Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill

Maria Miller Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

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

This is an important moment for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Bill enables the Government to recognise both organisations individually as international organisations, conferring on them the legal capacities of a body corporate as well as specific privileges and immunities. While the Bill may be only halfway through its scrutiny process, as it will move on to the other place, today feels like a significant milestone. I underline that, at all stages, the Bill has received not only cross-party support, for which I am enormously grateful, but support from my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. I thank each and every Member for their contributions to the Bill throughout its consideration.

I want to mention individually those who have been particularly supportive of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) must come at the start of that list, because he chairs the international executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. My immense appreciation goes to the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Mr Stephen Twigg, whose passion and support for the Bill and for getting the change in status for the CPA has been clear throughout. My thanks go to all the hard-working and inspirational staff of CPA UK—including our new chief executive, Sarah Dickson, Helen Haywood, the deputy chief executive, and their teams—for their unwavering passion and commitment to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and continued support. Without them, this achievement would not have been possible. And I cannot forget Mr Jon Davies, Sarah’s predecessor, who I thank from the bottom of my heart for all his contributions while in office.

I thank the formidable team at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth, and the Deputy Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not on the Front Bench today—he is detained elsewhere—but has been ably replaced by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). Throughout, those Ministers have understood why the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association status needs to change, why this is an important Bill and why the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is essential in supporting the strengthening of democracy around the world. I thank them all and their teams of officials.

At this stage of proceedings, it is also important to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Clerks of the House, and to thank them. Their guidance and recognition of the Bill’s importance, combined with the support from the Government, have helped get the Bill to where it is today. In particular, I say a huge thank you to Ms Anne-Marie Griffiths, the Clerk who has been advising us, for her assistance in getting the Bill to this stage. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, for thanking you, too. You have a very special place in the heart of the CPA, as does the Lord Speaker. You are our joint presidents, and in your work, you support us enormously.

Two organisations are supported by this Bill. I thank the International Committee of the Red Cross for its incredibly important work and for supporting me in the preparation of the Bill. I know how much time and consideration its London delegation has put in, and Eve La Haye in the ICRC legal team in Geneva has also been heavily involved. I thank all of them.

The unique international humanitarian mandate and mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross has been formally recognised by states in the Geneva convention and additional protocols. The Bill will accord it a status or treatment in the UK equivalent to that of an international organisation, with the relevant privileges and immunities. To date, more than 110 states have accorded the ICRC those relevant privileges and immunities, including all other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The content of the Bill, and the conferral of relevant privileges and immunity to the ICRC in the UK, is critical to enabling it to continue to operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and its working method of confidentiality.

For more than two years, there has been intense work to get to this stage—it has been described as a labour of love. None of it could have been accomplished without the esteemed individuals and organisations that I mentioned. The perseverance from everyone is starting to be rewarded now, but there is much more to do. I welcome the fact that the Bill and the amendments debated and agreed to in Committee have received cross-party support, again demonstrating the high regard and esteem in which both the CPA and ICRC are held not only in this place but throughout the country and internationally.

Members of a number of overseas Parliaments in particular have reiterated how important the Bill is. We have listened and learned and gone forward with this historic legislation, which is now well on its way to putting in place such a fundamental change.

The Bill is integral to the CPA and the ICRC, as it provides the necessary powers for both organisations to be treated in a manner comparable with an international organisation, of which the United Kingdom, or His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, are a member. Each organisation has its own role and constitutional arrangements. That had to be—and is— reflected in the Bill. Under certain clauses, secondary legislation can put in place the privileges and immunities that each organisation will need.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association element of the Bill will be widely and warmly welcomed by our fellow parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth. I recall that on my recent visit to Kenya, the Speaker of that Parliament reminded me how vital it is to the African region of the CPA to achieve this new status for the organisation. Parliamentarians from Africa have long championed the need for this legislation and made the point that they want to continue to be part of the CPA because of the important work that it does, but they increasingly struggle to justify spending their taxpayers’ money with the CPA configured as a UK charity: a status that I believe we have long outgrown. Concerns about the CPA’s status date back more than three decades. If that can now be resolved, I believe that will serve to strengthen and renew the CPA’s mission, unity and sense of purpose.

I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Ghana last October, where I saw once again the strength of feeling across the CPA membership about the status of our organisation. Mr Speaker, last month you hosted Speakers and Presiding Officers from the Commonwealth in London for Commonwealth day, where you ensured that they were briefed about the progress that we are making on the Bill. The response was extremely warm and positive: a collective sigh of relief that this issue might be reaching a solution.

I am mindful, however, that the Bill will need to pass through the other place to become an Act, so may I say once again that, without this legislation, there is a strong possibility that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association would relocate its headquarters outside the UK? By enacting the Bill, the UK can not only keep the CPA here but demonstrate our commitment to the Commonwealth itself in this, its 75th year.

I am delighted that key amendments were passed in Committee, the first of which recognises the unique and sensitive role of the ICRC, including visiting prisoners all around the world to help ensure their safety. It allows for protected ICRC information to be exempt from disclosure requirements imposed by an order of court or tribunal proceedings, other than criminal proceedings. The amendment is designed to protect information that the ICRC provides in confidence to His Majesty’s Government from being used in UK civil proceedings. That is necessary, as the withholding of confidential information from public disclosure cannot otherwise be assured. That reflects the ICRC’s standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect not only its staff but its operations in active conflict zones. That principle also underpins the ICRC’s ability to operate in dangerous locations on sensitive issues, engaging with both state and non-state actors. Disclosure of confidential ICRC information could damage its ability to perform its sensitive functions when negotiating with conflict parties, and it could put its staff and operations at risk. There is a real risk and concern about ICRC information being used in legal proceedings—over the past 15 years, the ICRC’s confidentiality has been challenged some 20 times in the UK.

I tabled in Committee a probing amendment on the involvement of individuals in drawing up secondary legislation. I did not press it to a vote, and I thank the Minister in Committee, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), for his extremely reassuring response to the debate on it. The amendment sought to lay down a formal requirement on the Foreign Secretary to consult the chair of the UK branch and secretary-general of the CPA, and the president and director general of the ICRC, respectively, before finalising secondary legislation.

The Minister was able to confirm that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will consult all those parties ahead of secondary legislation being laid before the House, and will work closely with them to agree arrangements for the appropriate privileges and immunities for each organisation separately. That ensures that the Bill works exactly in the way that the relevant organisations need it to, and that the right individuals are consulted before secondary legislation is laid before the House and implemented.

The Bill demonstrates that the House of Commons values the Commonwealth, values the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, respects the importance of the ICRC and recognises that these organisations need to be recognised as international organisations. I thank colleagues for their support, and I wish my Bill well as it continues its journey to the other place, taken forward ably by my noble Friend Baroness D’Souza.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank Dame Maria Miller for everything she has done to ensure a solid future for the CPA. It is much welcomed and appreciated by all sides of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

Absolutely. I will not spare my right hon. Friend’s blushes: she is not only a brilliant parliamentarian, but she supports newer Members of Parliament, and I have been the beneficiary of her advice.

I have been the supporter of the incredible work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for many years, and this Bill will cement in law the difference it has made across our beloved Commonwealth over the past 76 years. I also welcome the Bill as it recognises the work the ICRC does to support regions in crisis. From Australia to Anguilla, from Botswana to the British Virgin Islands, the CPA is crucial in keeping all parliamentarians connected across the globe, sharing good practice, helping us to learn from each other and fostering friendly, positive and long-lasting friendships across the 180 Parliaments and legislatures that make up the Commonwealth family.

[Dame Maria Miller]

As my hon. Friend was making her remarks about how we learn from other Parliaments, I recalled sitting in the New Zealand Parliament for questions one morning, where the Speaker took an interesting role. If the Speaker was not satisfied with an answer the Minister gave, he asked for the question to be answered again. Does she think we should considering doing that here as well?

[Mr Speaker]

I can always do that if you want! [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure those on the Front Bench would be delighted to comment on it in their speeches.

The ICRC is an essential partner for achieving the three core objectives of the UK’s humanitarian framework, which are:

“Prioritise humanitarian assistance to people in greatest need and provide them with what they need the most to recover from crises; Protect the people most at risk, including from conflict-related sexual violence and barriers to humanitarian assistance; Prevent and anticipate future shocks and build resilience in long-running crises by tackling the underlying drivers of crises, instability, and extreme food insecurity”.

Nobody could ever argue with any of that.

The ICRC is much respected, not only in this country, but abroad. It carries with it an unparalleled ability to engage with all parties engaged in a conflict and it supports innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire. The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend in Committee are crucial to the successful operation of the ICRC. Amendments 1 and 2 are designed to protect information that the ICRC provides in confidence to the Government from being used in UK civil court proceedings. ICRC information being used in legal proceedings is a real risk and concern. I was surprised to learn that in the past 15 years the ICRC’s confidentiality has been challenged some 20 times in the UK, be it in respect of disclosing information regarding its work with British forces abroad or of its dialogue with a variety of actors on the global stage.

Today, I will be focusing my comments on the CPA, as I have been fortunate to work closely with it during my time in this place.

[Dame Maria Miller]

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the ICRC, let me take the opportunity again to highlight the importance of the amendments introduced in Committee. She reiterated the number of times the ICRC has been threatened with having to divulge very confidential information. Does she, like me, hope that that is taken into consideration when the Bill goes to the other place? Obviously, providing that confidentiality and the need not to divulge such information except in criminal cases is an important step. Does she agree that we need to make sure those provisions are in place for civil cases as soon as possible? I hope that no debate in the Lords will delay their coming into effect.

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention; she makes a serious point. If organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross are to succeed in their objectives, they have to be trusted in the regions and countries they serve. They have to deal with people who we may not wish to deal with ourselves to bring an end to conflicts, or even to safeguard civilians’ lives and prevent sexual violence in conflict. I hope the other place, which tends to be clear when scrutinising Bills, will see her point and will accept those amendments and not change the Bill.

As I said, I would like to move on and concentrate my remarks on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association because of the work that I have been delighted to undertake with that brilliant organisation. As a one-term MP—I can confirm that I will be a one-term MP, because I am standing down at the next election—and as the MP for Cities of London and Westminster at this point, I have been proud to support the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In fact, only this week I was honoured to speak to a delegation from the Malaysian Parliament, including His Excellency Johari Abdul, Speaker of the House of Representatives, as well as members of the House of Representatives’ special Select Committees and several parliamentary officials. It was fascinating as usual to learn how similar our parliamentary procedures are, such as timetabling, where our model very much mirrors theirs. That is barring the Malaysian Parliament’s provision in the procedures—you may be interested to learn this, Mr Speaker—for the Head of State to make a statement every morning. It could be interesting to introduce that practice here in the Commons. I am not sure whether His Majesty would like to come every day to make a speech. I personally—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I completely agree. Although this is the mother of all Parliaments—it has been here for a thousand years or more—we really should be able to learn from others.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My other hon. Friend, the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), is right to point out the need for us to explain the benefit of the CPA, because much of our day-to-day work as Members is connected to the grassroots of what we do in our constituencies, but the role of a parliamentarian is so much greater than that. I will give an example. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was talking about her meetings with the Malaysian Parliament earlier this week. I had the great pleasure of meeting the hon. Rodiyah binti Sapiee, who is a Member of the Malaysian Parliament and is a new regional representative for the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians network. We have not touched upon that organisation much in this debate so far, but it is there to support elected Members, very much in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn spoke about—supporting new Members to do their jobs as well as they can, and hopefully retaining them work in Parliament for longer. The Malaysian Parliament has 28 female Members, just 13.5% of their parliamentarians, and we discussed ways to increase the number of women parliamentarians. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can learn from each other about these questions in our Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth because we have such similar set-ups?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am being very generous in allowing the scope to be broadened somewhat. I now look forward to hearing more from Nickie Aiken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I just reiterate that I support the points my hon. Friend has just made, because it is important that we make sure that the CPA is a force for good.

In the Cities of London and Westminster, the Commonwealth is right at home. We are fortunate to host the international headquarters of the Commonwealth secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation in Marlborough House, and of course the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the United Kingdom operates from here in the mother of all Parliaments.

[Dame Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to bring up the importance of the international secretariat being here right in the heart of Westminster, and that has enabled us to work with it as CPA UK and as the UK Parliament. Around International Women’s Day, for example, we worked with it to deal with online abuse, which has just been raised. We set up—as we can now with the advent of the widespread use of Teams and other facilities for online meetings—online training for women parliamentarians across the Commonwealth. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just one example of how we can work as a team with the CPA, and how having it so close to us here in Parliament helps us effectively support its work in this way?

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree. That goes to the heart of the Bill—the status of the CPA and whether we can consolidate it. We are just across the road from the Foreign Office, and this is about working together for the soft power element that the Government are focused on.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association works, as many here will know, to promote parliamentary democracy and good governance. It is completely non-partisan. I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting and getting to know parliamentarians from a wide range of countries and political parties. Back in March last year, I was fortunate enough to be invited to be a member of the CPA UK delegation to the stunning island of Grenada in the Caribbean, where I was honoured to meet Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell. That was my first trip for the CPA, and what a fascinating one it was. I pay tribute to the CPA officer, Martin Vickery, who was outstanding on the trip, and I know that the Clerk at the Table, who was also there, will always remember it. It was my first experience of the CPA in action.

Grenada had had the same Government and Prime Minister for 22 of the previous 27 years, but Dickon Mitchell defeated the incumbent, Keith Mitchell, who was seeking his sixth term, in the 2022 elections. I wonder whether a Prime Minister had ever before succeeded another with the same surname. The incumbent New National party had had all 15 seats in the Grenadian Parliament, but after the 2022 election, it was suddenly in opposition, as Dickon Mitchell’s National Democratic Congress took nine of the available seats. The election brought about certain new challenges for the Parliament of Grenada, for the National Democratic Congress, which had no experience in government, and for the New National party, which had not been in opposition for decades.

That goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) about having new and young parliamentarians. None of the MPs elected for the National Democratic Congress had ever been elected or even been in politics before —the Prime Minister, Dickon Mitchell, had been a solicitor—so it was fascinating for the CPA UK to be invited over to undertake a series of workshops on how to be scrutinised, and, equally importantly, on how to scrutinise.

I was joined on the trip by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who was then a member of the Scottish National party at the time but has since defected to the Conservative party—although I would not take any credit for persuading her on the trip that she was a Conservative. In Grenada, I also worked very closely with Leo Cato, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Grenada, and with Dessima Williams, the President of the Senate of Grenada.

Dessima Williams is a former communist who was very much part of the revolution in Grenada in the early ’80s. We—two women politicians from completely different sides of the political divide—bonded so incredibly well, and that underlines how important it is that the Bill secures the CPA’s status. Ms Williams said to me as I left, “Only the CPA could bring a communist and a conservative together.” I think that is a clear example of how parliamentarians, no matter their political persuasions, can put their political parties aside and work together for the greater good. That is the extraordinary power that the CPA provides.

During my trip, I also met women’s rights campaigners, people working to improve disability rights and services and, very importantly, the Youth Parliament and climate change campaigners. This goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said earlier. We met the Youth Parliament, and they were outstanding young people who want to make a difference for their country. As a women’s rights campaigner, I found it fascinating to talk to other campaigners who are working very hard to tackle violence against women and girls. Our trip coincided with International Women’s Day, and I was privileged to be invited to make a speech at the Prime Minister’s event to over 100 Grenadian schoolgirls—although, I did not expect it to be aired live on Grenadian TV, which was an experience.

I was then delighted to welcome Speaker Cato and the President of the Senate, Dr Williams, to my constituency only a few weeks ago during the 75th anniversary of the Commonwealth of Nations celebrations, which were presided over by Mr Speaker. My brilliant constituency team thoroughly enjoyed discussing with them the day-to-day work of an MP’s office, and heard how this differed from their experiences in some way but also mirrored them in others. We were also joined by Chantelle de Jonge, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, in Canada. That is a clear example of how the CPA brings parliamentarians from across different countries together.

[Dame Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is talking eloquently and with a great deal of passion about her visit to Grenada. Her visit was just one of a number of different delegations that the CPA UK sends out, thanks to the financial support of this place and the other place, to ensure that Members of Parliament can carry out the work and relationship development she mentions. Does she agree that it is very important that Parliament continues to reiterate its support for CPA UK, given the good store that Members of Parliament set by it? They feel very strongly about the work of the CPA; it is a real priority for parliamentarians. The CPA must therefore continue to be a financial priority for Parliament.

[Nickie Aiken]

I completely agree, which is why I am fully supportive of the objectives of the Bill.

I also agreed with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) when she said in Committee that

“this Bill creates equal partners in the Commonwealth, rather than the more outdated model where the UK takes the leadership”.––[Official Report, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2024; c. 6.]

The Bill provides the necessary delegated legislation-making powers for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross to be treated in a manner comparable to an international organisation of which the UK is a member. Due to the powers under the International Development Act 2002 and the International Organisations Act 1968, which is even older than I am, the Government have not been able to treat the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the International Committee of the Red Cross as international organisations to which they are party, because neither organisation is an intergovernmental organisation. Instead, both have their own unique constitutional arrangements, reflecting their specific international priorities.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to establish special powers to enable the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross to operate in the United Kingdom. It is welcome that the Bill is supported by parties from across the House. It will provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with more protections for its work. The Bill will ensure that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association can continue to strengthen democracy and encourage cross-party work. I look forward to supporting the Bill through its stages and once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke on her outstanding work to get us where we are today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), whose dedication and commitment to this matter has been a labour of love over the past two years, and the reason we are all here today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), whose work on the CPA, both here in the UK and internationally, has been critical in helping us get to where we are now. I thank the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for their support and for their eloquent speeches today.

The CPA is a highly valued organisation. Many of us on both sides of the House have benefited from its work and will continue to do so for years to come, so I am pleased to support the Bill today on behalf of the Opposition. It could not be better timed: we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Commonwealth earlier this month, with a two-day conference here in Westminster hosted by Mr Speaker. I thank him for doing so, and for his work in pulling the issues together and ensuring that they remain prominent.

The Commonwealth has grown from a group of eight countries in 1949 to a diverse body of 56 nations, with a population of 2.5 billion today. Its members range from large, developed countries to those that are emerging and developing, including some of the smallest nations on earth. I was recently fortunate enough to travel with a CPA delegation to Belize, and it was great to be there as part of my brief in the shadow Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office team, meeting Members of its Parliament and learning how it works, and meeting officials, committee members, members of the Belize Government and the Speaker. The visit allowed us to build critical relationships and an understanding of the challenges that the country faces. As we have heard from other Members on both sides of the House, these relationships are crucial throughout the Commonwealth, and I think we can all agree that today we should celebrate it for the modern institution that it is—one of which we can be proud.

I also want to put on the record that Labour is keen to ensure that the CPA headquarters stay right here in Westminster, in London, as the Bill intends. Labour is very proud of the CPA’s ongoing role in bringing together and liaising between the Parliaments in the Commonwealth family from the very building that inspired the way in which most of the Commonwealth is governed today. It is important for the CPA to be granted privileges and immunities similar to those enjoyed by comparable organisations such as the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning. That enhanced status will strengthen the influence of Commonwealth parliamentarians and give the CPA a more authoritative presence internationally, and I know that Parliaments and parliamentarians across the Commonwealth will welcome it, because it will have a positive impact on the wider Commonwealth and help to maintain unity and stability in times when the international order, parliamentary democracy and human rights face huge and serious challenges.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has touched on the importance of the privileges and immunities afforded by the Bill, not only to the CPA but to the ICRC. Does she agree that it is important that the Government have given undertakings that those immunities, when they are set out in secondary legislation, will be discussed in detail beforehand with the necessary parties in both organisations to ensure that the Bill works in the way that is intended?

[Anna McMorrin]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady, and I will ask that of the Government. I thank her for pointing it out.

I am pleased that the Bill seeks to grant the CPA a bespoke legal status, like that enjoyed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Swiss law and by the Assemblée Parlementaire de la Francophonie, our French equivalent, in French law. Holding a legal status akin to our parliamentary strengthening counterparts should enhance the organisation’s standing. If the CPA is not granted this legal status, there is a real risk of inter-parliamentary division and fragmentation, which could have broader ramifications for the unity of the Commonwealth.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is a neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian organisation, mandated by the international community to protect and assist victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. The ICRC has been granted privileges and immunities by 109 states, and the UK is not one of them. That absence has resulted in significant operational challenges, and the granting of privileges and immunities has become a matter of urgency. Obtaining privileges and immunities in the UK would facilitate the ICRC’s operational capacity to fulfil its mandate and manage its resources in a manner most beneficial to all affected and impacted people. It would also protect the ICRC’s ability to act as, and to be perceived as, a neutral, independent and impartial humanitarian actor, and it would protect the confidential nature of the ICRC’s work.

It is essential that the ICRC remains neutral and independent, as it is only through strict adherence to these principles that it can obtain the trust of parties to and victims of armed conflicts, as well as actors in other situations of violence. This trust is crucial in securing humanitarian access to some of the most contested conflict zones.

This Bill goes a long way in addressing the above and provides the means for the ICRC to obtain only the privileges and immunities strictly necessary for its functioning. This includes immunity from legal processes for the ICRC and its staff, the inviolability of its property, and the protection of confidential ICRC information held by the UK Government from disclosure in legal proceedings.

I ask the Minister to reaffirm his assurances in Committee that the required secondary legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible. Will he commit to consulting both the ICRC and the CPA ahead of that secondary legislation, to ensure the appropriate privileges and immunities for each organisation?

I am pleased to support this Bill on behalf of the Opposition, and I commend the work that has gone into it right across the House, and particularly from the right hon. Member for Basingstoke. If we fail to get this right, it would deal a real blow to the role of this House and the Government on the world stage. It would be seen as a symbol of our lack of commitment, and it would damage the potential of the CPA, a growing and unique global organisation, at a time when we should be redoubling our efforts to engage with our Commonwealth partners and seeking to expand the Commonwealth. I am confident there is a will on all sides to ensure that the Bill succeeds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I often say when I am talking to schools or more broadly in my constituency—I suspect he does so in his—that if our electorate want to see the House at its best, they should watch the Chamber on a sitting Friday when we are debating private Member’ Bills: there is often much cross-party co-operation and enlightening debate. One goes away not only having hopefully moved things forward and achieved something, but having learned something.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I have a couple of other points to make. I turn briefly to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) about, I think, the Canadian Parliament—

[Dame Maria Miller]

New Zealand.

[Edward Argar]

I am sorry; the New Zealand Parliament, which gave the power to the Speaker or the Chair that if a Minister had not been deemed by the Chair to have given a sufficiently accurate or appropriate answer to a question, they could have the question re-put to the Minister. I gently say to my right hon. Friend that while that is an interesting suggestion, it would be entirely redundant in this place, given how Ministers always answer directly the question posed to them as fully and helpfully as they can.

The other reason it is a genuine pleasure to be here is that the Bill has been brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) highlighted that she had been forcefully pushing this issue to a conclusion. I must say that, having had the pleasure of working with her on various amendments to legislation in the past, I have always found it wise to agree with her. I am therefore pleased to confirm the Government’s support for the Bill. It is wise to agree with her, not least because generally she is right in the points she is making, as I know from experience. So it is a genuine pleasure to speak on her Bill on this occasion. I recognise in doing so her work as chair of the CPA as well as her work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the huge value that that adds.

This is a hugely important Bill, reflecting on two important organisations. In what can appear to be a fractured and increasingly dangerous world, it is important that we remember and reinforce the role of democracy as a bulwark against authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and indeed the conflicts that can often flow from those.

In respect of the CPA, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) set out clearly the importance of its work to promote parliamentary democracy and good government through a range of activities and in a range of forums. It is open and wide-ranging in its promotion of democracy within the Commonwealth context. It is non-partisan and non-prescriptive. It does a huge amount of work to capture the best of parliamentary democracy across the Commonwealth, propagate it and reinforce it.

It is also important, as the shadow Minister did, to recognise the importance of the Commonwealth in that context. She rightly highlighted its 75th anniversary. It is an institution of enduring success and enduring value. We can genuinely characterise it as the Commonwealth family of nations, because we do view all the other members of the Commonwealth as family, as I hope they would view us.

The ICRC was founded 160 years ago. It is

“an impartial, neutral and independent organisation whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.”

That is from the ICRC mandate. Its unique international humanitarian mandate and mission have been formally recognised, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North highlighted, by states in the Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. This organisation has unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and has unparalleled access to vulnerable groups in conflict situations. It is frequently the only agency operating at scale in many conflicts. As we look around the world at the conflicts raging, its work has never been more important.

It is a pleasure to confirm the Government’s full support for the Bill and to thank those Members who have contributed today. As set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, the Bill will enable the Government to treat the CPA and ICRC in a manner genuinely comparable to that of an international organisation of which the UK or His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom are a member.

The UK has, as I have highlighted, a huge and long-standing partnership with the CPA, and we recognise the work it does. The UK also views the ICRC as an essential partner for achieving our global humanitarian objectives, with the organisation having unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and unparalleled access. It also operates in some of the most challenging situations that anyone could face. Its specialised role in engaging with all arms bearers, including the growing number of non-state armed groups, is coupled with its direct delivery of a comprehensive range of integrated humanitarian assistance and protection programmes.

Treatment as an international organisation will allow both the CPA and the ICRC to deliver their objectives while operating in the UK. In the case of the CPA, it will facilitate the organisation to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora, including in areas where it is currently restricted by its charitable status. While it is not possible under the International Organisations Act 1968, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, to accord it the privileges and status it needs, this legislation fills that gap.

For the ICRC, treatment as an international organisation will critically enable it to operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and its standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect its staff and operations in active conflict zones. The public disclosure of information that the ICRC obtains from confidential dialogue with conflict parties is likely to put that at risk. It is also a principle that underpins its ability to operate in dangerous locations on sensitive issues, engaging with state and non-state actors. The Bill has therefore been amended to include a provision for the protection of certain information related to the ICRC’s sensitive work that it has provided in confidence to His Majesty’s Government, to stop it being used in court proceedings, except for criminal proceedings. The Government consider this provision necessary, but proportionate.

Treatment as an international organisation includes the provision of privileges and immunities necessary to meet the functional needs of the CPA and ICRC in the UK. In providing these privileges and immunities, we will strengthen our partnerships with both the CPA and ICRC respectively. It will enable these two key partners to better deliver their objectives.

The list of privileges and immunities that might be conferred on the CPA and ICRC have been informed by the 1968 Act. That will allow the Government to agree a framework that is unique and appropriate to each organisation’s unique mandate. The actual suite of privileges and immunities to be accorded, including relevant exceptions and limitations, will be determined based on the functional need of each organisation and will be specified in secondary legislation and Order in Council. For example, the arrangements will make it clear, as is standard practice, that there will be no immunity from legal suit in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle.

The financial implications of the Bill are minimal, and there will be little or no loss of revenue as a result of the fiscal exemptions or relief, which again will be granted by delegated legislation through the provisions in the Bill. As is standard practice for international organisations, certain taxes will be refunded in accordance with the separate arrangements between the Government and the CPA and ICRC, respectively. In response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the shadow Minister kindly gave me advance warning that she would also raise it in her speech—I am happy to reconfirm that the specific arrangements will be drawn up in active consultation with the CPA and with the ICRC, respectively.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I realise that the Minister is making a Third Reading speech so it is important not to go into detail, but this element was introduced in Committee, and we did not have the advantage of a Report stage. I would like to press the Government on this particular point, because the privileges and immunities section of the Bill is clearly set out but it is important that those affected by the Bill understand that those privileges and immunities are yet to be agreed with the Government. It is important that they are agreed well in advance of being laid before Parliament, so that everybody can be sighted on what they mean in practice.

[Edward Argar]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is right. Therefore, subject to the passage of this legislation and prior to those regulations being introduced, until they come into force, they do not come into force. We will work closely with those organisations so that when those regulations are laid and approved, hopefully there will be no surprises in them because they will have worked collaboratively with us to draw them up.

The arrangements will detail the day-to-day management of the privileges and immunities granted to both organisations on a functional need basis, and other facilities. Furthermore, administration of the arrangements will be resourced from the existing resources responsible for managing privileges and immunities with international organisations in the UK.

The Bill strengthens our commitment to the work of the Commonwealth and our support of democratic legislators through our work with the CPA. It will also support the FCDO’s global humanitarian objectives, ensuring that the UK remains at the heart of an unrivalled global network for economic, diplomatic and security partnerships through our work with the ICRC.

Hon. Members raised a couple of points, which I will turn to before concluding. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for a wide ranging, informative and typically well-informed contribution. Craving your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take just a minute, as I am conscious that my hon. Friend has announced that she will not seek re-election at the next general election, and who knows whether I will get another opportunity at the Dispatch Box? Let me put on record my gratitude to her for everything she has done. She and I served together as fellow ward councillors on Westminster City Council before I was elected to this place and she was subsequently elected. She is a fierce champion for what she believes to be right for her constituents and her community, and she has demonstrated that as a councillor and leader of the council and now as a Member of Parliament. She will be hugely missed by her constituents and by this House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) asked what support His Majesty’s Government will give, beyond this legislation, to both the organisations that we are debating. His Majesty’s Government give the ICRC £48 million of core funding annually, and up to £100 million in bilateral donations. We have a long-standing and robust relationship with the ICRC and a track record of supporting it. My understanding is that we fund CPA International to the tune of £196,000, and we give CPA UK £235,000. We support them through not only this legislation and what we say in this House but tangible financial support.

In an ever more challenging global context, His Majesty’s Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary remain committed to working with and supporting the work of the CPA and the ICRC. This Bill gives both organisations the status in legislation that they need and deserve to continue their international operations without impediment; it reflects our commitment. I once again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. The Government continue to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I am grateful to everybody who took part in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore)—I give him a special call-out, as he is the treasurer of the CPA—and the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). I thank them for their fulsome support for this Bill.

I particularly thank the Minister for setting out so clearly how he will treat the secondary legislation that is required to make this Bill work. I join him in thanking the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), whom I did not thank earlier. We are never quite sure how to thank Whips in this place, but I thank her very much for her incredible support—she is involved in all things to do with the FCDO.

I thank everybody in the House of Commons for their great support in recognising the ICRC and the CPA as international organisations. This Bill will help both organisations to do their jobs even better. I thank the Minister and his colleagues at the FCDO for their unstinting support, which I hope continues as the Bill passes to the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Prevention of Future Deaths Report: Terance Radford

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform UK)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered lessons learned from the Terance Radford Prevention of Future Deaths Report.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Today, I want to tell the story of two men. One of them, Terance Radford, was born on 11 August 1931 and died on 19 April 2019, aged 87. Terance was an upstanding citizen, a gentleman who made an outstanding contribution to his country, well-loved and well-respected throughout the community. The other man is a gentleman called Gavin Collins. He was a thief—that is the best way that I can explain it.

I will talk briefly about Terance—or Terry, as his family call him—and what kind of man he was. It is important to say that we are talking about not just a name, but a person, whose lovely family are in the Public Gallery on his behalf. Terry was an amazing dad and grandad, and all his family loved and respected him. They were, and still are, in awe of everything that he achieved in his life. He was born in Mansfield Woodhouse, which is the next constituency. The MP there, by the way, is Ben Bradley, who is very supportive of the case.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman means the hon. Member for Mansfield.

[Lee Anderson]

Sorry—the MP there is the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley). I apologise, Dame Maria.

Terry was born in Mansfield Woodhouse and lived there all his life. He was proud of his village, and he cared deeply about his community. He went to the national school and had a traditional upbringing. His dad was a miner and his mum was a housewife who created a loving home for Terry and his three sisters. He excelled in his studies, and when he left school he went to work for the Metal Box Company in Mansfield, which was a major local employer and a place where my mother and many of my friends worked, actually. To further his education, Terry went to a local college to study engineering at night school, and he excelled. He went on to do his national service, in which he served in the Royal Navy as a petty officer working on minesweepers. He was an incredibly brave and dedicated man. When Terry had done his service, he went to work for Rolls-Royce in the aero-design team—he worked proudly on the RB211 fan blades. His job regularly took him to the United States for several weeks at a time to work for their sister company, and he always enjoyed coming back and sharing his knowledge with younger people.

When he was in his 50s, Terry decided to become a teacher; he worked at Valley Comprehensive School in Worksop, teaching woodwork and metalwork until he retired. Despite always having a demanding job, that was not enough for Terry. He always tried to serve his community in the best way that he could. He was a local councillor for many years and also took the post of head governor at several local schools in the Mansfield area. He was also a justice of the peace—a job that he enjoyed from 1971 to 1985.

Everyone in the community valued Terry for his honesty and integrity. He would always take time to help people. He was what we would probably call a salt-of-the-earth type of gentleman. He loved life. He was highly intelligent, a great conversationalist and great fun to be with. Everyone in his family loved to spend time with him. Terry was extremely fit for his age—he was 87 years old when he died. He used to go to the gym and use all the apparatus there, and he would go swimming three times a week, but his favourite time was time spent with family and friends, and especially with young people. He liked to spend time with his grandchildren and their friends. He was the family rock, the hub, the person his family would go to if they needed advice or comfort. That is a brief description of the type of chap that Terry was.

I will now talk about Gavin Collins. On 9 November 2017, Gavin was in court being sentenced to five months for an offence that he committed in May 2017. He had spent time on remand, which meant he was released the following day. He was re-arrested for offences including burglary and theft, all committed in December 2017. On 11 July 2018, Gavin Collins was sentenced to three years for burglary and theft from a dwelling. That is the sentence he was released early from.

On 4 April 2019, Collins’s paperwork was sent to Governor Archer at His Majesty’s Prison Ranby, who granted Collins early release for 18 April 2019; it was agreed that Gavin would go home on a tag. At that time, Collins was in segregation away from all the other prisoners because he had set fire to his cell twice and injured a prison staff member with a plastic knife. Collins had been placed on report. On 13 April 2019, the police informed the prison that they had decided not to pursue a criminal investigation as it was a matter that could be dealt with by the prison directly; that is a failure there. There are statements that Governors Archer, Cope and Fretwell had conversations on 15 April 2019 regarding Collins’s early release date. They were looking at a release date of 18 April due to the upcoming bank holiday—Friday 19 April was Good Friday. Collins was due to be released anyway on 29 April, but the investigation of him setting fire to the cell would have gone beyond that. The very earliest date for his release should have been 29 April, and that had always been scheduled.

On 16 April 2019, Collins woke up other prisoners in the night shouting that he was dying. He was medically checked over and found to be medically fit. Later that day, he was lying down on the ground in the exercise yard. He claimed to have been poisoned by methadone. The doctor was made aware of his behaviour. On 18 April, Collins was released in the early morning from HMP Ranby. A family friend collected him and said that he did not look right; he was talking funny and his behaviour was strange, as though he had been on drugs. The friend took him home and told family members how concerned he was for Collins. That was when the trail of havoc started.

On 19 April 2019, Collins forced his way into several people’s homes and stole three cars. He crashed the first two cars and then forced his way into a woman’s home by smashing the back door. Collins then used blood from his injuries to daub crucifixes on the heads of the women and her children, while talking about God and making threats to kill them. He then stole the woman’s car, which he used to drive into Mr Radford. Before he got out, he shouted, “I’ve killed him, I’ve killed the devil.”

Mr Radford had just gone out for his morning walk and was waiting near a bus stop, minding his own business. He died at the scene. Collins was later jailed for 21 years for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but Terry’s death need not have happened. Terry might still be here today had it not been for the failures of HMP Ranby and the three governors who made the wrong decision to release Collins, which ultimately led to the death of Terry Radford.

Terry’s family are sat in the Public Gallery today, and they think it is unacceptable. I think that is putting it mildly; it is actually criminal. They are unable to find out the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings of the prison governors concerned; had the proceedings taken place in a criminal court, they probably would have known by now. They attended the inquest every single day and found out the names of the people responsible for letting Collins out of prison. They saw the faces of the governors and watched them as they told untruths throughout the process, but the coroner knew the truth and got to the bottom of it. It is all now in the public domain and accessible to everyone, but the family are still not allowed to know what happened to the people who let Collins out of prison. That is wrong.

Terry’s family think that, as usual, the wrongdoers are protected and innocent people are left with no closure. They are doing their very best to move on, but they cannot move on because they want to know what has happened to the people who were ultimately responsible for the release of Gavin Collins, and then for their father’s—Terry’s—death. They think, and I agree with them, that the governors should have faced a criminal court for their actions, not just disciplinary proceedings. They do not understand why no one within the justice system wanted to take this further.

How could the governors get away with taking the law into their own hands by releasing the prisoner when they had no authority to do so? Why was it not investigated by Nottinghamshire police? The family know that the police went to HMP Ranby on the day of the incident to retrieve records. If the police had investigated thoroughly, they would have known what had happened. If the coroner could work out what had happened, then why could the police not do so? Should Nottinghamshire police have investigated this failing? I think they probably should have. In the prevention of future deaths report, the coroner’s answer to the question, “Was Mr Radford’s death avoidable?” was, “Yes.” Had Collins remained in prison, Mr Radford might have been here today.

There are many failings in the whole investigation, and many similarities, sadly, with the stabbings in Nottingham city last year. The family feel that no lessons have been learned. They want to know what actions have been taken against the individuals responsible, and whether any of them have been dismissed, downgraded or transferred from the Prison Service. The fact that they are not allowed to know makes them feel as if there has been a cover-up. Their wish is that none of these people are still working within the Prison Service, as that would be an absolute travesty.

I want to ask the Minister to look at the family here in the Public Gallery. This family, who lost Terry. We have two of his sons here; they have lost their dad—their loving father. They have come here today for justice. They want closure. I want him to look at them in the eyes when he rises to speak and to tell them what happened to those governors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

Obviously, the family will be very disappointed with the outcome of the debate. I know that. Although I was encouraged by some of the things the Minister said about strengthening the framework—that is good news—we have governors who cannot carry out the most basic of tasks. Anybody in this room today would know that Mr Collins should not have been released on that day. Strengthening frameworks is all well and good, but when there is incompetence at the highest level—they are supposed to be carrying out the framework—it will not work.

Anybody who was part of that prison system at that time and who read Collins’s report would have said he was not fit for release. It appears to me that they just wanted to get rid of him and get him out of there, because he was a nuisance in the system. The consequence of that is the people sat in the Public Gallery, without their dad and without their family member. Strengthening frameworks is all well and good, but if we have incompetent people at the very top in the prison system, it is pointless.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

May I join others today in sending deepest sympathies to the family members of Terry who are with us today?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered lessons learned from the Terance Radford Prevention of Future Deaths Report.

Presumption of Parental Involvement in Child Arrangements

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)]

I am grateful to have the chance to speak in the Chamber on the presumption of parental involvement in child arrangements. When I was elected, I made a promise to be an advocate for victims of domestic abuse. At that time, I had no idea that the court proceedings between my ex-husband and me would continue for another four years, restricting my ability to raise publicly the horrors of the family court system for those who have been a victim of rape, abuse and coercive control, as I have. In a landmark ruling in 2021, I waived my right to anonymity and the Court of Appeal ruled that the findings of fact against my ex-husband, confirming the allegations I had made against him of repeated rape and abuse, should be made public. The Court, in its judgment, found that I had been subjected to the vilest abuse, and that Andrew Griffiths had used his position of power to cause the utmost physical and emotional distress against me.

Those who know me well will know that I am usually a very private person. The thought of allowing reporters to write about what had happened to me—very private details, many of which I had covered up for years—was a terrifying one, but after years of being bullied and controlled by a seemingly powerful man, I knew that I had to stand up and use my platform to help others.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her strength, courage and tenacity in speaking up on this important issue, drawing on her personal experience. She is a great role model for us all.

[Kate Kniveton]

I thank my right hon. Friend.

Despite the landmark ruling that I achieved, my time within the family court system was far from over. Despite the Court confirming that my child’s father was abusive and a rapist, it was decided that contact should continue through a contact centre and that I should pay for 50% of the cost of that contact. I could not believe that anyone felt my child, whom I had been fighting to protect, would benefit from further contact with such an abusive and violent man, and that I—someone who had been subjected to that violent behaviour—should not only facilitate that contact but pay towards it.

Thankfully, after further costly and lengthy legal proceedings, a ruling was made to overturn that decision. Hopefully that has set a precedent that a victim of rape should not have to subsidise the rapist’s costs of contact.

Despite the public reporting of my case, I was not able to speak freely of my experiences until the final decision was made. However, after a gruelling five years, a ruling was delivered last month that confirmed that Andrew Griffiths, the former MP and Minister, should no longer be allowed contact with his child—my child. I had finally achieved a ruling after making the case that the man who had abused me over a 10-year period was not safe to have contact with our child.

I am really thankful that those proceedings have now concluded and, although I am traumatised not just by the 10 years of abuse I experienced at the hands of my ex-husband but by the following five years in which he continued to use the legal system to abuse me, I will not hesitate to tell my story and to try to make the changes that will help other women protect their children.

These were landmark rulings because, until now, other victims of domestic abuse, violence and rape have not been able to offer protection to their children in the same way or to talk about their family court experiences. Having lived with the thought of the prospect for many years, I can only imagine what it feels like to hand your child over to someone who has caused you, and continues to cause you, so much harm.

I stand in the Chamber today as a supposed winner, congratulated on succeeding against my ex-husband, but quite frankly I stand here drained financially and emotionally. I am not sure this is what people believe winning feels like, but I know what the alternative must feel like and I will do all I can to stand beside those fighting for their children’s safety. I want to give them hope that this Government recognise the problems in the family court and are determined to help.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Maria Miller Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Dame Maria Miller, who has six minutes.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged with the Bill since its Second Reading. In the interests of time, I will confine my comments to the two amendments that I have tabled, which have cross-party support and to which I think the Government are listening intently.

Amendment 1 would recognise as victims people who have been silenced by non-disclosure agreements. Those people are victims by virtue of the very fact they have been silenced, not knowing if they can talk to anyone without incurring legal consequences. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 already deems the use of NDAs to be unlawful when there are allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in publicly funded universities, and my amendment is intended to do the same in other spheres. Some individuals making such allegations are already treated by the Government as needing protection in law; my amendment would merely apply what is seen as essential legal protection in universities to everyone.

Unfortunately, despite two warning notices issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority alerting solicitors to NDA misuse, one in three solicitors’ firms are still apparently unaware of the issues. I therefore think it is time to act through legislation to change a culture which, seven years on from #MeToo, continues to see it as acceptable for those in the legal and human resources professions to use devices that are so destructive to the individuals concerned. The United States, Canada and Ireland have already legislated in this regard. I listened carefully to the Minister’s opening remarks, and I definitely heard a door being left wide open to a change in the Bill. I hope we will see measures to outlaw this bad practice sooner rather than later, because the time to leave it to the regulators is past; that has not worked.

I thank Rape Crisis for helping me to draft new clause 19, which concerns access to counselling records. Rape and sexual abuse are traumatic crimes and survivors need to gain access to therapy, but frontline services are reporting that survivors are being deterred from accessing support because records are routinely requested by the police and trawled through, often unnecessarily. A recent review showed that nearly a third of 342 requests for survivors’ records contained requests for counselling records, and nearly a third of those requests related to victims’ reliability or credibility rather than aiming to establish the facts of the incident involved.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I signed new clause 19 because, having spent many years as defence and prosecution counsel in such cases, I know the importance of getting to the truth and looking at previous inconsistent statements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving a judge discretion to ensure that the disclosed material is truly relevant to the issues in the case would be an excellent safeguard which would protect the wellbeing of victims of crime who are having to relive the circumstances every time those issues are brought up?

[Dame Maria Miller]

I think it goes to the heart of the case when someone with such extensive experience endorses a change of approach, and my right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The new clause calls for a change that would transfer the decision to release records to a judge, but would also ensure that counselling records are disclosed only when they are “of substantial probative value”. I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I believe, and Rape Crisis believes, that it is not just the involvement of a judge but a heightening of the threshold that will help to improve the system. I believe that judicial oversight at this pre-charge stage will immensely improve the attitude of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to survivors of rape, and their practice in that regard.

I hope that the Government are able to hear the calls behind amendment 1 and new clause 19. I have already thanked my right hon. Friend the Minister for his positive approach to non-disclosure agreements, and I look forward to hearing more about the action that I hope the Government will take in the future. I also hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give some indication of the approach that will be taken to counselling records.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I rise to speak to new clause 27 and amendments 142 to 144.

There will be women and men, children and families, in every constituency whose lives have been forever touched by the infected blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. As we have already heard, one person dies every four days on average as a result of the scandal, and many of those who have spent decades campaigning for justice are no longer alive. It is nearly eight months since, in April this year, Sir Brian Langstaff published the infected blood inquiry’s final recommendations on compensation. At the time, he said:

“My conclusion is that wrongs were done at individual, collective and systemic levels.”

Most important—I hope the Minister might just listen to this—Sir Brian said in his report:

“I cannot in conscience contribute to that further harm by delaying what I have to say about compensation. This is why I am taking the unusual step of issuing one set of recommendations in advance of all others at this stage.”

Sir Brian has said all that he will say about compensation. There is nothing new to learn from the final report, despite the Government’s protestations. However, in his summing up of the Government’s work since April 2023 on responding to his recommendation, Sir Brian told the Prime Minister in July:

“there aren’t any details. There is no timeline, there is no structure yet in place…if it troubles my conscience I would think it would trouble the conscience of a caring government, and you have said that’s what you would wish to be.”

That is why I tabled the new clause and amendments, into which I have copied Sir Brian's recommendations.

Amendment 142 would extend interim compensation payments to bereaved parents, children and siblings who have lost loved ones as a result of infected blood but have never received a penny. Amendment 143 would establish a bespoke psychological service in England for those infected and affected, which already exists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 144 would ensure that the Bill applied to people infected and affected, as set out in Sir Brian’s second interim report.

Finally, let me say something about new clause 27, on which I hope to seek to test the opinion of the House. It has been signed by a further 146 right hon. and hon. Members, for which I am very grateful, and 10 political parties are represented in that group. Many other Members have indicated their support. The new clause requires the Government to set up a body to deliver compensation payments to people infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. Let us not forget that the five-year infected blood inquiry was due to publish its final report in November, last month. The Government told me, and the House, numerous times that they had been working “at pace” to that timeline. This should not have been a problem for the Government, because they have done all the work in preparing for the November deadline, but those who have been infected and affected have been told by Ministers that they must accept a further delay, until next March, when Sir Brian will publish his final comments. Sir Brian has made it very clear that there is nothing else to say about compensation, because it was all set out in his second interim report of April 2023.

Let me again reiterate the point about the Government’s approach to the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Victims of that appalling injustice are to be compensated before the conclusion of the public inquiry, and I would argue that those infected and affected by the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS are equally entitled to compensation before the name plaques come down and the lights go out on the inquiry headquarters, as Sir Brian envisaged in his compensation recommendations in April.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

To tackle violence against women and girls, we need a criminal justice system that works. Part of that is having laws that are up to date to deal with the issues that women face today. I had the pleasure of working with my right hon. Friend the Minister on amendments to the Online Safety Bill that will make it a criminal offence to post intimate images online without consent, but he, I and others know that there are still gaps in the law when it comes to the making of those images. Will he give us an indication of when the Government intend to bring forward further legislation, not only to deal with that, but to keep online safety under constant review?

[Edward Argar]

It has been a pleasure to work with my right hon. Friend on those amendments to the Online Safety Bill, which returns to the Commons today. She is right to highlight the rapidly changing environment that we are legislating for and the need therefore to keep things under constant review. Although she tempts me, I shall resist the temptation to speculate on a forthcoming King’s Speech or any future legislative announcements. What I will say, which I hope will give her some reassurance, is that we have been clear that, as soon as legislative time can be found, the Government are committed to implementing the full package of measures in the Law Commission report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that support for victims has been essential in increasing the number of cases taken to court. As he said, the numbers have risen significantly in the last 12 months. Could he outline what more he is doing to speed up the time taken to get a case to court, because that time waiting can leave victims not only distressed but potentially walking away from a case that would otherwise come to court?

[Alex Chalk]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make those balanced and fair observations. To try to assist victims, there are a few really important things. Rolling out section 28s ensures that individuals can get their account recorded on tape; that is done whatever then happens in the court process. The independent sexual violence advisers and the independent domestic violence advisers, whom I have talked about, make an enormous difference. Through the victims code, we want to ensure that individuals get the support they need from victims’ services, have the opportunity to go on court familiarisation visits, make victim personal statements and are kept updated by the officer on the case as it proceeds. All those things are critical to ensuring that victims are not spectators of the criminal justice system, but participants in it.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Maria Miller Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I warmly welcome the Bill, and in advance I thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who I know, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will engage thoroughly with all the issues raised. I thank the Justice Committee for an excellent piece of pre-legislative scrutiny; my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) who chairs the Committee does a great job for us all.

The Bill is complex and covers a great deal, from prisoners and parole to victims of major incidents. We have heard a lot about those two issues already. I will turn my remarks firmly to victims of crime—the first part of the Bill—particularly with regards to the victims code. This is a hugely important piece of legislation for victims. I believe that we have a strong justice system only if it is a deterrent that, yes, provides punishment, but also recognises and supports victims. Otherwise, we risk falling short. To be the victim of crime is not only devastating but can be incredibly disorienting. Attempting to navigate the complex criminal justice system as a layperson is not easy. The perpetrator has numerous agencies telling them what they can and cannot do. Certainly, that has been the way in the past. Largely, victims have been left to navigate life post crime themselves.

I am sure that the House will not mind me saying that quite recently I was a victim of crime, which led to a successful conviction of harassment by my local Crown Prosecution Service in Hampshire. I was listening to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); I would not want to comment on what she said, but I cannot commend Wessex Crown Prosecution Service highly enough. Unlike the hon. Lady, I was kept thoroughly informed at every step. I will not comment too much on it because, unfortunately, the individual has transgressed and is before the courts again, but it is important to make the point that the CPS in Wessex got it right. It might not get it right all the time, but when it does, it is important for victims. I hope that the Crown Prosecution Service in the hon. Lady’s constituency takes a leaf out of the books in my area.

The 2020 code of practice was a good start and put some important principles in place. What is great about the Bill is that it takes them forward and puts them on a statutory footing. It seems perverse that the justice system could be better explained to perpetrators than to victims. The Bill will help equalise that disparity, by putting the victims code on a statutory footing, making what victims can and should expect even clearer than before.

An important part of the Bill is putting a duty on relevant bodies to raise awareness of the victims code with victims, which will make a big impact and be greatly welcomed. The victims code is a detailed document containing the important rights that victims can expect, but it is of little use if people do not know it exists, so it is right that those with responsibility for aspects of the code can make it clear to victims how they can use it.

We know that services working in isolation miss problems and opportunities for support, which is why I also welcome the Bill’s focus on co-ordinating services across relevant bodies and strengthening local services. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent report, “A patchwork of provision”, showed that the level of service and support that victims can reliably expect is not uniform across the country and depends greatly on where they live. I welcome the consistency that the Bill shows. We need to ensure we get that consistency across the whole United Kingdom, wherever people live.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about the role of police and crime commissioners in getting local consistency embedded in our constituencies. I am pleased that my local police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, has put in place similar initiatives to those mentioned by my right hon. Friend, as well as delivering, well ahead of time, an extra 600 police officers in our county. My police and crime commissioner is consulting on a victims hub—the consultation is ongoing—so that victims will know how to get the support that the Bill wants to ensure is available to them. Having quicker and tailored access to support services will be an important step forward in my own constituency. I urge anybody who is able to take part in the consultation to do so; it runs until Monday 21 May.

I add my support to the Bill’s provisions with regard to IDVAs and ISVAs. Indeed, I held a roundtable on Friday on the importance of tackling domestic abuse. We discussed the amazing work done by a number of different organisations in my constituency in ensuring that victims are well aware of the support available, and the hugely important role of IDVAs and ISVAs, particularly when cases come to court, which was underlined by my local police commander. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister help me to ensure that those expert individuals will in future be able to stay with victims in court? That issue was raised with me at the roundtable.

Having someone independent of the police present in the immediate aftermath of a crime can be crucial, but making sure they continue to be involved, when a case comes to court, can help with some of the problems that exist for victims because of the great deal of time it can take for relevant evidence and individuals to be brought to court. IDVAs and ISVAs are often the only people involved whose sole focus is the victim. As much as individual police officers regularly go out of their way to care for victims of crime, the reality is that police priorities will mean that sometimes their focus goes elsewhere.

I highlight to the Minister the section of the Bill about support for victims, because the victims code may go further than he thinks. In addition, I have raised the issue of the role of non-disclosure agreements with him on a number of occasions. They can cover up crimes, particularly those in the workplace and those that disproportionately impact women, such as sexual harassment or other forms of abuse in the workplace.

When it comes to non-disclosure agreements and sexual harassment in the workplace, the Government have been working on strengthening support for victims for a great deal of time. The Government have backed universities in banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up misconduct, and they are looking at how they could go further in stopping non-disclosure agreements from being used inappropriately. Unfortunately, it is increasingly common practice for non-disclosure clauses to be included in settlement agreements, although it is perfectly possible to settle without them.

When victims of misconduct—often sexual misconduct and usually women—make allegations, an all too frequent response is a settlement in which an employer can see allegations dropped in return for a non-disclosure agreement that will stop the victim from speaking out, sometimes lawfully and sometimes not so much. No matter what, victims feeling that they cannot speak out cannot be what we want to see in this place.

An employee can feel trapped. When I chaired the Women and Equalities Committee, we published at least two reports on the impact on victims of non-disclosure agreements and we heard first-hand evidence that people felt not only that they could not speak out about their experience, but that it made them feel even worse and re-victimised. Sometimes, I am sure in error, legal counsel could put a non-disclosure agreement into a contract or severance agreement, but more often that is done by human resources departments, which probably take something offline and give it to an individual to sign. That means that a person who has experienced significant wrongdoing in the workplace can feel that they cannot speak out.

I hope the Minister might want to look at how the Victims and Prisoners Bill could take the excellent work that the Government have done with universities, calling out the appalling impact of non-disclosure agreements, a stage further. I am sure he is not surprised that I want to thank Zelda Perkins for the work that she has done through the organisation she has set up, Can’t Buy My Silence. She is continuing to campaign hard to stop non-disclosure agreements being used in the way they were against her and her colleagues, when she was unable to speak out about Harvey Weinstein and the appalling way that he treated a number of women in his organisation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister is listening closely to how we could use this excellent Bill to take further the Government’s work on victim support and outlawing the misuse of non-disclosure agreements.

I was pleased to support the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), in launching the university pledge to stop the use of non-disclosure agreements in universities. I strongly supported the subsequent ban through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. I call on the Government to expand the ban on NDAs from educational settings to other workplaces through the victims code in the Bill. In the not-too-distant future, I hope the Minister will have some meetings with me to see how we can ensure that the very real impact that the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham had on universities can have a broader impact. That will ensure we protect many more victims, over and above those he was envisaging in his first draft of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying about the availability of ISVAs in her area and about their only being connected with police cases, but should she not push back against that? There are three ISVAs in my local hospital, and they are certainly not connected with crimes; they would be called on by the staff in the emergency department as needed.

[Jess Phillips]

In fact, my area was the first in the west midlands to have ISVAs in a hospital, the Queen Elizabeth. I was one of the commissioners. What I want to see in a Bill such as this is not just a duty to collaborate, but a duty to commission. Every local authority area in the country, and every health provider, whether it is a public health provider, a mental health provider, an independent board, or whatever the bloody hell we call them this week—PCCs, PCGs—I apologise for swearing, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Legal Rights to Access Abortion

Maria Miller Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I commend the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the way in which set out the debate. It is a difficult thing to do for the Petitions Committee, and she did an excellent job.

I very much welcome the debate, because legal access to abortion needs to be looked at in this place, and today’s debate has demonstrated the pent-up demand to have a clear plan and a clear way forward. However, I want to add a different perspective, which perhaps demonstrates that there is a real need for this issue to be looked at in more detail, because I am yet to be convinced that the change that is needed will be achieved by enshrining the right to abortion in the Bill of Rights, probably because it is far more complicated than that would allow. Change is needed, however, and I commend the petitioners for giving us the opportunity to bring this issue forward. I hope the Government take away the debate not just as a three-hour sitting in Westminster Hall, hearing from people who have a lot of conflicting views, but as a real cry for help. We need a Government who are prepared to put their head above the parapet and come forward with a plan of action on abortion rights.

Change is needed. I believe the change needs to be decriminalisation, but I do not believe it necessarily needs to be done through a Bill of Rights. I believe the debate is driven by real frustration, not just among people in this room, but among the many people who supported a number of the other issues that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) brought forward. Yes, she did so in a slightly haphazard way, but she has had no choice, because there has not been a way to do it more coherently.

Our abortion law is completely out of date. UK access to abortion is an exemption from prosecution under criminal law, which is well behind other countries in the world. Right hon. and hon. Members need to acknowledge that our legislation is out of date and is governed by offences that date back to the 18th century and which need urgent change, because abortions are criminalised in a way that no other healthcare provision is. The 1967 Act gave a very limited number of exemptions. Other than that, the law even predates when women were able to stand for election to this place.

[Christine Jardine]

The right hon. Member mentions the 1967 Act. From what my mother told me at the time—I was too young to know about it—the Act sparked a huge feeling of social revolution in this country and a belief in the rights of women, which many women now feel are under threat. Although Roe v. Wade may have happened in the United States, the sentiment that it reflects is something that women in this country feel very strongly is a threat to their rights. In decriminalising abortion, and including it in the Bill of Rights—one or the other, perhaps—we would be re-establishing that social change and that revolution in the position of women in society.

[Dame Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right to say that it could be one or the other but, currently, we have no clear path to understanding how and when we will have that discussion.

On other point relating to the 1967 Act, too often, when this issue is raised, we are told, “These are issues that are brought up by Back Benchers.” Indeed, the hon. Member for Walthamstow has done that on many occasions—brought up issues from the Back Benches—but that has left us with an incredibly piecemeal approach to reform in this area. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not say, “This is a matter for Back Benchers,” because it no longer is, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) gave. This is a complicated issue, and it needs to be dealt with by Government in a comprehensive way.

I believe that, as a result of phenomenal change in the way in which women access abortion in this country, the law is lagging well behind the reality for most of our constituents. Some 87% of abortions are now medical abortions. They are not surgical; they are completely different from abortions when the law was put in place. We may agree or disagree with abortion, but the way that the law regulates it is inconsistent with the reality of the medical procedures. Before even contemplating enshrining abortion as a right in the Bill of Rights—which may or may not be the right thing to do—we must completely re-examine our approach to how abortion is dealt with in the law.

As has been said, 52 women have been reported to the police under the abortion law since 2015. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned, I think, 800,000 births a year, but if you were one those 52 women reported to the police for a procedure that you thought was a medical procedure, that is something that would be quite shocking, and would be to many of the people that we represent. Yes, only 17 of those women have been subject to criminal investigations, but how many other medical procedures have been subject to criminal investigations—not many, I think.

The Women and Equalities Committee, when I chaired it, held an inquiry into abortion in Northern Ireland, which identified the chilling effect of the law on medical practice, in some circumstances, leaving vulnerable women without the help that they needed. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for really building on that and bringing forward measures that meant that we were able, in a piecemeal way, to change the situation for that particular group of women.

I understand why the situation in the US has excited extreme concern in this country. The Supreme Court ruling was extremely worrying, and there will be much discussion on that on the other side of the Atlantic. I can understand why that would trigger a debate today. However, if the motivation is to put abortion on a firmer footing, we must consider carefully a different approach from just attaching it to the Bill of Rights, which may not give us the opportunity to discuss it in the depth that we need to.

As well as listening to the very principled views of colleagues here today, we must listen to medical practitioners. The British Medical Association is very clear that abortion should be regulated in the same way as other clinical procedures, which are already subject to an extensive range of professional standards, regulations, and criminal and civil laws. Rather than criminalising women, we must ensure that we have the right medical help in place, and that they are not afraid of accessing it. I fear that debates such as today’s could unintentionally create more fear among those who need to, for whatever reason, access abortions. I absolutely defend the right of hon. Members and right hon. Members to completely disagree with the idea of choosing an abortion, but every woman in this country must have the right to make that choice for themselves. That is the country that we live in today.

There is no need for that right to be in the Bill of Rights, in the same way that there is no need to put other medical procedures into a Bill of Rights. Changing the basic law has the overwhelming support of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the BMA, so why do we put our views ahead of those of medical professionals on this issue and no others?

In this place we have, I believe, made real progress in a piecemeal way. People failed to see the level of support for buffer zones when that amendment went through the House. I fear that perhaps the voices in the debate today are not entirely representative of our broader group of colleagues, because not only have buffer zones been agreed to but telemedicine and decriminalisation in Northern Ireland have been agreed to. Let us be really careful. The Minister needs to be really careful that he senses the proper mood of the House when he considers such issues because sometimes these smaller debates do not reflect that mood.

In closing, I ask the Minister to shed a little more light on what the Government are planning in this area. It is clear they do not see it as an issue in the Bill of Rights, but what will be done instead? When I probed the Health Secretary on the issue during departmental questions, I received a written ministerial correction clarifying that a sexual and reproductive health action plan is currently being drafted by the Department. I was assured in a letter in August that abortion would be part of that, so the Minister might want to update Members on the progress. We do not need another set of piecemeal proposals; we need a Government who will grasp this difficult issue and put together a proper plan that enables our constituents to see their experience of this very difficult area reflected and heeds the very clear concerns of the medical profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I have the utmost compassion for any woman put in the position of having to make a decision about abortion. I hope that nothing I have said in all my years in this House, when I have stood as the chair and now co-chair of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, has ever given a different impression. I would never want to do that.

The proposal risks entirely removing safeguards in our country that relate to abortion, and which I believe are right and proper.

[Dame Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is making an important case that she believes has a great deal of strength in terms of the matter not being viewed as part of a human rights argument, but does she not share my concern that every single royal college of doctors—experts in this area—want to see a change in the law? Does she not think that, even if it is not possible to do it through a Bill of Rights, some other piece of Government work is needed to make sure the law is fit for purpose, or does she think they are all wrong?

[Fiona Bruce]

It is very interesting that a large number of organisations, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned, are joining together in what I referred to earlier as a national and, indeed, international campaign to see the law changed on abortion. It is all part of a co-ordinated move to reduce the protection that already exists in our country today for the unborn child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.

Clearly, those on the opposite side in this debate want to make it seem as if the woman’s right to choose is under threat and perhaps becoming increasingly difficult, but when we look at the evidence the reality is that it has never been easier to access an abortion in this country, in particular since the decision to allow medical abortions to happen at home. According to The Times, one in four pregnancies in Great Britain ends in abortion. Last year, 214,000 terminations were carried out in England and Wales—the highest number since records began—and nearly half were repeat abortions.

Those who wish, in essence, to decriminalise abortion often make the claim that they have overwhelming public support in their favour, in particular among women. The evidence, however, does not bear that out; in fact, it points in totally the opposite direction. Removing all legal restrictions would risk opening the door to late-term abortions on demand right up until birth and for any reason whatever. Polling by Savanta ComRes paints a clear picture of how out of step that is with public opinion: only 1% of women wanted the 24-week gestational time limit to be extended, while 70% favoured a reduction in time limits.

[Dame Maria Miller]

In talking about decriminalisation, we now have a model in Northern Ireland that brings the idea into practice. Does my hon. Friend have any evidence that end-of-term abortions are happening in Northern Ireland? I am not aware of any. It appears to be a way of shaping our law in a modern way, rather than a way that replicates Victorian times.

[Scott Benton]

The point I was trying to make was that, in practice, decriminalisation means no specific law regulating abortion up until birth. That is the problem we are grappling with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I think the hon. Member maybe misheard me, because I was not challenging the right to have the debate. I was challenging the misinformation on social media that encouraged people to falsely sign the petition. If the debate is so positive, there should be no negativity behind encouraging people to sign it. The word “ethos” is very interesting; its Greek origins show that it should actually be about an ethic. It should be something that has character to it, not something that is denuded of character and strength. I think the hon. Member misheard what I was getting at and the point I was making.

This lays bare how wrong it is—and the falsehood and naivety involved—to bring a debate to this House and try to shape our laws based on experiences of the American legal constitutional system. If we juxtapose them, it just does not work. We have a parliamentary democracy and statute law, versus the written constitution of the United States of America and all the issues that flow from that.

There is then another layer set upon that juxtaposition in saying that this is about fear because of what happened with Roe v. Wade—a completely separate issue again. It is naive to say that we should try to change our whole system to embrace and address that issue because of what has happened in the United States of America. It would be far better having a much more open and honest debate, rather than one that is based on fear of something that might happen.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about not having misinformation. Would he agree with me that we have to be very careful not to conflate deregulation with decriminalisation? I think that happened in a couple of the earlier contributions. The hon. Gentleman will know from Northern Ireland that although we have introduced decriminalisation, that has not deregulated the controls that are there for abortion. That is a really important point.

[Ian Paisley]

That is an important point that I will come to later when I touch on the matter of decriminalisation.

There were 214,869 abortions in 2021. I looked that up. That is about 40,000 people short of the population of Walthamstow. Just think of the number, if we were to line them up. Do you know what that says to me, Sir Charles? It speaks to the utter, abysmal failure of abortion regulations. Why so many? Why, after so many years—decades and decades of this regulation—is that necessary? There were 214,869 women who felt it was necessary to have an abortion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I may be tempting the hon. Lady. I am grateful to her, although I suspect that I will hear from her in a moment. [Interruption.] I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for his kind words about me. We will see when I finish my speech whether he wishes to reiterate them.

Access to abortion in the United Kingdom is not founded on a court ruling. Instead it has been clearly and specifically prescribed in legislation set out by Parliament, in the context that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset set out.

Hon. Members—including the shadow Minister, to a degree—set out the context of abortion in England and Wales, but I will briefly reiterate it. Before doing so, I should highlight that responsibility for the legal status of abortion was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act 2016. We have heard from various hon. Members from Northern Ireland; abortion was also devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Amendment of Schedule 3) Order 2010, and the treatment of abortion in criminal law was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2010 following the agreement. I should therefore make it clear that when I refer to matters concerning the law on abortion, I am speaking to its application in England and Wales.

The Abortion Act 1967 amended and built on two pieces of legislation: the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which updated it. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke referred to the age of that legislation. The 1967 Act allows for safe and lawful abortion in England and Wales. It defines the criteria under which abortions or terminations can legally take place. In effect, lawful abortions can be carried out in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy when two doctors agree that the abortion is necessary as it falls within one or more of four grounds. I will not set them out in detail now, but in essence they concern, as we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, the risks to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or risks that the child would suffer from significant physical or mental abnormalities. There are strong views in this Chamber, as we have heard, on those tests. There are also strong views—I should have said this at the beginning when I highlighted the strength of opinion—on the rights of a woman to choose, and also very strongly held beliefs about the rights of an unborn child. Again, I emphasise that I respect the sincerity and strength with which those views are held.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The Minister is making a really important case. Underlying all our legislation is regulation, which ultimately is how the law works. That regulation is not, I think, under debate at this point. What I was talking about was the fundamental framework of the law. Are the Government comfortable with the fact that English women are treated as potentially criminal when they access abortions, when the Government have legislated to ensure that women in Northern Ireland are not treated as criminals? Does he think that that is fair?

[Edward Argar]

If my right hon. Friend will give me a little space, I was going to come to her remarks on that, and also on the position of the Department of Health and Social Care. The recent legislation in Northern Ireland was implementing the will of Parliament rather than Government, and I will come to that. She tempts me on the issue of the Government taking a particular view on the issue. I will turn to that in a moment if she will let me make a little progress, but I will of course address her points.

In practice, the framework means that access to an abortion is available to those who need and want it. Abortions at above 24 weeks are also possible in more limited circumstances, and it is of course open to Parliament to change the law if it so desires. As was mentioned, abortion law is devolved to both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would usually not set out the position of a devolved Administration on any matter, but due to the relevance of those positions to this debate, I will speak briefly about the recent changes in Northern Ireland that my right hon. Friend alluded to just now.

The Abortion Act 1967 did not extend to Northern Ireland. Instead, abortion law there was provided under section 25 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which was equivalent to section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 in the rest of the UK. The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 decriminalised abortion, and repealed sections 59 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Following that, the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 came into force, which meant that those in Northern Ireland who wish to can access an abortion on demand in the first 12 weeks of their pregnancy, and can conditionally access an abortion up to the 24th week—and beyond that in more limited circumstances.

Those changes were made because of the very specific context in Northern Ireland, and an amendment, I believe it was, was brought forward on abortion. It was felt that the will of Parliament was that women across the UK should have safe and legal access to abortion, and that the will of the House should be respected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I say to the hon. Lady that the Crown court backlog reduced from more than 60,000 cases in June 2021 to under 58,000 cases at the end of March 2022—[Interruption.] Hold on. The increase and the reversal of that trajectory were the result of the Criminal Bar Association’s strike action, which was unwarranted—[Interruption.] I am looking at Opposition Front Benchers. When we announced our proposals on the legal aid review, they agreed with every single one. Yet again, when it comes to the justice system, as with many other things, they are on the side not of the public, but of those who take disruptive industrial action.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

The best way to support victims is better criminal law. The Government have done much to tackle violence against women and girls, but the law still fails anyone who discovers a fake or real nude image of themselves that has been posted online without their consent. I suggest that my right hon. Friend looks at including in the Online Safety Bill, which is hopefully about to come back to this place on Report, an amendment to address that once and for all, particularly in the light of the Law Commission’s recommendations, which were finalised some five months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Miller Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to tell him that the Government are working very closely with the national health service. I will give two quick examples. We know that people leaving custody present a risk of reoffending, so we work with NHS England on a project called RECONNECT, which offers prison leavers targeted support to ensure they go to their appointments in the community to help them on their journey. At primary level, we are rolling out community sentence treatment requirements, including mental health treatment requirements. NHS England is on track to roll them out to every court in England by the end of 2024.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

9. If he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the potential merits of including the recommendations by the Law Commission on intimate image abuse published in July 2022 in the Online Safety Bill.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)]

The Government welcome the Law Commission’s review, and we are carefully considering its recommendations. As my right hon. Friend will expect, the Lord Chancellor is working very closely with his counterpart in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The Law Commission’s report says there are gaps in the law on online intimate image abuse that

“mean that harmful, culpable behaviour is not appropriately criminalised and victims are left without effective recourse.”

The Government have a strong record on tackling crime against women, including by introducing the new revenge pornography laws. Rather than just talking about it, can we please act now and either include this in the Online Safety Bill or have a standalone Bill, as the Government recently did to tackle upskirting?

[Rachel Maclean]

My right hon. Friend has a hugely impressive track record of campaigning on all these issues, to enable women and girls to live safely both online and in the real world. She points to some of our previous work. Of course, technology is always changing, and the Government always keep this under review. It is right that we take time to consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.