so introducing proposals that update the law in the light of those changes, in my view, is absolutely spot on.

Let me address new clause 11, which I intend to support in the House today. My experience has been of issues relating to the existing legislation, particularly the ability of local authorities to obtain public space protection orders or to use other provisions that are out there. It is extremely costly and often very complex and fraught with legal difficulty to follow those processes. That is why, following occasions in the House when we debate creating provisions that we expect to be used, for example, by local authorities, they are often little used in practice. We need to ensure, if we are taking seriously the issue of an unacceptable degree of harassment, that we put in place provisions that will deal with that properly and effectively.

I am very sympathetic to many of the points that have been made on the pro-life side of the argument, but I take the view that, whatever we think about the detail of the abortion debate, it is absolutely right that we ensure that all our citizens are properly protected from the harassment that may take place. There are some issues with the drafting of what has been proposed, in that we want to ensure that appropriate, lawful interventions that are helpful to people can take place. I will support the new clause, however, and I hope that the Government will perhaps in due course consider the weight of opinion that appears to be being expressed in the House and ensure that that finds its ultimate expression in a way that works to provide appropriate, lawful and proportionate protection to women in that context.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Following on from my hon. Friend’s argument, for which I have some sympathy, does he agree that perhaps there should be a buffer zone around this place? Many of us in this place are often—on a daily basis—harassed by people out there.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. There are many Members who have been subject to the very strong expression of political opinions, but what differentiates this point is that we are talking about people who go to undertake a legal, lawful medical procedure. They go to access a form of healthcare that the laws of this land, established by this Parliament, determine that they should be able to access. Although it is absolutely right that people should be able to engage in peaceful protest to make points to those of us who are engaged in the democratic process of the land—sometimes including noisy, disruptive protests—that should clearly never cross the line that existing laws establish, which would cover such things as assault and appropriate protection. However, it is absolutely clear, in my view, that we need to ensure that those who are accessing healthcare can do so without having that lawful access unduly interfered with.

Let me finish by referring to the amendments and points that have been raised on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am a member of that Committee, which spent time looking at not just this Bill, but a wide range of legislation, setting that against expectations that might be found in relation to the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights. There is always debate in the legal profession about how provisions apply, but the points that have been raised seem legitimate. I hope that in his reply the Minister will address how due process and the right to lawful protest will be appropriately balanced under the Bill.

My view as a Back-Bench Member in the governing party, having considered the Government’s arguments, is that they are proportionate and balanced. However, it is clear that many people are asking questions and want them answered. It would be helpful if some of the legal thinking behind the drafting were illuminated, particularly with respect to balancing the need to prevent undue disruption to people’s normal working and private lives with the rights of others to enjoy free speech and lawful protest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Public Order Bill reflects the Government’s duty to put the safety and interests of the law-abiding majority first. We are on their side, not the side of extremists who stick themselves to trains, glue themselves to roads, interfere with newspaper distribution, vandalise properties, disrupt the fuel supply, disrupt this Chamber, or block ambulances. The growing tendency of those with strong opinions to mix their expression with acts of violence cannot and will not be tolerated.

The most generous interpretation of the kind of characters who glue themselves to roads is that they are dangerously deluded, but in fact—much worse—many of them have the deranged notion that their ends justify any means whatever. In the eyes of the militant protesters, the everyday priorities of the hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic majority can always be disregarded in pursuit of their warped schemes.

These extremists stop people from earning a living, gaining an education or caring for a loved one in need. Ordinary people who are working, learning or caring are never deemed by the extremists as important enough to stand in the way of their plots and plans. No Government should fail in their duty to protect their citizens from such abuse, and this Government will always put the law-abiding majority first and foremost.

[Marco Longhi]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should consider the wider, cumulative impacts of protests on a local community, rather than a narrow, notional assessment, in isolation, of whether a serious disruption threshold has been reached? In other words, can we get the police to start locking them up, please?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Fundamentally, police and key partners should view the impacts of disruption cumulatively. The clock should not be reset every day and in each location; they need to look at the tactics in the round.

We need the police to act proactively, decidedly and diligently, so there are various factors that they need to include in their assessment of serious disruption. They need to consider the overall length and the time and impact on communities. They need to look at the disruption to a general area. They need to look at the police resources that have been drained by the action. They need to look holistically and actively at how they take action.

Public Order Bill (Fifth sitting)

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. I urge colleagues to read the powers in clause 6. They are very clear and broad.

When Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services consulted police on the Home Office’s proposal for a new stop-and-search power, one officer said that

“a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state.”

That was a police officer speaking. HMICFRS went on to state that it agreed with that sentiment.

As I have said already, stop and search is a useful tool. It is important in preventing crime. But it is an invasive power and can be counterproductive and undermine the legitimacy of and trust in policing if it is not used correctly. Rightly, it is designed to be used to prevent the most serious crime—knife crime, or drug dealing—and the police themselves have recognised serious concerns about disproportionality and that those who are black are much more likely to be stopped and searched than those who are white.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

A lot of the suggestions coming from the shadow Minister seem to be predicated on the basis that the police do not know what they are doing and that they are completely devoid of any sort of common sense. We all have to acknowledge that no one is perfect. The police will not be perfect, the law cannot be perfect and we are certainly not perfect. We are trying to give the police the widest possible tools that they can have to prevent the public from being disrupted to the extent we have seen so far. It is about the application of common sense and it seems to me that everything that is coming from the Opposition is about trying to stop that happening and effectively sending out a message that they are not on the side of ordinary citizens.

[Sarah Jones]

I completely disagree. I am absolutely on the side of ordinary citizens, and the evidence I am referring to comes from the police, not direct from me. I am quoting police officers who took part in the consultation back when Matt Parr did his report, and I am raising organisations’ concerns. The police have talked about the disproportionate nature of stop and search; this is not me speaking, but them. Let me quote the recent Independent Office for Police Conduct report on the matter:

“Stop and search is a legitimate policing tactic…The powers have been described as an important tool in dealing with knife crime and drugs, in particular. However, its disproportionate use against people from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic background, particularly young Black men, has been a concern for many years and it remains one of the most contentious policing powers.”

Unlike when the Minister was in the Mayor’s office—stop and search went down in every year for which the Prime Minister was Mayor of London—we are debating this against the backdrop of a significant increase in the use of stop and search. In the year ending March 2021, the use of stop and search increased by 24%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I will spend a bit of time of clauses 6 and 7 as they are the two important chunks that address suspicion-led and suspicion-less stop and search. The further stop-and-search clauses contain additional but less significant provisions.

Clause 7 addresses peaceful protest as if it were a social ill akin to knife crime, terrorism, serious organised crime or other situations in which people are stopped and searched. Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act already allows officers to stop and search those whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect possess stolen or prohibited articles. For the purposes of section 1, prohibited articles include any item that has been made or adapted to be used to cause criminal damage. That would cover most of the scenarios that the Government are worried about.

The issue is that lock-ons, which we have debated and agreed have caused significant problems, are infrequent compared with protests as a whole. There might be a very large protest of 100,000 people, with 10 people or fewer trying to do something disruptive or illegal. That does not make the entire protest illegal; it makes those protestors unlawful. Our concern about the even broader extension of the powers, and the Bill more widely, is that we are not criminalising the criminals; we risk criminalising the vast majority of the people who want to protest and have their say on the issues of the day.

I am sure Matt Parr must be pleased, because we talk about him so much in Committee. The Minister is absolutely right that he agreed that the power could be a useful tool, but he listed a lot of concern in his report about how it would be implemented:

“Current suspicion-less stop and search powers for weapons…are intended to be used by the police to combat serious violence and the carriage of ‘dangerous instruments or offensive weapons’. Using a similar suspicion-less power to target peaceful protesters, who may cause serious (but non-violent) disruption, is a significantly different proposition. Given the potential ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of assembly and expression in terms of discouraging people from attending protests where they may be stopped and searched, we would expect any new suspicion-less powers to be subject to very careful scrutiny by the courts.

Such powers could have a disproportionate impact on people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups. We have repeatedly raised concerns about the police’s disproportionate use of stop and search in previous inspection reports…If and when contemplating the use of such powers in future, forces will need to carefully consider the demographic composition of the protest groups concerned. The importance of this issue should not be underestimated.

We would wish to see appropriate legal thresholds and authority levels set for authorising the use of the power, and the use of such powers monitored in a similar way to existing stop and search powers…When a person is stopped and searched, they may make an application for a written statement that they were searched. We would also wish to see high standards of training, vigilance and caution in the use of such a power”.

It is a well-used expression, but this is using a hammer to crack a nut. We do not want all the peaceful protesters to be hammered by the legislation when they are not doing anything unlawful.

[Marco Longhi]

The hon. Lady made a point moments ago that she has the unfortunate situation of BAME members of her community being killed because of knife crime. We are ignoring an important statistic, which is the fact that very often, people who come to harm or die because of knife crime do so as a result of the knife they have brought themselves. I hear what she is saying, but the measure is about saving lives and saving people from harm. I come back to the point that we are trying to have a common-sense approach that will save lives. If that has such a chilling effect on people attending so-called protests, then I wonder whether there is a balance that we need to consider. Which is more important, the saving of lives or the potential disruption to people’s willingness or want to participate in demonstrations or protests?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think that anyone is arguing that we should not have stop-and-search powers for knife crime. Absolutely, in a lot of knife crime cases, who the victim or the perpetrator is depends on whoever happens to win the fight at the time. That is very difficult to deal with, but it is not relevant to this argument, which is about giving the police disproportionate powers to deal with a situation that they already have powers to deal with, in the meantime potentially criminalising people who would not have been, and should not be, criminalised.

The concerns about disproportionality exist for suspicion-less stop and search far more than for suspicion-led stop and search. The more ambiguity and the greater lack of evidence there is for who should be stopped, the more the disproportionality increases. This is something that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was very interested in when she was Home Secretary. She insisted that stop and search be intelligence-led, and there was an improvement on her watch in the proportion of people who were found to be carrying something illegal. I think the figure at the moment is that one in 100 stop and searches for knives under section 60 leads to the discovery of a knife. We absolutely want to find that knife, but 99 stop and searches is a lot of police time and resources, and there are other ways to gather intelligence and solve crime.

I want to stress how many organisations are concerned about the powers. We have been very lucky to have people give evidence and write to us about their concerns. Organisations believe that the powers are incompatible with article 11 of the ECHR and article 21 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, as they relate to freedom of peaceful assembly. During the debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the Lords, Lord Carlile compared the powers with the use of stop-and-search powers under the Terrorism Act. He noted that:

“The Terrorism Act stop and search power is there for the prevention of actual acts of actual terrorism which kill actual people.

The dilution of without-suspicion stop and search powers is a menacing and dangerous measure.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2022; Vol. 817, c. 1435.]

In a similar way, Liberty has noted that stop and search without suspicion has normally been used

“in the context of crimes that will potentially kill many, many people.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 75, Q145.]

Lord Carlile concluded that the power

“is disproportionate, and the Government should think twice about it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2022; Vol. 817, c. 1435.]

In its oral evidence, Amnesty noted that

“the proposal fails the test of lawfulness…the confiscation powers that go behind the stop-and-search powers around the locking-on offence capture an enormously broad range of items that an officer could argue might be capable of causing an offence. You have so many caveats that you will get into a situation where an ordinary person could have no idea why they were stopped, or why somebody might be taking an item off them that was completely lawful—everything from string to a bit of glue. It fails on that basic principle of lawfulness, which I think is incredibly problematic.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 75-76, Q145.]

The list of bodies and individuals—including HMICFRS, the College of Policing, former police chiefs and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—have highlighted issues and broad concerns about suspicion-less stop and search. I say to the Minister that a whole raft of work is being done by the NSPCC and the College of Policing, and that should be done before we try to extend such extreme powers to the police without putting in place any measures to stop the disproportionality.

I will leave it there. We have the same view on clause 7 as we did on clause 6: we do not think it is necessary or proportionate. We think that it will criminalise potentially innocent protesters and that the Government should think again.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Public Order Bill

Marco Longhi Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

In 2019, the people of this country voted for a no-nonsense Government from the Conservative party, which is and always has been the party of law and order—whatever Opposition Members think.

As I have said many a time in this place, people in Dudley North are ordinary folk working hard to make a living, and we all know that that it is increasingly hard to make such a living in the current climate. I cannot understand how the privileged and entitled few think it is acceptable to prevent our carers and nurses from getting to work to care for our sick and elderly. They think it is acceptable to block a fire appliance getting to a serious fire, burning a local business to the ground or, more tragically, preventing people inside the burning building from being saved.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he think that ordinary people wanting tough measures against those who commit crime, protest and nuisance is one of the reasons why so many people abandoned the Labour party at the last election, voting Conservative for the first time, and why we have so many Conservative MPs now representing northern and midland communities?

[Marco Longhi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is regrettable that we have not been about to do much about police officers who seem to think it quite all right to commit acts of vandalism on statues, whether we like them or not, or to dance in the street with protesters who should not be congregating because they are breaking lockdown rules. The criminal minority who commit these acts disgust me. They have no concept of the real world and no concept of the misery that they bring to those less fortunate than them. A protest is not peaceful if it blocks key roads or interferes with key infrastructure. “Peaceful” means more than a lack of decibels. New, criminal, disruptive and self-defeating tactics carried out by a selfish minority in the name of protest are causing more serious disruption to the British public, with some parts of the country grinding to a halt, and police resources diverted from the local communities where we really need them. The disruption does not stop at simply preventing us from getting from A to B; it is worsening the cost of living crisis. What is more, blocking a road forces our constituents to go miles out of their way in their cars to get around the idiots disrupting them, which not only costs an awful lot more in fuel—money that most do not have to spend—but means more fossil fuels being burned and more pollution in our environment.

We cannot trust the Opposition to stick up for hard-working people—our constituents. The shadow Justice Secretary—the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed)—and the shadow Home Secretary both publicly say that they do not believe that people should be able to cause disruption to citizens going about their daily business, yet they consistently vote against any measures in the House to deal with just that.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some good points in a great speech. He will be aware of a prolific nuisance who wanders around Whitehall with a megaphone, rambling and speaking incoherently, usually on a Wednesday. Last Wednesday, I think, he actually exposed some disturbing parts of his body to the Prime Minister as he was passing on his way to work—disgusting scenes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill should include measures to tackle that sort of nuisance behaviour?

[Marco Longhi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. In exposing himself, that individual probably made more sense than at any time when I have heard him speaking.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone in the House knows that if we want to get things done, we have to knock on doors, deliver leaflets and persuade people to vote for us, and that short-cutting that by disrupting people’s lives is not acceptable? If those people want to get things done, they need to do what all of us do: go out and earn votes and change ideas and minds.

[Marco Longhi]

My hon. Friend is quite right. If he was also referring to the individual whom we just described, I challenged that very person to come and stand against me in Dudley North. Let us see if he has the courage to do so—or is he just a big loudmouth and a coward as well?

Dudley people want to be able to go about their business without others impinging on their ordinary lives. The Bill brings together a set of common-sense approaches. It is about that no-nonsense common sense that ordinary people want this Conservative Government to deliver. I very much thank both the Home Secretary and the Minister for Crime and Policing, who is doing his best to ensure that police officers in Dudley will deliver on these measures, using the new police station that I know he is working hard to secure for the people of Dudley North.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

I was going to confine my speech to the Public Order Bill, but I will follow up on a few comments that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made. The more I listen to him, the more I think he speaks a good deal of common sense. I would like him to know that I for one, and a number of my colleagues, agree with much if not everything of what he says, and we have a steely resolve to make sure that we are one United Kingdom. That is what we voted for when we voted for Brexit.

My daughters, for some unfathomable reason, sometimes describe me as a grumpy old man. I really do not know why. However, there are a few things that can make me a little bit miserable, and one thing that has really grated on me in recent years is the minority of protesters who have pretty much used guerrilla warfare to disrupt the everyday lives of the vast majority of our constituents—not just mine, but everybody’s.

The good people of Dudley North are ordinary folk, working hard to make a living, a living that is increasingly harder to make in the current climate. I cannot fathom how the privileged and entitled few think it is acceptable to stop our carers and nurses from being able to get to work to care for our sick and elderly, or to blockade a fire appliance from getting to a serious fire burning a local business to the ground—or, more tragically, perhaps preventing people inside the burning building from being saved. Of course, that applies to any blue light service, not just the fire service. That minority of criminals truly disgust me. They have no concept of the real world out there. They have no concept of the misery they bring to those less fortunate than themselves.

I hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and those on the Front Benches will join me in making working here more bearable for our staff, myself and my colleagues. I will not dignify his existence by tarnishing Hansard with his name, but there is a noisy man outside who dresses up as a clown and harasses and chases Members of Parliament and our staff from his little camp on the crossing island on Parliament Street. He is someone else who serves no public benefit whatsoever.

[Lee Anderson]

I know the character my hon. Friend alludes to, and I have witnessed some ferocious verbal attacks on my hon. Friend from that character, who patrols Whitehall like a public nuisance. May I suggest telling him that, if he is interested in changing things in this country, he should come to Dudley North and stand against my hon. Friend at the next general election?

[Marco Longhi]

In fact, that invitation has already been made. I am going to print off a set of nomination papers, but I wonder about the 10 people this person might need for the form to be valid.

My staff cannot hear distressed constituents on the phone through the awful racket he causes. All our staff who have offices in 1 Parliament Street suffer considerable stress and anxiety from the disruption he causes to their, and our, work. I doubt that staff in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the buildings opposite, would say anything different—[Interruption.] Is someone wanting to intervene? I do not know. I heard some noises. It is like a Hoover—an irritating thing in the background. I do not know what it is.

This person needs to have his loudspeaker system confiscated and to be moved on. Personally, I would like to see him locked up in the Tower with a loudspeaker playing “Land of Hope and Glory” on repeat at maximum volume. The Met Police really should deal with him. He is causing misery to hundreds of staff, he is intimidating many—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

No, he’s not!

[Marco Longhi]

I think someone wants to intervene, Mr Deputy Speaker. This person intimidates many who are passing by, going about our business and representing our constituents—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

No, he doesn’t!

[Marco Longhi]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Member clearly does not know how Parliament works, but we often make sounds across the Chamber when we disagree with someone, and I disagree with him. I am happy to swap offices: I will take his office and he can have my office. Then there will be no problem and we will not need to shut down free speech either. Win-win!

[Marco Longhi]

I am actually very comfortable for the hon. Member to come to Dudley North and make those very arguments, because he would be out of office completely. Please do come and make those very arguments. I am not going to allow this kind of behaviour from someone outside, who is a public nuisance, to force us to have to make changes for him.

Our police, whether in Dudley, the Met or elsewhere, need the tools to better manage and tackle the dangerous and highly disruptive tactics used by a small minority of selfish protesters to wreak havoc on people going about their daily lives. Our police already have enough to be doing without the unnecessary burden of a privileged few who seek to rinse taxpayers’ money.

It will come as no surprise that I wholeheartedly support the Public Order Bill. If that disruptive minority want to glue themselves to anything, maybe the Bill should make it easier for them to have their backsides glued to a tiny cell at Her Majesty’s pleasure. They would be most welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I certainly agree with that point. In fact, as the Minister knows, there has been a big shift away from things such as car and telephone theft. Many people are now finding that their identities are being stolen and fraud is taking place as a result of computer crime, which is a big problem. We certainly see problems in cyber-space in terms of defence. I am pleased that the cyber-security centre is coming to Lancashire and hopes to do a great deal in that area. I am still quite bemused by the size of the resources being committed to police forces up and down the country to tackle this sort of thing, and the lack of wherewithal for Companies House to try to tackle fraud with businesses. I have had a number of cases of online fraud in my own constituency, about which I have written to the Government.

With the Online Safety Bill having been carried over into this Session, we have seen how delay has allowed disinformation to spread like wildfire online, particularly during Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, which obviously speaks to the point I have just made about cyber-crime and cyber-security. We want to see more effort on scams included in the scope of that legislation, to which I know the Labour party is committed.

The data reform Bill will reform the way data is handled in the UK after Brexit. The Government have said that the changes will help to increase the competitiveness of UK businesses and boost the economy, but reinventing the wheel by finding an alternative to the general data protection regulation just so the Government can claim freedom from so-called EU red tape is a waste of time. It is posturing really, and just creating new standards for data security is not going to solve any problems.

On the question of security itself, with the current state of affairs internationally, I think the Government need to be reminded of how critical national security is. We welcome the National Security Bill, and we want to limit state threats activity in the UK. As has been witnessed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and in state-backed interference in the UK before that, there are changing threats to the UK, and legislation on foreign interference must keep pace with the reality on the ground. We want better security and we support the National Security Bill, but we want this situation to be transformed quickly, with the cyber centre I have mentioned being constructed and the experts in there as soon as possible.

On the Public Order Bill, this should really be about tackling injustice. However, it is not about tackling injustice; it is about restricting further rights to protest in a legitimate way. There are extreme cases, as we saw here when people glued themselves to the glass in the Gallery overlooking the Chamber, but laws exist at the moment to deal with that sort of thing. The normal activity of demonstrations is something that, as a free country, we have come to expect, and if the Government are too heavy-handed on this, Bill will do a great deal more to cause problems by not allowing people to protest freely.

There is talk about an energy security Bill and how it will build on the success of last year’s COP26 environment summit in Glasgow, with a pledge to build up to eight nuclear power stations and to increase wind and solar energy production in the UK. Again, I, as a Labour Member, and my party will support an energy security Bill. In particular, an increase in the provision of nuclear power is a no-brainer to me. Over the last 20 years—I do stress the last 20 years, and I would include the Labour Government as well—what we have seen in this country is a lot of talk about nuclear without much being done. I certainly welcome the consideration given to small modular reactors, which will provide very efficient nuclear power from engines that were originally designed to power nuclear submarines rather than provide power to the public. There is potential for great developments to see us move towards a carbon-free future, and not only in this country, but for exports abroad. In the area of my constituency, we have Springfields—formerly British Nuclear Fuels, but now part of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation—which is a world leader in producing nuclear fuels. I think the 1,000-plus people who work at Springfields can look forward to extra work if this Government and any future Labour Government are committed to delivering on the ground, instead of just the talk we have had over the last 20 years.

[Marco Longhi]

On the very point of small modular reactors, does the hon. Member recognise that the Government have invested some £220 million at Rolls-Royce? It is not just talk, as he asserts.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

Yes, and Mike Tynan, formerly of Westinghouse, who is a good friend of mine—he still lives near Preston—has been involved through the Advanced Manufacturing Centre in Sheffield and done a great deal of work in the area. After 12 years, I am glad that the Government finally see the benefit of that for the future, but it has taken the instability of the wholesale energy markets to bring that about. I would have liked to have seen it much earlier in this Government’s tenure or within Labour’s tenure. It should not take a war for us to move in that direction.

On energy security, I am concerned about restarting the debate about fracking. In Lancashire, we had an experimental phase of fracking, and I was quite agnostic about it when the coalition were in government and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), was the Energy Minister, but I am not now, because in moving from experimentation towards production we saw tremors measuring seven or eight on the Richter scale. At the time, we were told that any tremors above two or three on the scale would be dangerous and assured that the Government would look at whether work should continue, but now the Secretary of State is starting to look again at fracking. He argues that the wholesale energy market has brought that on, but the decision to put a moratorium on fracking had nothing to do with that; it was about safety in production. It was never a consideration to lift the moratorium because of energy prices. It is a desperate attempt to bring that dangerous business to certain communities—in the north of England in particular—when it is not warranted on safety grounds or, for that matter, on energy grounds. Nuclear can provide the extra energy that we need, so I support the Government in what they are trying to do on nuclear, but they are making a mistake if they think that they can revisit fracking. Labour welcomes steps for a low-carbon economy and the commitment to nuclear, and the impact that that will have on our energy independence.

Today’s debate is also about justice and, when we discuss the delivery of justice, it would be remiss of us not to mention food injustice, which we see in this country at the moment. Justice is not just about what is happening in the courts; it is also about fairness and what is happening in society. I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and one of the co-operative movement’s founding principles is tackling hunger and food insecurity, which is critical in the face of a cost of living crisis. In one of the richest countries on earth, no one should go hungry.

Millions of people are affected by the cost of living, and in the UK 2 million people—mainly adults—have had a day when they went entirely without eating food. In this day and age, we should not accept that. We want a fair food Act that enshrines a commitment to zero hunger by 2030—a sustainable development goal that should be put into UK law—and a comprehensive national food strategy, but those were not included in the Queen’s Speech. If we were really concerned about justice, people’s ability to eat should be a priority, but the Government have not really considered that. It should have been in the Queen’s Speech. We are also aware that as many as 16 million people may be in poverty by 2023, which is less than a year away, and, according to the Resolution Foundation, 1.3 million are currently suffering in extreme poverty.

While not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, it is no secret that the Government are preparing new draft legislation to unilaterally scrap key parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, including chucking away checks on goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, stripping away powers of the European Court of Justice and eliminating all requirements for Northern Irish businesses to follow EU regulations. That all comes from a Government and Prime Minister who negotiated and agreed to the protocol. In September 2020, the Government were prepared to break international law in

“a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

when it came to the protocol, before backing down. Yet here we are again as global Britain, issuing thinly veiled threats to Brussels under the guise of protecting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, all the while jeopardising relationships with Dublin, Brussels and Washington, and any credibility we would otherwise have with international trade partners.

The Government are currently trumpeting the Australia and New Zealand trade deal, mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, which they are looking to put through the House. The degree of trade we have lost as a result of the shenanigans over Brexit and what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment is phenomenal. No amount of trade deals we are likely to do over the next five years will replace that loss. That is not what Brexit should have been about, according to the Government’s own declarations in the run-up to the referendum.

The Prime Minister said that the Brexit freedoms Bill, mentioned yesterday, would allow the UK to

“get on with growing our economy by making the most of our Brexit freedoms”.

by liberating the economy in the wake of the UK’s departure from the EU. Yet by overturning the protocol, the UK risks the possibility of trade retaliation during a cost of living crisis, which is a perfect storm in terms of the livelihoods of people in this country and the businesses that support those livelihoods. We are just now beginning to see the fallout from Brexit. We would have seen the fallout earlier but for covid, and now the effects of covid are being masked by increases in energy prices as a result of the Ukraine war. The cost of living crisis has several factors, which I have just mentioned. The Government are returning to the 2019 playbook of using the EU as a bogeyman following last week’s dismal election results, but people know the ruse and are tired of being taken for fools when it comes to Brexit and its so-called benefits.

The country cannot continue like this, with a cost of living crisis and the Government sleepwalking with a threadbare Queen’s Speech that will do little or nothing to improve the livelihoods and living standards of the people of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Gentleman clearly did not pay much attention to the statement last week and the responses given. The British people deserve to know what his alternative is. I would politely suggest there is none.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary, the Minister and all her team for bringing about the so-called Rwanda plan. I know the whole of Dudley is behind her, as is the rest of the country—unlike the Labour party, which has no plan. I ask the Home Secretary and her team to continue with the same steely resolve that I know she must have applied to get here as they move on to delivery and implementation.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the policies we are bringing forward. He recognises the gravity and importance of the issues we are dealing with. We will not rest while people continue to put their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs, whose only concern is to take a profit from those individuals. They do not care whether people get here safely. That has to stop, we have a plan to stop it and we are going to get on and deliver it.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

It is fair to say that that proposal of using juxtaposed controls to effectively process asylum seekers is not something that the British Government or the French Government would entertain. That is why we have wide-scale end-to-end reform in the new plan for immigration.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that unlike Opposition Members who would have completely open borders, Government Members will, with determination, sort out the problem of illegal immigration? Given that there are so many persecuted people in Calais, does she agree that perhaps we should ask the United Nations to investigate what is happening in that country?

[Priti Patel]

That is a telling comment. Of course, it would not be the United Nations in France; it is actually the role of the European Commission. Speaking to my counterparts across EU member states, they are somewhat exasperated right now about the lack of leadership on the issue, which is why member states are engaging with us directly. We are looking at a whole-of-route approach. I should say that we are also working with the National Crime Agency and with other countries upstream to look at how we can find some long-term solutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marco Longhi Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will write to the hon. and learned Lady and tell her what the overall position is across Government.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the single most important step any sovereign nation can take in protecting its own borders against illegal immigration is offshore processing?

[Tom Pursglove]

It is fair to say that, through the Nationality and Borders Bill, we are putting in place a comprehensive package of measures to deal with this issue. Central to that work is the issue of offshore processing, and we reserve the position to do exactly that.